Painting: “Anxiety”; artist: Regina Lafay

Anxiety has a purpose.

“It continually, and without your conscious thought, scans your life – yes, even when you are asleep, in dreams and nightmares. It reviews your work, your love, your play – until it finds an imperfection. When it finds one, it worries it. It tries to pull it out from under it’s hiding place, where it is wedged inconspicuously under some rock. It will not let go. If the imperfection is threatening enough, anxiety calls your attention to it by making you uncomfortable – disturbing your sleep and your appetites.”

“In return from the pain it brings, it prevents larger ordeals by making you aware of their possibility and goading you into planning for and forestalling them. It may even help you avoid them altogether. Think of your anxiety as the “low oil” light, flashing on the dashboard of your car. Disconnect it (*with alcohol, valium, or marijuana), and you will be more comfortable for a while. But this may cost you a burned-up engine.”

“Our dysphoria should, **some of the time, be tolerated, attended to, even cherished.”

(taken from What You Can Change and What You Can’t by Martin Seligman, Ph.D)

*bit in brackets mine

**this is not to say that severe, oppressive, debilitating anxiety should be ignored. Guidelines for when to know how much is too much coming up.

Elvis in the film ‘Change of Habit’

Martin Seligman has a few interesting words about the science of happiness. In the well known study on nuns, it was shown that the most optimistic and cheerful ones lived almost 10 years longer. These were the ones that used positive words like “happy” or “eager” in their personal statements, when accepted into the convent. Half of those that mentioned at least one happy word, were alive at age 94.

Some people are naturally optimistic, but to a large extent it can be taught, which is useful if you work in sales or wish to live into your 90s. The psychologist explains that with practice, optimism becomes a sticky skill. Plenty of information, including case studies and questionnaires can be found at his website “Authentic Happiness” and if you register, you actually receive an email saying “Welcome to Authentic Happiness“.

Though I’ve always strived to better myself, rarely have I experienced changes that vaulted me forward in a single leap, like landing at the bottom of a ladder in Chutes and Ladders, the classic kids’ game that often seems to last as long as life itself.

I’ve experienced slow growth, plodding along ever upward. I’ve had my share of chutes—those painful times when your playing piece is sent plummeting back down the board. I’d pull myself up, gradually regaining lost ground and learning lessons in the process. However, few times have I landed on a space that catapulted me ahead in one giant leap.

One author did just that for me, in his life-changing tome that spoke to who I am and who I can become—and to how I can better love my companions in life. The book, Authentic Happiness, by Martin Seligman, Ph.D., makes the rational case for looking on the bright side of life. Being a thinker rather than a feeler, that was the argument I needed to convince me of what many people already accept: focus on the positive.

This concept works through all aspects a person’s life, work, hobbies, relationships, and overall contentment. Of the many ways that “authentic happiness” can affect relationships, one that opened my eyes most was focusing on a loved one’s strengths.

Such an admonishment is unnecessary in the way I view my three children. Although I could probably tell you one way each of them could improve, that minor trait is always covered in my mind by their strengths. Among the three of them, I admire creativity, sense of humor, intelligence, self-discipline, a gregarious nature, and much, much more. My admiration comes naturally—they’re my kids!

Practicing the positive focus doesn’t come as naturally for me in looking at friends, coworkers, and other family members (except for the way I see my brother, who is either close to perfect or else I’m still stuck in my childhood “big brother admiration” stage!).

I soon realized, though, how much my relationships and my overall attitude towards life would be if I focused on people’s positive points instead of bemoaning the negatives. Even thinking more positive thoughts of people in my past gave a brighter sheen to my present! (Please note: this doesn’t mean ignoring lack of compatibility in courtship or serious infractions like abuse in any relationship!)

This “Love Story” is not the tale of one relationship to be admired or envied. Instead, it shares the increased love through “authentic happiness” that can be experienced in any life!

“Happier” este genul de carte care ar trebui sa fie facuta lectura obligatorie in scoala, in loc de basina aia de manual de Educatie Civica, fata de care, singurul interes pe care-l manifestam cand eram in clasa a 5-a, consta in a desena pozele din el. “Happier” n-are poze. Are, in schimb, forta de a deslusi ce reprezinta fericirea pentru oameni, care sunt cateva din miturile neadevarate ale societatii despre fericire, si cum putem face ceva pentru a ne schimba fundamental modul de a ne privi viata, de a ne privi pe noi insine si de a aduce schimbarea.

“Happier” nu e o carte de self-help, nu ofera “10 retete complete de a fi fericit azi”, nu ofera pilule magice si schimbari fara efort. Pentru ca schimbarile fara efort, de cele mai multe ori, dau rezultate doar pentru cateva zile, sunt o spoiala a unor probleme profunde sau a unei perspective gresite. Tal Ben-Shahar intelege ca fericirea este un lucru subiectiv, care depinde de la persoana la persoana si de la cultura la cultura. Cu toate astea, insa, oamenii ca specie au o psihologie comuna, moduri de a functiona care sunt descifrabile, identificabile din punct de vedere empiric. Iar Ben-Shahar, profesor de psihologie pozitiva la Universitatea Harvard, are stiinta de partea lui, si, in afara de stiinta, mentori ca Nathaniel Branden, Martin Seligman sau Marva Collins.

Cateva din ideile de baza din cartea asta:
1. Fericirea este un proces infinit nu un stagiu, nu un punct definibil, nu o destinatie la care sa se poata ajunge. Fericirea este o resursa nelimitata.

2. Vi s-a intamplat sa lucrati mult timp la un proiect care sa va aduca doar sictir si nesatisfactie, iar in final, desi v-ati imaginat ca veti fi fericiti, va dati seama ca realizarea nu reprezinta nimic pentru voi, de fapt?

Una din greselile frecvente pe care le fac oamenii este mentalitatea de “rat-racer”, care sacrifica lucruri care le ofera placere si satisfactie in prezent, pentru lucruri neplacute, dar cu o satisfactie imaginata in viitor. Sacrificarea placerii momentului pentru recompensa viitorului duce, in final, la nefericire, iar rasplata din viitor este doar confundata cu fericirea.

3. Vi s-a intamplat sa va dedicati exclusiv placerii prezentului, negand perspectiva viitorului, si, cu toate astea viata sa vi se para goala si lipsita de sens?

O alta greseala frecventa a oamenilor este mentalitate hedonistului, polul opus al “rat-racer”-ului. Hedonistul face greseala de a considera ca viata este un sir neintrerupt de placere, si isi priveaza, astfel, viata de insemnatate, de un scop mai inalt decat satisfacerea dorintei din momentul asta.

4. Asteptarea ca viata sa fie un sir neintrerupt de moment fericite, care sa contina si insemnatate si emotii pozitive este falsa si, pe termen lung, nu duce decat la nefericire.

5. Emotiile, sentimentele noastre sunt cele care stau la baza tututor actiunilor noastre. Sunt atat un scop, cat si un mijloc.

6. A avea scopuri si chiar a le atinge nu garanteaza fericirea sau ducerea unei vietii care sa insemne ceva. Ne putem stabili scopuri de a obtine rezultate materiale sau validare din partea altora, si cu toate astea sa simtim ca ducem o existenta in deriva. Scopurile noastre trebuie sa fie generate de noi, nu de asteptarile si standardele societatii.

7. A fi idealist inseamna, de fapt, a fi realist, intrucat felul in care suntem noi alcatuiti ne cere sa credem in idealuri, ne provoaca sa cautam un sens al propriei noastre vieti pentru a putea duce o existenta fericita.

8. La fel cum a manca felul nostru de mancare favorit in fiecare zi ne face sa-l uram la un moment dat, capacitatea noastra de a ne bucura de o anumita actiune pe care o facem are limitele sale.

9. Nu ne acordam suficient timp pentru a actiona. Doar reactionam la mediu. Ar trebui sa ne cream realitatea, nu doar sa fim marionetele ei.

10. Nu exista dragoste neconditionata.

Multe din ideile cartii par, la prima vedere, de bun simt. Dar, parafrazandu-l pe Voltaire, “Common sense is not so common.” Lucru care se remarca mai ales in capitolul despre intimitate si relatii. Singura problema a carti este ca, pe final, autorul incepe sa repete aceleasi idei sub formulari diferite, ceea ce poate deveni plictisitor. Cu toate astea, acest mic defect poate fi trecut cu vederea, considerand informatia de valoare inestimabila care se afla in cartea asta.

Nota: 10/10 si un foarte proaspat loc I in topul cartilor citite de mine

In final, cateva citate:

“Time is a zero-sum game, a limited resource. Life is too short to do only what we have to do; it is barely long enough to do what we want to do.”

“The rat racer suffers from the “arrival fallacy”—the false belief that reaching a valued destination can sustain happiness. Confusing relief with happiness, he continues to chase after his goals, as though simply attaining them will be enough to make him happy.”

“I define happiness as the overall experience of pleasure and meaning. Pleasure is about the experience of positive emotions in the here and now, about present benefit; meaning comes from having a sense of purpose, from the future benefit of our actions.”

“To be happy, we have to feel that, on the whole, whatever sorrows, trials, and tribulations we may encounter, we still experience the joy of being alive.”

