By bitz nibtez via Compfight.

Have you ever made one of the following decisions?

Smoked a cigarette.

Drank too much.

Ate too much.

Ate things that were bad for you.

Neglected working out.

Had unsafe sex.

Drove a car without a seatbelt.

Drove a car after drinking.

Drove a car faster than the speed limit.

Used an illegal drug.

If you’re human, you’ve probably done many of the things on this list.  Maybe even all of them (I’m pretty sure I have.)  And yet, you probably acknowledge that these were bad decisions.

But humans tend to be bad at decisions.  We generally have pretty low self-control, and the decisions above are framed perfectly to hit us in our weak spot.  We have a hard time considering adverse consequences that are low in probability or far off in the future.

Most of the time, we can get away with the bad decisions above without any immediate negative consequences, which only makes it easier for us to feel safe making that decision again in the future.  But while making one bad decision here or there might not make a meaningful impact, the cumulative effect of bad decisions can be fatal.

Ralph Keeney from Duke University did an analysis of premature deaths in America and found that 55% of all deaths for people of ages 15-64 could be attributed to poor decisions, making personal decisions the leading cause of death for this age group (over 1 million deaths in the year 2000.)

Most of us think of heart disease and cancer as the leading medical causes of death (and they are.)  But Keeney did an appraisal to determine how many of these premature deaths could be attributed to personal decisions.

By Tamara Van Molken via Compfight.

The decisions that lead to the most fatalities (and are also linked to the high death rates from cancer and heart disease) revolve around smoking, diet and exercise.

Interestingly, Keeney also did a retrospective analysis suggesting that in 1900 this percentage was only 5% and in 1950 it was only 20-25%.  With over half of all deaths coming from personal decisions today, it is clear we have a lot more freedom in the modern world—more ways to choose to die.

This is why self-control is so important.  As we move into the future, increasing wealth and technology open us up to many new opportunities, but also many new threats.  We are not limited by our primitive technologies (like a car in the early 1900s wouldn’t go over 60 miles per hour, and crack cocaine, beer pong, and Dunkin’ Donuts hadn’t been invented yet.)

It is likely that our children and our children’s children, will have even more ways to kill themselves:  new drugs, new factory-produced delicacies, new and faster modes of transportation.  And marketers will have found new ways to lure them away from the things that they know are better for them and into the short-term hedonics with long-term consequences . . . consequences that may be fatal.

So when we think of what we leave behind for future generations, it behooves us to consider not only a legacy of more freedom, greater wealth, and more advanced technology.  We must also consider how we become more sophisticated with our strength of self-control, so that the humans of tomorrow are equipped with the willpower necessary to navigate such a world.

—

References and recommended reading:

Ariely, D. (2010).  Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape our Decisions.  Harper Perennial.

Keeney, R. L. (2008).  Personal decisions are the leading cause of death.  Operations Research, 56(6), 1335-1347.

by Jeremy McCarthy

Connect with me on facebook, twitter, or pinterest.

One aspect of the emergence of positive psychology and the trendiness of happiness has been to see businesses incorporating happiness into their business models.  Zappos’ business is based on “Delivering Happiness,” Huggies has it’s “be happy” campaign and Coca-Cola’s “Open Happiness” video commercials have been hugely successful.

At least in the case of Coca-Cola, their claims about selling happiness in a bottle appear to be grounded in reality.  A study published in the Journal of Happiness Studies found that fast food and soft drink consumption was positively correlated with children’s risk of being overweight, but negatively correlated with unhappiness.  In other words, junk food and soda are making our kids fatter, but happier.

A lot of wellness professionals will not like this research.  We prefer it when things like health, success and happiness all come tied together in a neat little bundle.  But life doesn’t always work that way.  Sometimes, it is more important to deny ourselves short term happiness in favor of more meaningful long term objectives (like health.)

In fact, many scientists point out that a meaningful life isn’t always the same as a happy life.  In a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Positive Psychology, researchers attempt to identify areas where happiness and meaning do not intersect.

To be clear, there is a lot of overlap between happiness and meaning, but there are a lot of differences too.  In setting out to identify those differences, here is what psychologists found:

Meaningfulness is more focused on the past and the future, while happiness tends to happen in the present.

Happiness was more associated with being a taker, rather than a giver.  i.e. “Happiness seems intertwined with the benefits one receives from others.  Meaningfulness is instead associated with the benefits that others receive from the self.”