“Goals communicate, to ourselves and to others, the belief that we are capable of overcoming obstacles.”

“Having goals or even reaching them does not guarantee that we are leading a purposeful existence. We could set ourselves the goal of scoring top grades in college or owning a large house, yet still feel empty. To live a meaningful life, we must have a self-generated purpose that possesses personal significance rather than one that is dictated by society’s standards and expectations.”

“It is easy to see why an unhappy person might take drugs if they provide him with a temporary escape from the reality of his joyless life or why someone might turn to a charismatic preacher who offers eternal happiness.”

“Often, however, we are pulled away from the life that would make us happier by internal and external forces that we have some control over—such as our habits, our fears, or other people’s expectations. Repeat this exercise regularly. Change, especially of deeply ingrained habits and patterns, does not happen overnight. Most important, once again, is to ritualize your activities.”

“In other words, I am no altruist. The ultimate reason that I do anything—whether it is spending time with my friends or doing work for charity—is that it makes me happy.”

“What does it mean to be wanted or loved for „who we really are”? To put it another way, what are we talking about when we talk about unconditional love, a phrase we throw around in the bedroom, the children’s room, the classroom? Do we mean that we want someone to love us for no reason? To love us no matter what? Are we saying that love needs no justification?”

“Psychologist Elaine Hatfield, who studies relationships, shows that people do not like being “overpaid” or “underpaid” in a relationship. People feel more content, and relationships are more likely to prosper, when both partners see the relationship as equitable.”

“To cultivate genuine intimacy the focus in a relationship must shift from the desire to be validated—seeking approval and praise—to the desire to be known.”

“The problem is that movies end where love begins. It’s the living happily ever after that poses the greatest challenge; it’s after the sun sets that difficulties often rise.”

“To realize, to make real, life’s potential for the ultimate currency, we must first accept that “this is it”—that all there is to life is the day-to-day, the ordinary, the details of the mosaic. We are living a happy life when we derive pleasure and meaning while spending time with our loved ones, or learning something new, or engaging in a project at work. The more our days are filled with these experiences, the happier we become. This is all there is to it.”

Tutti ricordano le foto delle torture che circolano su Internet. Esse sono state presentate come trofei di guerra da qualche GI. Tuttavia, i media mainstream in grado di verificarne l’autenticità, non osavano riprodurle. Nel 2004 la CBS vi ha consacrato un reportage. Questo è stato il segnale del movimento generale per esporre il maltrattamento degli iracheni. La prigione di Abu Ghraib dimostrava che la presunta guerra contro la dittatura di Saddam Hussein era in realtà una guerra di occupazione come le altre, con lo stesso corteo di crimini. Non sorprende che Washington abbia assicurato che gli abusi furono perpetrati all’insaputa dei comandi, da pochi individui insignificanti descritti come “mele marce”.
Alcuni soldati sono stati arrestati e processati per esempio. Il caso è stato chiuso fino alla rivelazione successiva.
(…)
Tranne che, a un anno dall’elezione di Barack Obama, se centinaia di singoli casi sono stati risolti, non è cambiato nulla nel merito. Guantanamo è lì e non sarà chiusa immediatamente. Le associazioni di difesa dei diritti umani sono chiare: la violenza contro i detenuti sono peggiorate. Interrogato al riguardo, il vice-presidente Joe Biden ha detto che più si avanzava in questo dossier, più capiva che finora non era a conoscenza di molti aspetti. Poi, enigmatico, ha avvertito la stampa, assicurando che non si dovrebbe aprire il vaso di Pandora. Da parte sua, Greg Craig, consulente della Casa Bianca ha voluto dare le dimissioni, non perché crede di aver fallito nella sua missione di chiudere il centro, ma perché ora crede che gli sia stato affidato un compito impossibile.
Perché il Presidente degli Stati Uniti non riesce a farsi obbedire? Se uno ha già detto tutto ciò che riguarda gli abusi dell’era Bush, perché parlare di un vaso di Pandora e che se ne ha paura?
In realtà, il sistema è più vasto. Non si limita solo a pochi rapimenti e a una prigione. Soprattutto, il suo scopo è radicalmente diverso da quello che la CIA e il Pentagono fanno credere. Prima di iniziare la discesa agli inferi, si dovrebbe far piazza pulita della confusione.
(…)
La US Navy ha istituito un gruppo medico d’assalto. Che fece venire a Guantanamo il professor Seligman. Questo professionista è una star, noto per il suo lavoro sulla depressione. I suoi libri sull’ottimismo e la fiducia sono dei best seller in tutto il mondo. E lui che ha supervisionato gli esperimenti su cavie umane.
Alcuni prigionieri, sottoposti a terribili torture, finivano spontaneamente per mettersi da soli in questo stato psicologico, permettendogli di sopportare il dolore, ma privandoli di ogni resistenza. Manipolandoli così, si arriva rapidamente alla fase 3 del processo Biderman. Sempre basandosi sul lavoro di Biderman, i torturatori americani, guidati dal professor Seligman, hanno fatto esperimenti ed hanno migliorato tutte le tecniche coercitive.
Per fare questo, è stato sviluppato un protocollo scientifico che si basa sulla misurazione delle fluttuazioni ormonali. Un laboratorio medico è stato installato a Guantanamo. Campioni di saliva e del sangue vengono prelevati a intervalli regolari dalle cavie per valutarne le reazioni.
I torturatori hanno reso più sofisticati i loro crimini. Ad esempio, nel programma SERE, hanno monopolizzato con la musica stressante la percezione sensoriale, per impedire al prigioniero di dormire. Hanno ottenuto risultati migliori trasmettendo grida di bambini inconsolabili per giorni e giorni. Oppure, hanno mostrato tutta la potenza dei rapitori con i pestaggi.
A Guantanamo, hanno creato la Forza di reazione immediata. Questo è un gruppo di punizione dei prigionieri. Quando questa unità entra in azione, i suoi membri sono rivestiti di un’armatura di protezione, tipo Robocop. Estraggono il prigioniero della sua gabbia e lo mettono in una stanza le cui pareti sono imbottite e rivestite in compensato. Gettano la cavia contro il muro, per fratturarli, ma il legno compensato smorza parzialmente lo shock, così da inebetirli, ma le sue ossa non vengono rotte.
I principali progressi sono stati compiuti con la punizione della vasca. Una volta, anche la Santa Inquisizione immergeva la testa del prigioniero in una vasca da bagno e lo ritiravano poco prima della sua morte per annegamento. La sensazione di morte imminente causa la massima ansia. Ma il processo era primitivo e frequenti erano gli incidenti. Ora, il prigioniero non è più immerso in una vasca da bagno piena, ma viene fatto giacere in una vasca vuota. Lo si annega versandogli acqua sulla testa, con la possibilità di fermarsi istantaneamente.
Ogni sessione è stata codificata per determinare i limiti della sopportazione. Degli assistenti misurano la quantità di acqua utilizzata, i tempi e la durata del soffocamento. Quando ciò accade, recuperano il vomito, lo pesano e l’analizzano per valutare l’energia e la stanchezza prodotte.
(…)
Il caso più noto è quello del pseudo-Khalil Sheikh Mohammed. Questi è un individuo arrestato in Pakistan e accusato di essere un islamista del Kuwait, anche se non è chiaramente la stessa persona. Dopo essere stato torturato a lungo e, in particolare, esser stato sottoposto 183 volte al bagno mortale durante il solo mese di marzo del 2003, l’individuo ha riconosciuto di essere Mohammed Sheikh Khalil, e si è autoaccusato di 31 diversi attentati in tutto il mondo, dal WTC di New York nel 1993, alla distruzione di una discoteca di Bali e alla decapitazione del giornalista Daniel Pearl, fino a gli attentati dell’11 settembre 2001. Lo pseudo-Sheikh Mohammed ha continuato la sua confessione davanti ad una commissione militare, ma non è stato possibile, per gli avvocati e i giudici militari, interrogarlo in pubblico, poiché si temeva che, fuori dalla gabbia, si rimangiasse la confessione.
Per nascondere le attività segrete dei medici di Guantanamo, la Marina Militare ha organizzato viaggi-stampa dedicati ai giornalisti compiacenti. Così, il saggista francese Bernard Henry Levy, ha detto che ha giocato volentieri il ruolo del testimone della moralità, visitando quello che si voleva fargli vedere. Nel suo libro ‘American Vertigo’, ha assicurato che questo carcere non è diverso da altri penitenziari degli Stati Uniti, e che le prove di abusi praticati vi “erano piuttosto gonfiate.” (sic)
In definitiva, l’amministrazione Bush ha stimato che pochissimi individui sono stati condizionati a tal punto da confessare di aver commesso gli attentati dell’11 settembre. Essa ha concluso che era necessario testare un gran numero di prigionieri per selezionarne i più reattivi.
Tenuto conto della controversia che si sviluppò attorno a Guantanamo, e per essere sicura di non essere perseguita, la US Navy ha creato altre prigioni segrete, poste al di fuori di qualsiasi giurisdizione, in acque internazionali.
17 imbarcazioni a fondo piatto, del tipo usato per le truppe da sbarco, sono state trasformati in prigioni galleggianti, con gabbie come quelle di Guantanamo. Tre sono state identificate dall’associazione britannica Reprieve. Questa sono la USS Ashland, USS Bataan e USS Peleliu.
Se aggiungiamo tutte le persone che sono state fatte prigioniere in zone di guerra, o sequestrate in qualsiasi parte del mondo, e trasferite in questa serie di carceri, negli ultimi otto anni, un totale di 80.000 persone sono transitate nel sistema, di cui meno di un migliaio sarebbe stato spinto alla fase finale del processo di Biderman.
Quindi il problema dell’amministrazione Obama è il seguente: non è possibile chiudere Guantanamo senza rivelare ciò che è stato fatto. E non è possibile riconoscere quanto è stato fatto, senza ammettere che tutte le confessioni ottenute sono false e sono state deliberatamente inculcate sotto tortura, con le conseguenze politiche che ciò implica.
Alla fine della seconda guerra mondiale, dodici processi furono istruiti dal tribunale militare di Norimberga. Uno era dedicato a 23 medici nazisti. 7 furono prosciolti, 9 furono condannati a pene detentive e 7 furono condannati a morte. Dal momento che esiste un codice etico che disciplina la medicina a livello internazionale. Esso vieta proprio ciò che i medici statunitensi hanno fatto a Guantanamo e in altre prigioni segrete.

Da Il segreto di Guantanamo, di Thierry Meyssan.

Does torture produce good intelligence? To find out, take 30 mongrel dogs…

One reason for the torture carried out during the Bush years was the clear assumption that inflicting pain would be more effective than other means of interrogation. Retrospectively, some  participants maintain that they were right. For Dick Cheney:

There are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified.

Cheney is right insofar as this is a difficult judgment  to make from the outside, though the evidence that has leaked so far isn’t persuasive. Yet the assumption that torture delivers comparatively accurate, timely intelligence (as opposed to whatever garbage the interrogator want to hear) is widely disputed. And that’s before you get to its corrosive immorality.

Psychology ought to have some answers to the question of whether torture works. One psychologist, in particular, has become prominently associated with ‘enhanced interrogation’ techniques: James Mitchell, a former military psychologist, hired on contract by the CIA. Mitchell apparently thought coercion would get results. As sources told The New Yorker’s Jane Meyer, Mitchell argued that suspects should be kept

like a dog in a cage. [...] He said it was like an experiment, when you apply electric shocks to a caged dog, after a while he’s so diminished, he can’t resist.

‘Science is science’, Mitchell reportedly declared. But what science did he have in mind?

He was, it seems a keen student of some famous experiments on ‘learned helplessness’ in dogs. Ironically, Martin Seligman was last mentioned on KoW because of his groundbreaking work on the psychology of happiness. Unhappily, he may also have been the unwitting inspiration for some of the CIA’s dubious interrogation practices.

The trouble started in May 2002, when Seligman gave an address to the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency at the San Diego Naval Base. James Mitchell was apparently in the audience. As Seligman recently explained:

I was invited to speak about how American troops and American personnel could use what is known about learned helplessness to resist torture and evade successful interrogation by their captors. This is what I spoke about.

And the dogs? One of Seligman’s papers is here [subscription, pdf]. In it, the authors describe their finding that if dogs were electrocuted while yoked in a box and unable to escape, they would apparently learn that there was no point in trying to escape. They would then put up with further shocks, even when able to escape.

The dogs, Seligman wrote:

initially show normal reactivity to shock, but after a few trials, they passively “accept” shock and fail to make escape movements.

That sort of induced apathy sounds like it might be useful in interrogations, right? Not according to Seligman, who wrote recently:

I have never worked on interrogation; I have never seen an interrogation and I have only a passing knowledge of the literature on interrogation. With that qualification, my opinion is that the point of interrogation is to get at the truth, not to get at what the interrogator wants to hear. I think learned helplessness would make someone more passive, less defiant and more compliant, but I know of no evidence that it leads reliably to more truth-telling.

Who is right – Seligman, or Cheney?

The notorious sixties CIA/KUBARK interrogation manual has a suggestion. It famously included much information on coercive interrogation, but noted starkly that

under sufficient pressure, subjects usually yield but [...] their ability to recall and communicate information accurately is as impaired as the will to resist.

They would know, you’d think. Perhaps something for advocates of physical coercion to chew on?

Thankfulness has been said to be a key component in happiness and an important tool to up your satisfaction with life – and work.

Thanks to the positive psychology gurus at the University of Pennsylvania, you can measure your level of gratitude. In six simple questions, Dr. Martin Seligman – often credited as the father of positive psychology – offers a tool to test your thanks. (An easy registration is required for this quiz.)

Thanks is key to happiness.

In his own words, Seligman says gratitude amplifies good memories of the past. He offers an exercise in expressing gratitude. Think of it as a way to throw out bad memories to make room for the good.

How does this apply to the workplace? Writing on happiness on the job in her HarvardBusiness.org blog, London-based executive coach Gill Corkindale explains it this way:

“It all comes down to choice, and this is where I believe happiness lies. In choosing — as far as you are able — what you want to do and how you will do it. While not all of us can choose our work and colleagues, we can all choose how we approach things — with an open, optimistic, and positive outlook or with a   frustrated, irritated one. To this end, I suggest you look at the work of positive psychologists such as Martin Seligman and Tal Ben-Shahar, whose course on happiness at Harvard has been inspirational for many students.”

It’s important, today more than ever, to recognize the importance of tools like gratitude to amplify the happiness we all have in our work. This is happening in the most unlikely of places. In England, the British government has appointed economist Richard Layard to the post of “Happiness Czar” to bolster the happiness of its citizens. It’s certainly worthwhile, in our own lives, our own work, and our own organizations, to look at how to be thankful and boost our own happiness quotient.

Eric Wilson is one of the comfortably-gloomy Gusses, the grumpy young men, leading a backlash against Positive Psychology. Here he is, participating in a round-table discussion of our right to remain grumpy… reviewed by Garrison Keillor… & on NPR.

The last page of his book is illuminating: he acknowledges friends and family and thanks them for tolerating his lifelong Eeyore-hood. His parents have been “especially patient with my chronic gloom,” his wife has shown “remarkable endurance of my melancholy moods,” but his five-year old daughter has “consistently brightened my heart and made life worth living.”

Clearly, depressives take a toll on those they love (and probably feel bad about it), and they cast their impressionable young in a shadow of gloom we must all hope they’ll retain the strength and resources and genetic potential to avoid falling into themselves, when the spontaneous brightness of childhood dims.

A question: can pessimistic parents raise optimistic children? Should they try? You know the answer you’ll get to that, from Positive Psychologists like Martin Seligman and others. (Seligman at TED)

Apparently maternal depression is a harder handicap for children to rebound from than despondent Daddys, so Eric needn’t feel as guilty as he should with the other chromosome set. But if (as Prof. Levy said… as Marty Seligman said in fact, in The Optimistic Child) we really want future generations to understand more of the human condition, and want our children to be happy, we’d better start modeling that for them occasionally. If you’re inveterately (but not uncontrollably) morose, don’t you still owe it to your kids to rouse yourself to a semblance of enjoyment at least once in  a while? Nurture’s not all, but neither is it negligible.

My mother was diagnosed with what was then called manic-depressive illness early in my childhood. I didn’t understand why she had to live apart from us for long stretches of time, in a cold and cavernous institution that was (but yet wasn’t, somehow) like the hospitals I’d known as patient and visitor, when Mom was still relatively healthy and working as an R.N. Nor did I understand what “electro-shock therapy” meant. Then, when she came home, I didn’t understand why she wore a blank, emotionless expression and couldn’t remember or muster interest in, or enthusiasm for, much of anything at all.

My father, I learned eventually, despite his own challenging childhood, was blessed with a spontaneously-sunny, optimistic disposition that had been clouded through much of my youth by the sad shadow of my mother’s affliction. I didn’t see much of it then. I wasn’t a happy kid, or college student. It would be years until I discovered James’s discovery of Renouvier, and began to think that my own pursuit of happiness was something it might be worth looking into. As my bumper sticker proclaims, falsely in many situations no doubt, but gratefully in my own: It’s Never Too Late to Have a Happy Childhood.

In his own teenage wasteland, Wilson says, “I longed most to spend my days, especially in summer, lolling about in my dark bedroom. With my blinds dimming the morning sun to a gloomy beam, I would lie on my floor and stare at the stains on my ceiling [with] a tremulous air of failure… embracing blackness while the world sprang into light. I loved my cold seclusion… this winter of my mind’s own making.”

And then his Dad would barge in, raise the blinds, and encourage him to go play ball or swim or call a girl. What a spoilsport.

Most of us grow out of that particular form of adolescent self-indulgence, if we’ve been cursed by it. The mature Wilson is right: “those committed to happiness at any cost and those bent on sadness no matter what are not very different…  happy types, bent only on bliss, always take flight [from ambiguity]. But those who have committed their lives to dejection are no different. These sad types– those black-clad poseurs who identify only with the darkness– choose sullenness as one picks a religion or a haircut… They too live only partial existences.”