Meaningfulness was more associated with worry, stress, anxiety and arguments.  Meaningfulness seems to involve focusing  on “things one regards as important.”  These are often things we are willing to fight for or suffer for (see my article on the meaning in Les Miserables or another one on the “parenting paradox.”)

Meaningfulness was also more prominent in people who identified with the simple tasks of life, such as commuting, cooking, cleaning, maintaining the house, waiting on others, reading for pleasure, napping, balancing finances and emailing (none of which had any correlation with happiness.)

There are two things I take away from this kind of research.  The first is that moment-to-moment happiness should not be our top priority.  The authors suggest that “happiness without meaning characterizes a relatively shallow, self-absorbed or even selfish life” and that “positive psychology [should] focus some of its energy on understanding meaningfulness.”

But my other takeaway is that much of the debates about “happiness vs. meaning” in psychology are semantic.  There are plenty of articles and research studies like this one, suggesting that the “pursuit of happiness” is misguided.  And they define happiness as a fleeting experience of positive emotions (and/or absence of negative emotions.)

But I don’t think this is how people really “pursue happiness.”  When people say they want happiness they don’t only want to feel happy “in their life.”  They want to feel happy “about their life” (see Daniel Kahneman’s TED talk on this.)  They want to live a life they feel good about, not one that feels good.

Living a life you feel good about might mean sacrificing some positive emotions along the way.  It might mean doing chores, changing diapers, worrying about the things you care about and fighting for the things you believe in.

But whenever you want to feel good for a fleeting moment, you can always “have a Coke and a smile.”

by Jeremy McCarthy

Connect with me on facebook, twitter, or pinterest.

E-book available:  The Psychology of Spas and Wellbeing.

Photo Credit: Tambako the Jaguar via Compfightcc
Long-time loyal readers of this blog will be aware that I take a month off of eating meat every year.  I do this for three reasons: 1) I think it’s healthier not to eat meat.  2) I think it’s better for the planet. And 3) I think it’s a good to exercise your will from time to time to deny yourself things that you really want.  I’ve been doing this for over ten years.

Normally, I struggle through this month of vegetarianism and while I think it is good for me, I usually quickly rebound to my old carnivorous ways as soon as the month is over.  But this year, I tried something different.  I decided not to be so strict.  I would eat vegetarian whenever possible but I would allow myself a few exceptions:

1.  Since my wife was not on the diet (and she usually makes dinner for the family a few times a week) I would eat meat when my wife was cooking.  In this case, I would eat a bit of meat, but I DRASTICALLY reduced my portion, eating just a little bit of chicken or fish while doubling up on the vegetables.
2. I would choose meat if it was the healthier option.  I usually feel like my vegetarian “lent” period ends up not being very healthy because I eat a lot of pizza and pasta and other ultra-carby foods.  This year I decided if it was a choice between ANOTHER slice of veggie pizza and something that might be healthier even though it had meat in it, I would do what I thought was best for me and not be so dogmatic about not eating animals.
3. If I was really dying to have a taste of something with meat in it, I would.  I might not order a steak, but I would have a bite of my wife’s and not stress about it.

Approaching my diet in this less rigid way probably means it was not as strong of a willpower exercise as it normally is.  After all, I was giving myself the ability to cave in pretty much any time I felt like it.  But I managed to stay pretty good about eating mostly vegetarian and I only “cheated” a couple times a week.

But here’s the thing.  Because I made my diet easier on myself, I didn’t bounce right back to carnivorism when the month ended.  In fact, I found I could continue my mostly vegetarian diet relatively easily.  Not only that, but as I continued through my second and then third month, I began to realize I was craving meat less and less.  And when I do eat meat, I haven’t been enjoying it as much.

Photo Credit: striatic via Compfightcc

I recently saw an incredible lecture by Melanie Joy on “The Psychology of Eating Meat.”  I highly recommend it to anyone, especially if you are considering the role of animals in your diet.

In the lecture, she outlines different perspectives towards food, listing Veganism, Vegetarianism and what she calls “Carnism.”  She describes carnism as the opposite of veganism and a belief system characterized by denial about the realities of our food system.

But what I’m realizing is there is a HUGE gap between vegetarianism and carnism.  There is a lot of territory in between eating no animals (vegetarianism) and the typical American diet where meat makes up the lion’s share of every single meal.  As compelling as Dr. Joy’s presentation is, it is hard to get someone to go from the typical American “carnistic” (is that a word?) animal-centric diet to a vegetarian diet.