Good of him to admit that, and to encourage his little daughter to live in the light. If she ever finds herself thrown by life into the gloom of a real shadow, this attitude is probably not going to work for her. Hope she reads Rapt.

Humm!  High earnings amongst some RTE folks? Do they deserve such high salaries? Let’s take for example a Senior Nurse with a at least a degree in Nursing who earns a rate of about 44,000, her salary fits about 18 times into Pat Kenny’s salary. So 18 senior nurses for 1 Pat Kenny. Now in all fairness Pat K is doing a much better job on Frontline except when it come to being fair about the public sector. Why were the Union sector people not clearly invited to speak out against Eddie Hobbs who was clearly on  pro neo liberal and an anti Keynesian rant. Wonder why….? Pat you can do better than that. Give the public sector a fair go. The state needs us despite what some people lead us to believe. Small government is never in the interest of the ordinary person. Nor indeed is it in the interests of Irish business right now when purchasing power is being diminished. Or maybe we should just get rid of a whole lot more people so we can increase unemployment even further. A fantastic solution….Not!

How could anyone trust what comes out of most people’s mouths these days when lobbying is so virulent. No discussion on real policy but constant arguments on why one sector deserves to survive over another. If we were to follow a Darwinian model Anglo would fall and people who took high risks would lose the gamble.  Surely those people who built up businesses can dust themselves off,  find their resilience and get going again in more sustainable ways. If they had the skills to make lots of money before can’t they transfer those skills to developing new ways of doing business that are progressive and contribute to society in a good way. The businesses that survive are more likely to be those types of businesses. Those that didn’t go just for the quick euro. Those people should be supported.

I do have real sympathy for those that messed up. We are after all human and human beings make mistakes but the wise man or woman learns from mistakes. No point in whipping oneself. Mistakes also give people a chance to reflect on themselves and their life and every change in life brings  new opportunities.  It can be time a time to re visit one’s values,  for example asking what gives me happiness in my life? Alain De Botton and Martin Seligman ask these types of questions on their TED Talks .  Ireland has an opportunity to redefine itself post celtic whatsit. Can we take that challenge to make our society a leading society in Europe. It’s not all about the Euro, it’s not all about personal profit, its much much more than that. Who is brave enough to take on that? Eamon Gilmore set out a vision of an honest society when he was brave enough to do the right thing last week. We need more visionary politics in Ireland and less pandering to vested interests.

” Happiness is not something ready made. It comes from your own actions.”

Quote from Dalai Lama

Before we take up the contrarian anti-happiness views of Eric Wilson, it would be good to give a listen to Martin Seligman. He’s the guy who, along with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi,  really got the current  Positive Psychology boomlet started a few years ago. (His TED talk.)

It’s always good to practice the (misleadingly-named) art of “negative capability“– the very positive attempt, lifted from the poet Keats,  to hold disparate perspectives in mind simultaneously without a premature (“irritable”) rush to judgment.

Wilson and Seligman may not really be disagreeing in a big way at all, though. Seligman defends authentic happiness, Wilson criticizes something clearly counterfeit.

On September 30 Wiley-Blackwell announced the winner of their inaugural Wiley Prize in Psychology — Professor Martin Seligman of the University of Pennsylvania and Director of the Positive Psychology Center. While his career contributions are certainly immense, other scholars and, most recently, popular authors, have turned a critical eye to positive psychology.

In an 2008, Dana Becker and Jeanne Marecek published an article questioning positive psychology, particularly its emphasis on individual success and development and what they perceive to be a disconnect with the realities of social institutions and sociocultural power.  Popular author Barbara Ehrenreich has a new book coming out this month, “Bright-Sided”, in which she questions the entire “happiness” movement, including positive psychology and the way in which it has taken self-help into the academic realm.

While Becker and Marecek are not against the idea of “human flourishing,” they see it “not as a matter of private satisfaction, but as a matter of the collective welfare.” This idea is particularly relevant in the current global recession and the discourse of individualism is also prominent in U.S. debates on healthcare. In the U.S., where “boot-straps” philosophy reigns supreme, Becker and Marecek argue that the suggestion “that self-help excercises can suffice in the absence of social transformation is not only short signted but morally repugnant.”

Thus we, as humans living in our societies and bound by institutions, have to ask ourselves the extent to which personal happiness and a sense of fulfillment is tied to broader social influences. Can we “will” ourselves to be happy through the use of affirmations, or are we simply creating convenient illusions to persevere through difficult times?

Becker and Marecek. (2008). Dreaming the American Dream: Individualism and Positive Psychology.

Wiley Prize in Psychology Announcement

Years after the initial impact that Martin Seligman’s work had on positive psychology it continues to be relevant today; increasingly so in this challenging financial climate where uncertainty is the norm, and ‘more is required from less’.  In short, staying positive has never been so important.

Most of us are aware that having a positive attitude confers certain benefits – living longer, being more resilient, and having better relationships, to name a few – and that over time we develop deep-rooted, often unhelpful, patterns of behaviour which can be difficult to change.  However, I don’t think most people spend much time considering how positive their attitude actually is and that determines the ways in which they deal with everyday events.

For example, if you’re a largely optimistic person when bad things happen – you’re late for a meeting – you might chalk it up to terrible traffic or another external circumstance.  On the other hand, your more pessimistic friend might blame him/herself, seeing parallels with similar situations he/she has been in that have ended badly.  Conversely, when good things happen to your pessimistic friend – their presentation goes really well – he/she may well attribute it to luck or a receptive audience, whereas you might attribute your success to the fact were really well prepared and motivated to do a great job.

Some of this is determined by your personality, but in simple terms it pays to be an optimist and to develop good habits in terms of how you attribute success and failure.  Techniques born out of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) can be a very useful aid to developing these habits – they help people to identify and challenge negative automatic thoughts and replace them with alternative, realistic and positive ways of thinking.  Whilst these techniques require a fair investment of time and effort, there are some great resources available, and I challenge you to look at your own thinking habits and how you can develop them.  These are skills that often pay dividends when times are tough.

What’s not to like about them? OK, the lunatic fringe of Pollyannas might be a bit tough to take, but other than that, bring on the positive folk. I don’t care if they’re faking it, and I don’t care if they’re rage-o-holics when they’re not in front of me. Well, maybe that’s pushing it.

Look, I’m not exactly prone to giddy optimism, but I’m trying. For me, it’s sort of like physical fitness. You never quite get there, and some days are better than others. And that’s why I respect ’skilled optimists,’ whether they were born with the talent or developed it over time. To that end, every Thursday is instructive for me. Why? The spin instructor at our gym is infectiously optimistic. “Aren’t you glad you got up this morning?” is his frequent refrain during a 6 a.m. class when he kicks our ass throughout. After today’s workout, another member called out to him in the gym. “Hey John, how’s it going?” His response: “Life is good.” It was automatic. He just blurted it out. Impressive.

It’s been a long time since I’ve pulled out the classic on this subject. And indeed, it is THE classic. “Learned Optimism” by Martin Seligman. I highly recommend it.

Oh, one final note. For those folks who are concerned that it’s possible to be too optimistic, and that by being too optimistic you can gloss over realities that may harm you, I suggest you buy this book immediately!

Why do some people seem to reach the top of the corporate ladder easily, while others remain stuck on the middle-management rung? You might think that it is just because those people have more of what it takes to succeed, like brains, talent and powerful people in their corner. But there is something else that is just as important: attitude.

Dr. Martin Seligman, an authority on optimism, discovered that attitude was a better predictor of success than I.Q., education and most other factors. He found that positive people stay healthier, have better relationships and go further in their careers. And he even found that positive people make more money.

Anyone can adopt the right attitude. No matter where you are from or how much innate talent you have, the right attitude can make a difference in your career. Try adopting these 10 attitudes of successful workers:

1. I am in charge of my destiny.
If you spend your entire career waiting for something exciting to come to you, you will be waiting a long time. Successful professionals go out and make good things happen. So commit yourself to thinking about your career in an entirely different way. You will make it to the top, and you are in charge of making it happen.

2. Anything is possible.
Think that there is no way you will ever be at the vice-president level? Then you definitely won’t. Remember: If you think you can’t, you probably won’t. Adopt the attitude of The Little Engine That Could — "I think I can."

3. No task is too small to do well.
You never know when you are going to be noticed. That is one reason to take pride in your work — all of it. One public relations executive in Chicago said that her first task in the PR department of a ballet company was reorganizing the supply closet. She tackled the project with gusto and was immediately noticed for her hard work and attention to detail. Remember this the next time you feel like slacking because you are working on a menial task.

4. Everyone is a potential key contact.
While you do need to be aggressive in the workplace, you can also go far by being nice to those around you. Do you think it’s unimportant to establish a good rapport with your boss’s secretary? Well, just try getting your meeting squeezed onto the schedule when you really need it. Be courteous to those around you — you never know when your past contacts will play a role in your future.

5. I was made to do this job… and the one above me.
If you spend your days feeling like you are not cut out to do the work you are responsible for, your performance will suffer. Your job may not be the perfect fit, but successful workers act like they are in their dream job, no matter where they are.

6. It’s not just what I know, but who I know.
Successful workers understand the importance of networking, both in and out of the office. You need to proactively establish professional contacts. Invite a colleague out to lunch. Go to the after-work happy hour. Join your professional association. Do your part to establish a networking path for your future.

7. What else can I do?
Since you are in charge of your destiny, it’s your job to look for ways to improve your professional self. Volunteer to take on an extra project. Learn a new skill that will make you more marketable. Stay late to help your co-workers. Successful workers don’t just complete the job and sign out — they look for additional ways to make their mark.

8. Failure will help pave the way to my success.
While it seems like some people never experience setbacks, the truth is everyone fails from time to time. The difference between successful and unsuccessful people is how they deal with failure. Those who find success are the ones who learn from mistakes and move on.

9. I am my own biggest fan.
Have you been waiting for someone in the office to recognize your talents and efforts? Maybe it’s time you start tooting your own horn. Step up and talk about your accomplishments and what you have done for the company. Successful workers know how to point out their achievements without sounding boastful.

10. My opportunity monitor is never turned off.
Yes, there will be days when you will want to just be happy with the status quo. But remember that successful workers are always on the lookout for opportunities to improve. Keep your eyes, ears and your mind open to new opportunities — you never know when you will discover the one that will change the course of your career!

We, at The Growth Principles Company believe that leadership effectiveness is dependent upon an individual’s ability to positively influence others.  In becoming a person of influence, attitude is everything.  Our Leadership Development Summit and coaching programs help you focus on maximizing your true potential and being your very best!  Contact us today!

Ivan Lendl applied many of the ideas endorsed by Jim Loehr and Tony Schwartz.

We’ve all done it at some point or another.

Waking up after a fitful night of sleep, we’ve pumped ourselves full of caffeine and sugar to get through the day.  Despite our efforts, we remain on the verge of exhaustion, struggling to concentrate on any topic for more than about 12 seconds. 

Fortunately, there’s lots of help.

Stephen Covey’s phenomenally successful  The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and Covey and Roger Merrill’s First Things First are just two of the many avalable time management books and seminars.

Performance psychologist Jim Loehr and Donald Trump memoir co-author Tony Schwartz take a different approach.

The key, they say, to high performance on the job and in one’s personal life is not time management, but energy management.

They make their case in their intriguing and informative book, The Power of Full Engagement, which I brother from my brother Jon. 

The authors maintain that the realms of physical, emotional, mental and spiritual energy are interrelated and need to be observed and managed attentively in order to perform consistently at high levels.

Having worked with many world class athletes, Loehr and his co-author advance a Corporate Athlete Training System for people to achieve their goals.

A major part of the program is based on the idea of rituals and recovery.  In addition to providing a time for renewal and reflection, rituals, the authors say, are more anchored in an oscillating, rather than linear, sense of time.  They also form the basis for how people respond in times of crisis, or, at the least, high pressure. 

Recovery is critical, too.  

Loehr and Schwartz say that building in recovery time-an extended Jack Nicklaus quote in which he discusses winding up his intensity before each stroke and releasing it in between-is vital in having sufficient levels of energy throughout an activity.

Although there are examples of athletes like Nicklaus and Ivan Lendl, who willed himself through a series of precise rituals to tennis greatness, the main focus is on ordinary corporate workers who may feel much more familiar.  The authors use these workers to exemplify different tendencies and possible corrective actions they can take.

The Power of Full Performance is divided broadly into an explanation of the authors’ vision and an explanation of the Corporate Athlete Training System.  Like many of this ilk, this involves a period of diagnosis and assessment followed by an application of the prescriptions the authors recommend.

Some many say that many of these self-help/time/energy management books sound the same.  

Readers  of The Power of Full Engagement will not be shocked to learn that eating well, exercising and going to sleep at the same time each day after having wound down and getting seven to eight hours are better practices than the opposite.   People familiar with Martin Seligman’s research on optimism can breeze through the part of the book that recaps his work.   The book, like many others, calls for a mission statement.

Still, the authors sprinkle in helpful information with which I was not familiar and look forward to pursuing; a couple of references to the five stages of the creative process caught my attention, for example.  And the broader point about energy, rather than time, being the unit of currency was eye opening for me. as was the emphasis on intervals. 

So even if you don’t use the Corporate Athlete Personal Development Plan,  I do recommend giving this quick book a read.  At the very least, it could supply another way to understand and alter the highly stressed way in which many of us live our lives.

As you know we’ve all been at an academic conference this week in Washington D.C., honouring Peter Berger, and I was inspired by my fellow blogger, Brian Pitt, who presented an excellent paper (soon to be published!) outlining the basic tenets of sociological inquiry. One of these, Brian says, is a preoccupation with social problems. I think he is correct in this assertion. And there is certainly a strong tendency in sociology to defend this focus. Michael Burroway has even claimed that sociology, as its primary scientific goal, should pursue ‘an agenda for social justice’.

But maybe we need to rethink this sociological preoccupation with social plights, or at least compliment it with a different form of sociology? Looking partly to the developments that have taken place in psychology, one can see new trails of knowledge for sociology to pursue. Ever since Sigmund Freud and Joseph Breuer reported their studies of hysteria in 1895, there has been a deep focus, some would say an obsession, in psychology with mental instability and illness. Freud reported how the pressure that female subjects were put under in modern society led to neurotic patterns of behaviour, that the individual was inevitably intwined with the development of society, and that the norms of emerging capitalist, modern societies suppressed desires and feelings to an extent that led to severe hysteria, especially among women who were marginalized in society. Psychoanalysis in its first 20 years rests on this foundation – analysis of hysteria (as well as dream analysis).

But today psychology is much more than this. Martin Seligman has built a name for himself through so-called ‘positive psychology’ which studies studies strengths and virtues that enable individuals and communities to thrive.

It is essentially turning social inquiry on its head, which can be a productive technique for illuminating one’s field of study. The question no longer becomes ‘why do things not work’, but is instead ‘why do some things work?’

Why do some people not commit crime, for example? It would seem that people with low time preferences, such as poor and disenfranchised groups, and especially those with hopeless future prospects, could benefit from crime. In the larger picture, for marginalized people, crime certainly pays. To claim anything else is moral propaganda. If crime did not pay, it would not take place, as the nobel laureate Gary Becker has helped us throw light upon.

Why do some people break negative social inheritance? In spite of the plethora of data that sociologists have amassed regarding socio-economic status and its relation to educational attainment, we have no sociological theory to explain how a disenfranchised child of a single mother can rise above his peers and not only graduate from the best universities in the world, but also become President of America.

Why are some people wealthy compared to just a hundred years ago? If we look at poverty, we also have to look at the fact that social distribution of wealth across classes has exploded in the last two hundred years, against the backdrop of millenia of poverty and exploitation.

Lord Bauer once famously said that there are no causes of poverty — only of prosperity. To me, this is the number one phenomenon for sociology to explain today. While a focus on social problems has had its right and relevance historically in the field of sociology, we should compliment it with a positive sociology that does not presuppose a fully-functioning, perfect system as a starting point or as an achievable goal, but instead marvels at the wonder of that which actually works in today’s incredibly complex and strange world.

• David Pontoppidan

Der amerikanische Groß-Psychologe Martin Seligman hat in einem seiner vielen Experimente (bei denen meistens Hunde leiden müssen) nachgewiesen, dass nichtdepressive Menschen die Wirklichkeit zu ihren Gunsten entstellen, während depressive Zeitgenossen ihre Umwelt einfach nur korrekt wahrnehmen. Wenn das stimmt, muss David Foster Wallace einen überaus klaren Blick auf die Welt gehabt haben. Der 1962 geborene Schriftsteller verbrachte einen Großteil seines erwachsenen Lebens im Zustand klinischer Depression. Nach Aussage seiner Familie ist er eigentlich nur unter Einfluss von Medikamenten lebens- und schreibfähig gewesen. Sein Leiden daran war so groß, dass er sich im Sommer 2008 in der vagen Hoffnung auf Besserung sogar einer Elektroschock-Therapie unterzog – ohne Erfolg. Wegen der starken Nebenwirkungen war er schließlich gezwungen, die Antidepressiva abzusetzen – und es kam, wie es wahrscheinlich kommen musste: Vor ziemlich genau einem Jahr – am 12. September 2008 – erhängte er sich in seinem Haus in Claremont/Kalifornien.

Seltsamerweise ist der Hype um Wallace’ Person und sein Hauptwerk „Infinite Jest“ seitdem nicht nennenswert größer geworden, als er es ohnehin schon war: Der Mann wurde und wird schlichtweg als Genie gehandelt – und angesichts seiner vielfältigen Begabungen ist das wohl nicht übertrieben: In seiner Jugend war er ein vielversprechendes Tennis-Talent: Er brachte es immerhin bis auf Platz 17 der amerikanischen Rangliste. Wallace studierte Philosophie und Literatur, legte seinen Schwerpunkt aber zunächst auf Logik und Mathematik. Für die von ihm in seiner Abschlussarbeit entwickelte „modallogische These“ wurde er mit Preisen bedacht. Die Wertschätzung, die ihm zeitgenössische Schriftsteller entgegenbringen, spricht ebenfalls Bände: Von Dave Eggers über Don DeLillo bis Jonathan Franzen verneigen sich reihenweise Autoren-Kollegen vor seinem Werk, sehen in ihm zum Teil ein unerreichbares Vorbild.