Why?  Not only do you have to overcome all of the culturally ingrained myths about the importance of meat in your diet (which Joy does a good job of covering in her lecture) but it is hard to be a vegetarian in a carnivorous world.  Restaurants, supermarkets and your own social circles are all conspired against you.

A much easier shift away from carnism would be to move to a “vegetarianish” diet.  The vegetarianish diet doesn’t mean you have to swear off meat altogether.  It means you don’t eat animals as the default.  You eat vegetarian most meals.  Save your meat for special occasions.  “Eat less and enjoy more” as some would say.

I still have not lapsed into full on veganism (I eat eggs and dairy.)  And I am not a complete vegetarian (I still have small portions of meat from time to time.)  But I’m vegetarianish.  And it feels like a step in the right direction.

—

References and recommended reading:

Blatner, D. J. (2010). The Flexitarian Diet: The Mostly Vegetarian Way to Lose Weight, Be Healthier, Prevent Disease, and Add Years to Your Life. McGraw-Hill.

Burwash, P. (1997). Total Health: The Next Level.  Torchlight Publishing.

Campbell, T. C. (2006).  The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted And the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-term Health.  BenBella Books.

Foer, J. S. (2010).  Eating Animals.  Back Bay Books.

Robbins, J. (1998).  Diet for a New America.  HJ Kramer.

Photo Credit: Chad McDonald via Compfight

The headquarters of my company (Starwood Hotels and Resorts) recently relocated to a beautiful part of Stamford, Connecticut.  Our new offices happen to be located adjacent to a cemetery, where I sometimes go running on my lunch break.

I’m not sure what the etiquette is of running through a cemetery where I have no relationship to any of those interred there, and I would hate to do anything that those there to mourn the loss of a loved one might consider disrespectful.  But so far, I have not seen any visitors to the graves.  It is only me, a handful of caretakers, and hundreds of tombstones.  This solitude is what makes it a nice run.  It is quiet and green  (but especially quiet.)

The tombstones make an interesting backdrop for my run.  I pay particular attention to the dates as I run by, especially on the tombs of those who died at a young age.  It reminds me of my own mortality and helps me to focus on what is important during this brief window of time I have to walk upon this earth.

Psychologists call this “mortality salience” and it can be a huge motivator of human behavior.  But not always in a positive way.  “Terror management theory” suggests that most of human activity is based on our futile efforts to deny, forget, or overcome the impermanence of life.

Photo Credit: Jeremy Farmer via Compfight

When we become aware of our own mortality, we often respond with avoidance, suppression, or attempts to boost our own feelings of significance.  Sometimes this means aligning ourselves to a particular culture or world view (such as religious beliefs that contain comforting themes such as “purpose,”  “God’s will,” “afterlife,” and “eternity.”)  The downside of clinging to these beliefs is they make us less receptive to others who share different beliefs, creating conflict and discord between people.

This led Elizabeth Kubler-Ross to suggest that if we could overcome this defensive reaction to our own mortality, we could create more peace in the world:

If all of us would make an all-out effort to contemplate our own death, to deal with our anxieties surrounding the concept of our death . . . perhaps there could be less destructiveness around us. (Kubler-Ross, 1969, p. 27)

Recent research suggests that the more mindful someone is, the more open they are to contemplating their own mortality.  And rather than then being motivated to suppress or deny the impermanence of life, they are able to draw meaning from it in a positive way (Niemic, et al., 2010.)

In Oliver Burkeman’s new book, “The Antidote,” he talks about accepting one’s own morality as a pathway to wellbeing.  According to Burkeman, Roman emperors had a servant march behind them whispering “memento mori” (remember you are soon to die) so that awareness of their own mortality was always at the forefront.  This awareness gave them a sense of humility as well as a reminder to savor life while they could.

According to Paul Wong, an expert on the meaning of life, the acceptance of death (as opposed to avoidance) helps us to appreciate the “fragility and finitude of life” and to “deliberate wisely regarding our priorities and ultimate life goal.”  This gives us a greater passion for living and allows us to live in a more authentic way.

Another analysis of recent scientific studies found that “thinking about death can lead to a good life.” An awareness of mortality can improve physical health and help us re-prioritize our goals and values. Even non-conscious thinking about death — say walking by a cemetery — could prompt positive changes and promotes helping others.