Das ist für alle, die den Literatur-Teil ihrer Zeitung auch nur flüchtig überfliegen, nichts wirklich Neues. Genau genommen ist zu „Infinite Jest“ oder „Unendlicher Spaß“ (wie die gerade erschienene, ziemlich großartige deutsche Übersetzung von Ulrich Blumenbach heißt) inzwischen auch hierzulande so ziemlich alles gesagt: Wohl irgendwie ein Meisterwerk und Meilenstein der amerikanischen Literatur und gelesen haben muss man es auch. Die weitaus meisten Rezensionen enthalten darüber hinaus aber auch eine jeweils mehr oder weniger deutlich artikulierte Warnung. Tenor: Das Ding ist neben allen Vorzügen eine knapp 1600 Seiten lange Zumutung, der man sich eher als sportliche Herausforderung, denn als Roman nähern sollte. Passend dazu hat der deutsche Verlag Kritiker und Autoren (wohl als Werbemaßnahme) zu einer Art Wettlesen aufgerufen, das noch bis zum 1. Dezember 2009 läuft und als Weblog veröffentlich wird: 100 Tage „Unendlicher Spaß“! Sollte es wirklich einen Unbeteiligten geben, der sich nachweislich sowohl das Buch, als auch die Leseberichte von Leuten wie Stefan Beuse, Thomas Meinecke und Elmar Krekeler antut, so dürfte ihm ein Kiepenheuer-Ehrenpreis als Leser des Jahres sicher sein.

Das Alles trägt womöglich dazu bei, beim „normalen“ Literatur-Konsumenten eine gewisse Schwellenangst aufzubauen und aus dem Mammutwerk eine Art „Ulysses“ des neuen Jahrtausends zu machen: Ein Buch, von dem jeder schon mal gehört hat, das man vielleicht sogar zu Weihnachten geschenkt bekommt und sich als Statussymbol ins Regal stellt – das aber allenfalls von einem Bruchteil seiner Besitzer auch nur angelesen wird, weil es ja scheinbar für Profis gedacht ist. Das ist schade und eigentlich ein Missverständnis: Der Roman wäre es allemal wert, einer breiteren Leserschaft zugänglich gemacht zu werden und erfordert ganz sicher kein Diplom in Literatur-Wissenschaft. Im Gegenteil geht es darin – dieser Einschätzung liegt die Lektüre etwa der Hälfte des Buches zugrunde – nach einer etwas sperrigen Einleitung überraschend komisch, zuweilen zutiefst ergreifend und über weite Strecken höchst unterhaltsam zu.

Doch wie macht man Lust auf einen solchen Wälzer? Vielleicht, indem man als Einstieg auf einen anderen, wesentlich kürzeren Text des Autors verweist: Eine Rede, die Wallace im Jahr 2005 vor College-Studenten in Ohio hielt, und die seit seinem Tod im Internet kursiert. Im Kern geht es darin um Fragen der Sorte: Wie schafft man es, nicht jeden Tag aufs Neue am Dasein zu verzweifeln? Wie kann es gelingen, ein einigermaßen gutes Leben zu führen?

Für mich war diese Rede der Grund, unbedingt mehr von diesem Autor lesen zu wollen – und trotzdem fällt es mir einigermaßen schwer, zu erklären, was ihre Faszination ausmacht. Der Text ist relativ kurz und enthält keine neuen, übermäßig originellen Gedanken. Aber wenn man ihn ein paar Mal gelesen hat – und das tue ich seit damals regelmäßig – dann kommt man langsam hinter sein Geheimnis: Was darin geschrieben steht – was einem ganz unaufgeregt, fast beiläufig vorgesetzt wird, ist schlicht und einfach die mit zwingender Logik hergeleitete, reine Wahrheit – und die begegnet einem bei Fragen der Lebensführung eben nicht allzu oft. Zudem offenbart der Text eine überaus seltene Kombination aus analytischem Verstand und empathischer Beobachtungsgabe sowie – ich kann es nicht weniger pathetisch ausdrücken – berührerender Menschlichkeit.

Ich könnte jetzt noch ewig weiter machen: Versuchen zu erklären, dass all das, was bereits in dieser Miniatur angelegt ist, im Buch zur vollen Entfaltung kommt – und zwar auf eine völlig verrückte, absolut überraschende Weise. Ich könnte mit Zitaten um mich werfen, um Wallace’ unglaubliche Schreib-Begabung zu illustrieren. Doch statt weiter zu schwärmen, empfehle ich einfach nur: Rede lesen! Jetzt! Hier! Vielleicht wirkt es ja auch bei Euch.

Wer diesbezüglich ganz sicher gehen will, spielt dazu einfach die Musik eines anderen toten, traurigen, amerikanischen Genies:

Buchkritik folgt.

Jag har varit intresserad av positiv psykologi under lång tid, och uppenbarligen även andra läsare här på bloggen eftersom jag fick ett väldigt stort gensvar i förra inlägget där jag skriver om Martin Seligman. Under några veckor framöver kommer jag ta upp ett antal generella tankar kring positiv psykologi och visa på forskning, övningar och exempel på hur det kan användas rent praktiskt.

Bakgrund

Psykologisk forskning har (till stor del) sedan starten haft utgångspunkten att undersöka vad som är fel på människor och hur vi kan justera tillståndet så att det blir normalt. Det här gör man framgångsrikt med hjälp av manualer (t.ex DSM IV) där man kartlägger symptom, isolerar variabler och föreslår behandlingar. Forskningen har kommit långt och utvecklat både metoder och mediciner för att hjälpa männsikor som har sjukdomstillstånd och som behöver få hjälp att återställa sin psykologiska hälsa. Man skulle kunnna kalla den här inriktningen inom psykologi för “Forskning kring mentala sjukdomstillstånd”, d.v.s vi väntar med åtgärder tills något fel uppstår. Den här inställningen har visserligen gjort att många behandlingar mot psykolgiska sjukdomar har utvecklats, men också att man har “victimized“, dvs skapat och understött en offerroll hos många människor – kanske helt i onödan?

Vad är positiv psykologi?

Det finns naturligtvis inget motstycke som benämns negativ psykologi, men man kan säga att det är en motreaktion till den etablerade psykologin. De flesta människor kopplar säkert ihop begreppet psykologi med sjukdomar, sjukdomstillstånd, trauma från barndomen, mediciner och andra negativa begrepp. Positiv psykologi ersätter inte ordinär psykologisk forskning och kunskap, den kompletterar den och det är viktigt att komma ihåg. Inom positiv psykologi tar man snarare greppet och tittar på vad som fungerar, vilka styrkor individen har, vad som kan göra livet bättre och hur man kan ta tillvara på indivdens unika talanger. Precis som inom annan psykologisk forskning arbetar man med att kartlägga tillstånd och beteenden, men med tyndgpunkten på vad som får människor att fungera ännu bättre och strategier för att skapa mer lycka. Det handlar om hur psykologisk forskning kan bidra till att få normalt fungerande människor att må ännu bättre. Ni kanske känner igen tankegångarna från modern coachning?

Men vad är då ett lyckligt och bra liv?

Handlar det om Hollywoodlivet där alla ler bländvita leenden, åker fina bilar, har perfekt hår och åker rullskridskor hela dagarna? Nja, säger forskningen inom positiv psykologi – det kan ju vara ett lyckligt liv men det behöver inte vara det. Martin Seligman tar upp tre olika typer av “lyckliga liv” som är spännande och intressanta exempel och jag återkommer kommer till dem i ett inlägg snart.

Se till att du ger dig själv en härlig dag!

Jimmy/CoachCorner

En lycklig komule

Är du intresserad av coachning, psykologi och ledarskap? Häng med på CoachCorners nyhetsbrev som kommer ut med början i september! Driver du ett företag inom coachning, jobbcoachning eller ett utbildningsföretag som erbjuder utbildningar inom coachning? Anslut dig helt utan kostnad till CoachCorner och nå nya kunder genom oss!

Frederik Pohl produced some of the most enduring and relevant SF ever written. Pohl had worked for quite some time in advertising from which he gained a lifelong aversion to it blandishments and outright propaganda. This showed up in such short stories as ‘The Tunnel Under The World’, ‘The Midas Plague’, and ‘Happy Birthday, Dear Jesus’. Here’s an excerpt from Tunnel Under The World:

“They aren’t Russians and they aren’t Martians. These people are advertising men! Somehow — heaven knows how they did it — they’ve taken Tylerton over. They’ve got us, all of us, you and me and twenty or thirty thousand other people, right under their thumbs. Maybe they hypnotize us and maybe it’s something else; but however they do it, what happens is that they let us live a day at a time. They pour advertising into us the whole damned day long. And at the end of the day, they see what happened — and then they wash the day out of our minds and start again the next day with different advertising . . . Think of it, Swanson! They test every last detail before they spend a nickel on advertising!”

Tylerton appears to be an American town, and at the end the reader discovers that it is in fact a miniaturised, self-contained lab experiment, a testing ground containing tiny people. Well, a satire, certainly, as written back in 1954, but it is my duty to inform you that our glorious leaders and captains of industry now have at their command a similar, software-based application. Behold – the Sentient World Simulation.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/23/sentient_worlds/

Yes, indeedy, not content with extending the web-tentacles of ad-driven monoculture into every crevice of our waking existence, the avaricious minds in charge of corporations and the US Department of Defense feel that they need to know more. Which is why the company, Simulex Inc (it even sounds like something from a Pohl story!) has been working on the Sentient World Simulation, in close cooperation with its clients.

http://www.simulexinc.com/

I mean, once you`ve had a look at the products, give an eyeball to their clients list.

Oh yeah.

I’m writing below notes I’ve made from a bunch of different books about relationships for married and unmarried couples.  A few years ago, I got really into the subject as I went to couples counseling with my girlfriend at the time.  As I look at the notes, I guess I got a little obsessed about it.  I underlined the best parts of the books and then typed out those parts.  It is possible that, like Rodney Dangerfield said in “Back to School,” “The guy who underlined those books could have been an idiot.”

(There’s another good line from that movie that I like.  Rodney asks his professor out for a date.  She says, “I can’t tomorrow, I have class.”  He replies, “Ok, why don’t you go out with me when you have no class.”  But enough about a guy who gets more respect than I do…)

Anyway, about the notes from the books, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being as prepared as possible.  It’s fun to wing it sometimes, but you can’t hurt yourself with preparation.  I believe in having a great marriage, not an average one or a good one.  Anyway, I have the notes, so I thought I’d put them onto my blog in case anyone is interested in reading the Cliff Notes versions of these books.

I include Martin Seligman’s “Authentic Happiness,” even though it isn’t specifically a book for couples.  Another book, “Raising the Emotionally Intelligent Child,” by John Gottman, is under the Disabilities, Autism section of my blog.  I am a Gottman disciple.  I think that his books on relationships are great.  So here we go.

Martin Seligman, “Authentic Happiness”

• Authentic happiness comes from using your best strengths in work, love, play, and parenting.  Meaningful life adds using these strengths to forward knowledge, power, or goodness
• Take particular care with the endings of relationships because that’s in large part how they’re remembered.
• Doing kind and fun actions create a lot more satisfaction than doing things that are only fun.
• Happy people remember more of the good events than the bad.
• Happy people spend the least amount of time alone and most time socializing.
• If you do not allow yourself to express an emotion it will squeeze its way out, usually as an undesirable symptom.
• People often unravel as they ventilate in traditional talk therapy.  Cognitive therapy techniques, however, get people to change their thinking about the present and future.  Dwelling on anger produces more anger.
• Change your thoughts by rewriting your past – forgiving, forgetting bad memories.
• Good things and high accomplishments have surprisingly little power to raise happiness.
• Once a person is just barely comfortable, added money adds little or no happiness.
• All emotions about the past are driven by thinking and interpretation.
• Dwelling on anger produces more anger.

• Savoring the awareness of pleasure.
  • Sharing with others
  • Memory-building (photos)
  • Congratulation
  • Sharpening perceptions
  • Absorption

• Gratifying activities
  • Challenging and require skill
  • We concentrate
  • There are clear goals
  • We get immediate feedback
  • We have deep, effortless involvement
  • There is a sense of control
  • Sense of self vanishes
  • Time stops

• People often choose pleasure over gratification

• 6 universal virtues

1. Wisdom and knowledge
2. Courage
3. Love and humility
4. Justice
5. Temperance
6. Spirituality and transcendence

• You have to let yourself receive love in addition to giving it.
• While real income has risen 16%, happiness has decreased 30%
• Flow – positive emotion about the present without thinking about the future or the past.

Gottman’s harbingers of divorce as quoted by Seligman:

• Harsh startup in a disagreement
• Criticism rather than complaints
• Displays of contempt
• Hair-trigger defensiveness
• Lack of validation (particularly stonewalling)
• Negative body language

• Positive signs
  • Partings – before you leave, find out one thing that your spouse will do that day
  • Reunions – at the end of the day, have a low-stress reunion conversation
  • Affection – physical intimacy
  • At least one weekly date
  • Express admiration and appreciation at least once a day.

• When you have a hot button issue, mention it.   Use the gavel.
• Raising children – Make sure they know what they are being punished for.
• The good life consists in deriving happiness by using your signature strengths every day.  The meaningful life adds one more component:  using these same strengths to forward knowledge, power, or goodness.

John Gottman, “Why Marriages Succeed or Fail”

• Do you have affection for each other even during conflicts?
• Couples who initially had complaints about each other were among the most stable as the years went on.
• Research shows that marital satisfaction is linked to spouses’ physiological responses to one another.
• You must have at least five times as many positive as negative moments together.
• Validating – letting each other know your emotions are valid.  Repeating back what the other said.  “So you’re saying….is that right?”
• Pick your battles carefully.  “What do you suggest?”
• You can “agree to disagree.”
• Show interest.
• Be appreciative.
• Be empathetic.
• Be accepting.
• Joke around.

Four Horsemen

Criticism

• Attacking someone’s personality or character.  i.e., saying “always” or “never.”  However, complaining about a specific event is healthy.

Contempt

• The intention to insult and psychologically abuse your spouse.  Name calling, mockery, sneering, curling your upper lip.

Defensiveness

• Believing you are not to blame.  Making excuses.  Cross-complaining.  Yes butting.  Defending yourself.

Stonewalling

• Withdrawing during an argument – a very powerful act.  One spouse withdraws more, escalating the other’s demands.

• The above four horsemen often fall into two categories of thoughts – innocent victimhood or righteous indignation.
• Flooding – fight or flight.
• Use conciliatory gestures – “Please let me finish.” “We’re getting off the topic.”  “That hurt my feelings.”
• How to improve your relationship:
  • Calm yourself during flooding.  Don’t continue the discussion until you’ve calmed down.
  • Speak and listen non-defensively.  By dwelling on what is wrong, you miss out on what is right.  Recall specific happy memories.
  • Validate each other – “Go ahead, I’m listening,” “I can see why you’d feel that way,” “It makes sense that you’d feel that way,” or even “yeah.” Go far out of your way to validate.
  • Overlearn these principles.  Practice often.  Even when you don’t feel like it.
  • Set a limit of 15 minutes for disagreements.  Pick one major issue.
  • Sex – talk about what is good.
  • Since politeness vanishes early, make an extra effort to treat your spouse nicely.
• Happiest couples accentuate the strengths and the bright side, downplay faults, elevate shortcomings into strengths.  If the good things about your relationship are considered the norm while the bad parts are fleeting and situational, that’s good.
• Happiest couples are those who understand limitations.
• Go out of your way to validate.  Especially during hot-button issues – use gavel.
• Use “I” as much as possible rather than “you.”
• Nothing foretells a marriage’s future as accurately as how a couple retells their past.  A negative spin on your past is a very bad sign.  Telling how you met.  Remembering details are good.  It’s best if you glorify your past struggles.  You can make an effort by changing the negatives to positives.
• Mismatches in marital style aren’t good.

John Gottman, “The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work”

• Emotional intelligence is a predictor of a child’s success later in life.
• Most happy couples do not do active listening when they’re upset. (different than Hendrix)
• There’s a lot of affection and laughter as they hash this out.
• The key to a happy marriage is finding someone with whom you mesh.
• Happy spouses do not keep tabs on whether a good deed is payback.
• No one style of resolving conflict is best – as long as both people have the same style.
• Most affairs are about seeking friendship, support, understanding, respect, caring, and concern – feeling loved and appreciated.
• The determining factor for both men and women in whether they feel satisfied with sex, romance, and passion is the quality of their friendship.
• Keys to a successful marriage

-      Expressing little things day in and day out

-      Talk on the phone during the day.  Ask about things like doctor’s appointments.

-      Example – he’s not religious, but he goes to church each Sunday with her because it’s important to her.

-      They positively beam when discussing the life they plan to build.

• Most marital arguments cannot be resolved. No sense in fighting over differences.

Predictors of Divorce

1. Harsh startup. 96% of the time you can predict the outcome of a conversation by its beginning.

2. Four Horsemen

Criticism instead of complaints.

Contempt (conveys disgust)

-      Sarcasm

-      Cynicism

-      Name-calling

-      Eye-rolling

-      Sneering

-      Mockery

-      Hostile humor

-      Belligerence contains a threat or provocation.

Defensiveness

-      Blaming your spouse

Stonewalling

3. Flooding – you feel severe emotional distress when dealing with your spouse.  Your body perceives the situation as dangerous.  Fight or flight.

4.  Body Language – The more flooding, the harder it is to respond to repair.

5.  Failed Repair Attempts – The failure of repair attempts is an accurate marker for an unhappy future.  You can even be high on the four horsemen and still have a good marriage if there are repair attempts.

Quality of the friendship is key.

6. Bad Memories

• Couples who have a negative view of their spouse often rewrite the past.
• In a happy marriage, couples tend to look back on their early days fondly.  They glorify the struggles they’ve been through.
• When you find the past difficult to remember – bad sign.