Reading this, I couldn’t help but be reminded of the days immediately following 9/11 in New York City.  The entire population, although mourning, was infused with a glow of altruism and compassion the likes of which I have never seen before or since.  Perhaps a side effect of being confronted with our mortality in such a brutal way.

Photo Credit: Patrick Hoesly via Compfight

Every animal is biologically programmed for self-preservation, but only humans are aware that they will eventually perish.  We fight for survival while struggling with the simple awareness that failure is inevitable.

This is a harsh and sobering thought.  But by keeping it in mind it helps us remember what is important, appreciate what we have, and cherish who we’re with.

My runs through the graveyard are a powerful reminder of my own mortality and a gentle motivator for my run.  While running, I contemplate the impermanence of life, and often think of this passage from Neil Pasricha’s TED talk:

The cashiers at your grocery store, the foreman at your plant, the guy tailgating you home on the highway, the telemarketer calling you during dinner, every teacher you’ve ever had, everyone that’s ever woken up beside you, every politician in every country, every actor in every movie, every single person in your family, everyone you love, everyone in this room and you will be dead in a hundred years. Life is so great, but we only get such a short time to experience and enjoy all those tiny little moments that make it so sweet. And that moment is right now; and those moments are counting down; and those moments are always, always, always fleeting.

Memento mori.

This article was featured on Positive Psychology News Daily.

Consider these scenarios from Barry Schwartz’s book, Practical Wisdom: The Right Way to Do the Right Thing:

1.  A judge is forced to sentence a first-time offender to five years in prison, even though her judgment tells her that the punishment is not justified by the crime.
2.  Police officers take a man’s eleven-year-old son away from him, putting him into a foster home, because the man had bought his son a Mike’s Hard Lemonade without realizing that it contained alcohol.
3.  The doctor of a man with cancer refuses to provide a recommended course of treatment (even though the patient implores him to share his expert opinion) because he has been told to only educate his patients on the options and allow them to make their own decisions.

These people hated to do what they did. It went against their better judgment. But they had to follow the rules that had been established or face the consequences. In the case of the judge in the first example, she chose to resign rather than handing down what she found an unjust sentence.

Schwartz cites these examples (and many more) as illustrative of the war on wisdom we are confronting in our society. To prevent mistakes, to prevent failure, to prevent disaster, we put rules and systems in place to leave out room for human error. But we sacrifice wisdom in the process.

Schwartz makes a compelling plea to bring wisdom back. But is he right to do so? I’m not so sure. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary:

Daniel Kahneman, in Thinking, Fast and Slow, points out that we don’t know as much as we think we do. His research suggests, for example, that a quantitative test would probably do a better job of selecting the best candidates for a job opening than the traditional interview. But most hiring managers would be hard pressed to believe that their judgment and instincts are not better predictors than a simple test.

Surgeon Atul Gawande, in The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right, shows how accidents are avoided and lives are saved by putting checklists and systems in place. Taking out frail and forgetful human decisions from medical processes ensures that the right things get done at the right time, and ultimately saves lives.

In his recent bestseller, The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business, Charles Duhigg shows how we can make success easier in business and in life, by creating simple habit loops that remove the need for decision making.

Duhigg argues for the power of habits, citing Tony Dungy who turned the Buccaneers into one of the winningest teams in the NFL by drilling simple habit loops into them. Getting them to stop thinking wasn’t just a consequence of this strategy, it was one of the primary goals. If the players can react without thinking, they gain precious milliseconds that provide a distinct advantage on the field.

But all of these ideas seem to contradict Schwartz, who argues for a return to practical wisdom. Schwartz says we need to give people back the ability to make judgment calls and to learn from their mistakes.

He cites teachers, for example, who have been marginalized by rigidly scripted teaching protocols and standardized tests. Teachers need to use their emotional intelligence and creativity to develop their students. When you tie them to a script, you might solve the problem of adequately directing the worst teachers to perform to an acceptable level. But you kill the motivation and inspiration that the best teachers used to bring to their work and instill in their students.

So who is right?

I’m guessing that both are right. It becomes a matter of meta-wisdom or wisdom about wisdom. We need to know when it makes sense to streamline things with simple procedures and systems, and when it makes sense to allow humans to express their creativity, perhaps risking failure, perhaps inspiring innovation.

Barry Schwartz

Where Schwartz’ argument is most compelling is when you consider what kind of future each strategy creates. If we remove human judgment and creativity from things like law, education, medicine, we may streamline things, but we may also stifle the growth of human ingenuity. If we don’t need to use our minds to make decisions, we will lose our decision-making abilities altogether.

Practical wisdom, on the other hand, pushes people to be responsible for their decisions and to learn from them. In this strategy, we might expose ourselves to more risks along the way, but we become a wiser society by doing so.

—

References and recommended reading:

Duhigg, C. (2012). The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business. Random House.

Gawande, A. (2011). The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right. Picador Press.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. London, Allen Lane.

Schwartz, B. & Sharpe, K. (2011). Practical Wisdom: The Right Way to Do the Right Thing. New York: Penguin Group.

Schwartz, B. (2009). Our loss of wisdom. TED Talk. Mentions practical wisdom: combination of moral will and moral skill. “The good news is that you don’t need to be brilliant to wise. The bad news is that without wisdom, brilliance isn’t enough.”

by Jeremy McCarthy

Please consider liking TPOW on facebook or follow me @jeremycc on twitter.

Photo Credit: a n i. Y. via Compfight

April is “Stress Awareness Month” as sponsored by the “Health Resource Network” and April 16^th specifically (the day after Tax Day) is “National Stress Awareness Day” in the United States.

When I first heard about these “holidays,” I thought it was pretty ridiculous.  I think it’s safe to say we are all pretty aware of stress (maybe even too aware.)  Warnings about stress, along with strategies to overcome it, seem to be found just about everywhere we look.

Stress is the #1 reason why people come to visit spas (the industry I work in) and my studies in positive psychology uncover a variety of interventions for managing stress from sleep, to exercise, to relationships, to positive experiences.

Not only do we have more than sufficient awareness of stress in our society, but we also have a healthy and growing body of research on strategies to combat it.  So why does it feel like life keeps getting more stressful?  What are we doing wrong?

In a new book called “One Nation Under Stress: The Trouble with Stress as an Idea,” social work professor Dana Becker suggests that our efforts at stress relief have been misguided at best.  In the past decades, we have focused our efforts on awareness, and individual responsibility, while ignoring the societal problems that are the root causes of human anxiety.

Although I think her book is based a little bit on a false dichotomy—presuming we should either take responsibility for our responses to stressors or address the societal factors that are at their root—I do agree with her criticism.

I have often felt, for example, that positive psychology would be far more effective if it pointed it’s lens at communal and societal wellbeing, rather than being almost exclusively oriented towards the individual pursuit of happiness (thankfully, some governments are beginning to discuss this idea.)

But here in the U.S., we live in an individualistic society, where people are expected to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.  So when women (and particularly women with children) show increasing signs of stress, we don’t question our societal views towards families (my wife and I are always pleasantly surprised at the preferential treatment we get when traveling with children in other countries) and we accept as a fact of life the economic situation that pushes increasing numbers of households to pursue two incomes.  Rather than questioning the cultural norms we are establishing in our society, we give women “tips” on how to manage their stress.

When soldiers come back from combat with post traumatic stress disorder, we don’t re-examine the true costs of warfare.  We give our soldiers resilience training to teach them how to “bounce back” from traumatic experiences.

Photo Credit: K Latham via Compfight

And across a myriad of stressors from work, traffic, economic woes, racism, illness, etc. we coach individuals on how to keep stress at bay, through yoga, meditation, exercise, journaling, cognitive reframing, therapy, or even medication.  And all of this stress-relieving activity makes us feel like we are doing something while we ignore the big problems of modern America.

Becker says that the first step in creating a different attitude towards stress is to recognize the vulnerability of the human condition.  Stress is not a disease or disorder to be diagnosed and treated on an individual basis.  It is a sign of our sensitivity to our surroundings and a gauge through which we can measure the health of our society.

Rather than trying to squelch the essential vulnerability that is a core facet of human nature, we should learn from it to make a better world.  A world where there is more peace and less trauma, less inequality and poverty and more quality time to spend with loved ones, a world where there is less competition and more collaboration for the betterment of all.

So the real stress relief does not come from breathing exercises, scented candles and self-help books.; although those things may all help.  Real stress relief comes from meaningful changes to our society that consider the vulnerability of humanity and create communities where flourishing can take place.

—

References and recommended reading:

Becker, D. (2013). One Nation Under Stress: The Trouble with Stress as an Idea. Oxford University Press.

by Jeremy McCarthy

Connect with me on facebook, twitter, or pinterest.

E-book available:  The Psychology of Spas and Wellbeing.

Photo Credit: Carolyn Sewell via Compfight

This is the way we have learned to talk about ourselves:

“I want to quit smoking, but I can’t.”

“I want to stop fighting with my kids every day, but they won’t let me.”

“If only she would go out with me, then I will be happy.”

“If only I didn’t drink so much.”

“I wish I could exercise more, but it’s just too hard for me.”

“I’m sorry, that’s just the way I am.”

We love phrases like this, because they alleviate us from the burden of responsibility for our own actions.  They allow us to blame something or someone else (or even a distinct aspect of our personality) for our own inaction, thereby allowing us to maintain the status quo that we secretly want to hold on to (even while we publicly complain about it.)

A few months ago, I wrote about the theories of control in relationships (see “You Are in Control, You Just Don’t Know It“) as put forth by Ernst Beier, author of “People-reading: How we control others, how they control us.”  Beier says we secretly control those around us with the behaviors that are carefully (if unconsciously) selected to elicit exactly the responses that we want to get.

Photo Credit: JOSE VICENTE JIMENEZ RIBAS via Compfight

And according to Beier, we also control ourselves, even if we like to pretend that we can’t.  The smoker, for example, who says, “I hate smoking, but I can’t quit,” doesn’t really hate smoking at all.  He loves smoking.  But he hates appearing like he loves smoking.  So he finds an acceptable compromise (as Beier says, “he is doing just what he wants to do—talking about quitting while smoking.”)

“If he honestly wanted to give up the entire pattern,” says Beier, “he would stop smoking at once.”  But why bother when he can just complain about his own behavior in a way that removes all responsibility?

According to Beier, this is the human way.  In public, we extoll the virtues of our society.  But privately, we work towards our own private goals.  Ugly goals.  Selfish goals.  Our deep desires that are so hideous to us that we don’t even want to recognize them ourselves, let alone share them with others.

Photo Credit: Ricardo Liberato via Compfight

Publicly, we become spin doctors.  We use fancy language to convince ourselves and others that we are virtuous after all.  As Beier says, “the aim is not to be proper and ‘good,’ but simply to get people to believe that we are.”

Another example Beier gives is when people say, “I don’t want to sound impatient, but . . .”  Actually, impatient, is exactly how they want to sound.  Or more accurately, as Beier says, they “want to sound impatient without sounding impatient.”

If you want to be a smoker, a drinker, argumentative, lazy, out-of-shape, or whatever, that’s fine.  But stop bullshitting yourself about it.  Own it.  Don’t say, “I’m sorry, but that’s just the way I am.”  Don’t apologize for being exactly the way you want to be.

But if you do want to change, own that too.  Less talk and more action.  Less bullshit and more behavior.  The best way to measure what you really want, is by looking at what you already have.

—

References and recommended reading:

Beier, E. G. (1989). People-reading: How we control others, how they control us. Scarborough House.

Beier, E. G. (2002). A Question of Belonging. New Century Books.

by Jeremy McCarthy

Connect with me on facebook, twitter, or pinterest.

Now available:  New e-book on The Psychology of Spas and Wellbeing.

Photo Credit: Hartwig HKD via Compfight

Some of those who work in positive psychology were surprised by a recent research study by Roy Baumeister showing that stress and anxiety was linked to less happiness but more meaningfulness in life.  Why would a meaningful life be more stressful and less happy?  Aren’t we always reading about how having a sense of purpose and meaning contributes to a happier life?  Isn’t meaning important?

I could at this point, as I often do on this blog, talk about “false dichotomies.” I could argue, as many often do, that meaning and happiness go hand in hand.  You do not have to choose one or the other.  You can have it all!

But I think what we are seeing here is actually a true dichotomy.  We all arrive at forks in the road where happiness lies down one branch and meaning is down the other.  Sometimes we do have to make a choice.

I was thinking about this the other night while watching the new film version of Les Misérables.  Les Misérables has long been one of my favorite stories and the musical soundtrack is easily one of the most listened to albums I have ever owned (Back in the day, I played the cassettes to death in my car on long drives and eventually had to repurchase the 2-CD set.)

I fell in love with Jean Valjean, the main character, from the very beginning of the story as he is completing his grueling 19 years of prison for stealing a loaf of bread in order to save his sister’s child.  A meaningful choice to be sure, but certainly not a happy one.

(Spoiler alert: If you haven’t seen or read any version of Les Miz, stop reading this article and run, don’t walk to get the book or see the movie.  If you don’t mind hearing some of the details, read on . . .)

Again and again in the movie (or book, or play) the characters have to confront decisions for meaning or happiness.  And again and again, they choose meaning—exactly what makes the story so profoundly moving and inspiring:

The Bishop gives away his fine silver to save the soul of a poor wretch.  Fantine becomes a prostitute to raise money for her sick daughter.  Jean Valjean turns himself in to the authorities to save an innocent who would take his place.  Eponine takes a bullet for someone she loves.  Marius forsakes love and personal happiness to fight for a cause in the French revolution (“Who cares about your lonely soul/we strive towards a larger goal/our little lives don’t count at all.”)  In the same revolution, countless young men give their lives while fighting for their freedom.

It would be difficult to identify any character in the story that did not sacrifice their personal happiness in pursuit of some meaningful goal.  (But what do you expect from a movie called “Les Misérables?”)

At the end of the movie, Valjean is again called upon to decide between meaning and happiness.  He rescues young Marius and brings him home, knowing that Marius will take away his beloved Cosette, the girl that he raised as his own.

Obviously, these are examples from a fictional account, and you could find countless more fictional examples that tell this same story.  But you can probably also find examples in your own life—times when you took on extra stress and sorrow to do something that you believed was important.

Maybe, as in the case of Les Misérables, these meaningful examples involve sacrificing your own happiness for that of someone else; someone that you love or someone that is needier than you.

Jean Valjean ends the movie (double spoiler alert!) suffering from a broken heart for having to leave behind his beloved Cosette.  But there is no question that his life was a meaningful one and Cosette and Marius’ happy existence lives on as proof of that.

Like many meaningful lives, Jean Valjean’s redemption from suffering comes only with the evaluation of his life once it is over; with the knowledge of a love so deep that it came with great sacrifice.  “To love another person is to see the face of God.”

I think Baumeister’s research shows an important aspect of life.  The meaningful life and the happy life do not always go hand in hand.  Holistic health expert Dr. Daniel Friedland puts it simply: “sometimes you have to choose between what feels good and what feels right.”  What would you choose?

Photo Credit: Justin Balog via Compfight

It is sad when a hero falls from grace.

And the higher up on the pedestal we place them, the harder it is when they fall.  For me, Lance Armstrong was about as high up as you could get.  He had an incredible work ethic, superhuman accomplishments, amazing charitable contributions, and was an inspiring speaker and role model.  Seeing his fall from grace can’t help but shake my faith in humanity.  Maybe there are no paragons of virtue.

I felt the same way about Tiger Woods and Arnold Schwarzenegger, two other celebrities that had much to be admired for . . . until they exposed their dark sides.

When I think of these amazing individuals, so successful in certain areas of their life, and total disasters in others, I wonder what role self-control has to play.  Their acts of moral lassitude suggest a lack of self-control and yet, in my mind, you cannot attain the kind of success that these three attained without self-control.  Just think of the commitment and dedication, the focus, the avoidance of distraction, the perseverance that all three put in to their crafts.

Photo Credit: Keith Allison via Compfight cc

Think of the hours of practice and laser focus that made Tiger Woods such a master of golf.  Few others could claim such discipline and mindfulness towards a pursuit.

And I always saw Arnold Schwarzenegger as a true paragon of accomplishment because he reinvented himself so many times.  He was a bodybuilder, then an action film star, then a comedic film star, and then a politician, and rose to the top in every domain he pursued.  You can’t do that without an incredible ability to maintain focus and commitment on your goal.

With Lance Armstrong, in addition to his amazing athletic accomplishments, you can even see his strength of self-control in the way that he lied.  Repeatedly denying accusations and lashing out against anyone who would question him shows a strength of will that few men have.

So these men do have superhuman capabilities.  Strengths that can be admired and learned from.  And yet, they faltered.  Their virtue is tainted.  Now they leave us bewildered and confused when they once filled us with inspiration and hope.

I find myself wondering how these men of will could blunder so badly?  How could these champions of self-control steer themselves so astray?

This is what I’ve come up with:

1.  Self-control can be exhausted.  Roy Baumeister’s research on willpower suggests that self-control is like a muscle that can be fatigued with overuse.  It is not hard to imagine how these superstars who seem so disciplined could eventually have their self-control collapse from the weight of hyperactivity.
2.  Self-control gets allocated.  Because willpower is a limited resource, it may be that highly successful people achieve their goals by allocating their willpower very carefully.  For Arnold and Tiger, they reserved their self-control for their professional pursuits, which brought them extraordinary success, while allowing themselves to be lax in their personal relationships.  In Armstrong’s case, he focused his willpower on his competitive pursuits while relaxing his self-control in the moral domain.
3.  Self-control can be used for evil.  While self-control is an important character strength, it can be used for nefarious purposes.  Lance Armstrong seemed to put just as much discipline into his cheating and deceit as he put into his training.

One thing is certain.  Each of these heroes has disappointed countless fans (including me) who looked up to them, admired them, and even aspired to be more like them.  And yet, each one of them is only a man, and subject to the foibles and failings of all humanity.

As for the question of self-control, I think these men have it in spades.  But like any strength, it’s only as good as the way you use it.

And as for me, I’m in the market for some new heroes.  Who would you recommend?

—

References and recommended reading:

Baumeister, R. F. & Tierney, J. (2012).   Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength. Penguin Books.

The facebook page for The Psychology of Wellbeing now has over 1,000 likes!  Please connect with me there!

Photo Credit: Scott Ableman via Compfight

Last week, I talked about the “positive flip”:  the idea of taking an area where a negativity bias may be narrowing our perspective and considering it from a more positive vantage point.  Today’s article is about how to apply this in the real world.

First of all, there is some research on this in the sports world by psychologist Dr. Daniel Kirschenbaum.  Kirschenbaum looked at novice golfers and bowlers to see if they would learn more from their mistakes or their successes.

In the bowlers’ study, all participants were given a lesson from a pro that covered 7 fundamentals of the game (stance, grip, foot position, etc.)  After the lesson, one group was given instructions to “self-monitor” their performance in a negative way (they were given a checklist of the seven fundamentals and asked to note every time they made a mistake so that they could avoid those mistakes in the future.)

A second group was asked to positively “self-monitor” their performance.  In this condition they receive the same checklist, but with instructions to note down every time they do something well so they can learn from their successes.

A third control group was just told to practice what they learned in the lesson with no self-monitoring instructions given.

As predicted, the group that focused on the things that they did well showed the most improvement after practicing. (It should be emphasized that these were novice bowlers.  Presumably, advanced athletes would need to focus more on correcting their mistakes.)

This is a perfect example of “the positive flip.”  Take an area, like athletic coaching, where our natural tendency is to focus on the negative, to fix what’s broken, to point out what’s not working, and flip it on its head.  It turns out that the positive approach is a more effective way to develop new skills.

Photo Credit: Andrew Taylor via Compfight

So how else can you apply this in the real world?  Just think about anywhere that you might be falling into a natural tendency towards negativity.

Parenting, for example.  How often do you find yourself reacting to the things you don’t want your child to do:

“Be quiet.” “Stop doing that.” “Don’t hit your sister.” “That’s not nice.”

As opposed to reacting to the things that are going well:

“I love it when you play quietly like that.” “Thank you for being so respectful to your sister.” “You are being so good right now!”

Professionally, how much do see your job as fixing problems, disciplining employees when they do something wrong, or handling customer complaints?  Many mid-level managers will say they spend a majority of their time “putting out fires.”

Photo Credit: vincent Angler via Compfight

Applying the positive flip means focusing on what is going well.  Instead of calling the employee who has been late three times that month into your office, give a reward in a public meeting to the employee who has never been late.  Instead of giving a discount to an irate customer, give a discount to a customer who has been a pleasure to work with.  The “Appreciative Inquiry” commons website has a database of case studies on companies that have applied the positive flip to their business in some way.

I want to clarify that the positive flip is not the same as positive thinking.  The presumption is not that the positive flip is always better.  Rather, this is about recognizing that sometimes these positive approaches will escape us if we don’t consciously consider them.  Because we have evolved to be on the lookout for danger, we are naturally drawn towards the negative.

The positive flip is simply about being open to other possibilities.  It’s about trying on a new perspective and seeing if it works better or not.  If the positive flip works, you’ve found a new strategy for success.  If it doesn’t work, you can always flip back.

by Jeremy McCarthy

P.S. My course on Positive Leadership in Spas and Hospitality will be starting again next week on January 21.  The course teaches how to apply this positive flip in business to overcome negativity bias, learn from and use strengths, and create a culture that celebrates success and fosters meaningful work.  If you would like to learn more about the course, please email me: jeremy@psychologyofwellbeing.com.