***

• Lack of knowledge about each other is bad.  You need to know what the other person likes, dislikes, fears and loves.
• Emotionally intelligent couples are intimately familiar with each other’s world.  They remember the major events in each other’s history, and they keep updating their information as the facts and feelings of their spouse’s world change.
• Know each other’s deepest longings, beliefs, and fears.
• Getting to know each other shouldn’t be a chore.
• At least once a week just go out and talk.
• Talk about your triumphs and strivings, the difficult events you’ve gone through
• Fondness and admiration are two of the most important elements in a marriage.  They are antidotes for contempt.
• How you view your past.  If you put a positive spin on your history, that’s good.
• Lots of chit chat means you are connecting.
• There is deep drama in the little moments.  It’s important to turn toward each other every day.  Just remember you shouldn’t take your every day interactions for granted.
• Asking each other about your day helps relieve stress from other areas that can spill over.  Talk about what is on your mind outside your marriage.
• You have to let her know that you fully empathize with her problem.
• Ask her to point out instances in which you are being controlling.
• You don’t have to resolve all your conflicts.  You can agree to disagree.
• Share with each other the personal dreams of your life.
  • Make sure your startup is soft and not harsh
  • Look for signs of flooding
  • Be more tolerant of each other’s perfections

John Gottman, “The Relationship Cure”

• People headed for divorce disregarded their spouse’s bids for connection most of the time.
• Happily married people engaged each other as many as 100 times in 10 minutes.
• Humor and affection during a conflict is invaluable.
• The probability that a person will attempt to re-bid once an initial bid has been rejected is close to zero.
• Heart to heart exchanges are great.
• Playfulness is great for relationships.
• When you look for negativity you find it.
• Being familiar with the details of each other’s lives can help you to have happier, more stable relationships.
• The first three minutes of a conversation predict the rest.
• Say “I” instead of “you.”
• Don’t dismiss other people’s emotions.
• 55% of people rely on facial expressions and other body language; 38% rely on tone of voice and pace of speech; only 7% rely on the spoken word.
• 70% of marital conflicts never go away.  So, how you handle conflicts is huge, and what you disagree on early, you will probably still disagree on late.
• Digging into each other’s hidden agendas provides a great opportunity for intimacy.
• Talk about your life dreams.
• Make list of absolute must haves, then another list of more flexible requirements.

Charlotte Kasl, “If the Buddha Dated”

• Never try to control another person.
• Don’t put someone on a pedestal, and don’t set them below you.
• Confront everything inside that kindles fear or anxiety.  Walk right into your fears, sit down, talk to them, until they become our friends.  You can’t release what you won’t grasp or feel.
• Live in the moment and appreciate what is life. 
• Don’t grasp for security or predictability.
• Emphasis on service, silence, and simplicity.
• Never abandon yourself by compromising your integrity or discounting your intuition.
• Gamble everything for love (Rumi).  This means you.  Don’t wait any longer.  Dive in the ocean.
• Don’t live an isolated life.
• Be honest about your faults and mistakes.
• Clear out clutter. 
• Resolving old hurts and expressing our gratitude releases tension and allows our energy to flow freely.
• Four tips:
  • Stay tuned into the level of connection
  • Notice the flow of give and take
  • Trust yourself and your instincts
  • Have fun and remember it’s all a passing show

• As you attune to a higher vibration you will more quickly see when there is potential.
• If you make a commitment, you take this person exactly as they are.  You agree to the whole package the way it is.
• The happiest people are the ones dedicated to helping relieve suffering.

Charlotte Kasl, “If the Buddha Married”

• One step toward experiencing loving – follow your heart and give yourself fully to what you feel called to do.
• Accept impermanence.
• Speak simply and clearly from the heart.
• Don’t hold back. Hiding anger sets off explosions.  Stockpiling anger is one of the most harmful things we can do to ourselves and others.
• Counterfeit conflicts stem from hardwired nervous system responses to previous experiences.  When we yell at our spouse for being late, it might be a displaced scream at a parent who was unreliable.
• Anything that reminds us of a childhood experience can cause “flooding.”  Ask yourself, “What are we really arguing about?”
• Voice your appreciation.
• There shouldn’t be the threat of someone leaving.

Neil Clark Warren, “Finding the Love of Your Life”

• Your choice of whom to marry is more crucial than everything else you will do to make your marriage succeed.
• Spend hours talking about the nitty-gritty aspects of life.
• Intimacy – sharing deepest thoughts, feelings, dreams, fears, and joys.

John Gray, “Mars and Venus in Love”

• Voice your appreciation.
• You let go of your frustrations by talking about them.
• Sit down and ask how your day went.  Little things mean a lot.  For a woman to talk about her day helps her figure out what’s bothering her.  Don’t try to fix her problems, just listen.
• Do the little things – taking out the trash, dishes, etc.
• Write love letters to each other.
• It’s not good when you have nothing to report from your day.
• You need to be best friends as well.

Phil McGraw, “Relationship Rescue”

• Research shows that 70% of couples who attend counseling are worse or no better after one year.
• Set aside time each day to work on things.
• Applying logic to relationships doesn’t always work.
• Don’t let arguments get too personal. 
• You can agree to disagree. 
• You have to achieve emotional closure at the end of an argument.  Don’t gunny sack your emotions. 
• Good sex isn’t everything, but without it you have no chance.
• Instead of waiting for your spouse to change, you can and will serve yourself much better by looking at yourself instead of your spouse. 
• You are not a child anymore.  You have the chance to choose what you think, feel and do.  You cannot use events as excuses. 
• Competition, score keeping is bad.
• Bad signs: 

-      You make concessions in a negotiating fashion rather than offering them as a gift of support. 

-      You don’t do things to support your partner without making sure that she knows it, including why it created an imposition on you. 

-      You’re a fault finder, telling your partner what she should do.

-      You think everything has to be done your way.  You feel justified in everything you do.

-      Being self-righteous – same as keeping yourself from looking at your faults.

-      You purposely attach your spouse’s vulnerable areas.

-      You seem to thrive on the role of the victim. 

-      Being passive-aggressive, being a controller underhandedly.

-      You keep in the memory bank the problems with your spouse.

-      You interpret many statements and actions of your spouse negatively, based on little or no evidence. 

-      You put the relationship on the line with every problem, with ultimatums.

-      You use threats to manipulate your spouse. 

• The spirit and attitude with which you do things is at least as important as your actual actions. 
• You should not be afraid of adopting new thoughts and behaviors.
• You need to face your fears.  Monsters live in the dark.
• You need to let her know that you will be a safe, loving place for her to fall onto.
• Spend a lot of time focusing on things to admire instead of criticize.
• Better to be happy than right.  The harder you fight to win, the bigger you lose.
• Make your needs known, and discover the needs of your spouse.
• You must really know your spouse from the inside out.
• Make it your goal to understand more about your spouse than you’ve ever known.
• Take a quiz about your spouse (p. 171).

Harville Hendrix, “Getting the Love You Want” (non-Imago related stuff)

• The old brain has no sense of linear time.  Today, tomorrow, and yesterday do not exist; everything that was, still is.  That’s why feelings sometimes seem alarmingly out of proportion to the events that triggered them.
• During intimacy, you aren’t judging each other, or interpreting what your spouse is saying, or being self-absorbed.
• Don’t use global words like “always” or “never.”
• As romantic love fades, the power struggle begins.  Couples begin to
  • Stir up each other’s repressed behaviors and feelings.
  • Reinjure each other’s childhood wounds.
  • Project their own negative traits onto each other.
• You have to take responsibility for communicating your needs and desires to your spouse.
• Become more intentional in your interactions.
• Issues take a while to come to the surface.  So that is why counseling takes a while.
• You need to throw in a curve once in a while.
• Isolaters unwittingly recreate the struggle of their childhood by marrying fusers, who have an unsatisfied need for intimacy.
• You have to understand the reasons behind behaviors to grow.
• Complaints about your spouse are often descriptions of parts of yourself.
• Most of your spouse’s criticisms of you have some basis in reality.
• There is tremendous satisfaction in just being heard.
• Call once a day just to chat.
• Any suggestion of an obligation or expectation will reduce the exercise to a bargain.
• One spouse’s greatest desire is often matched by the other spouse’s greatest resistance.
• When you make someone else happy, a part of the unconscious mind interprets the caring behavior as self-directed.  Love of the self is achieved through love of the other.
• Define what you want, ask, and reciprocate.
• Adaptations that serve useful purposes in childhood drain the life from marriage.
• The person who unleashes the anger feels equally assaulted, because on a deep level the old brain perceives all action as inner-directed.
• The more one attacks, the more one retreats, the more one retreats, the more the other feels abandoned.
• In times of stress, you retreat to old patterns.
• Instead of fighting, ask for what you want.
• What you are doing for your spouse is what you are doing for yourself.
• Love keeps no record of wrongs.
• People who perceived their spouses to be superior to them felt guilty and insecure.  People who perceived their spouses to be inferior to them reported feelings of anger.  When people perceived themselves to be equals, their relationships were relatively conflict-free and stable.

In the past researchers focused on negative thought patterns and depression and now researchers like Martin Seligman, Tal Ben Shahar, Sonja Lyubomirsky and Gretchen Rubin are focusing on positive thinking.

When a negative thought enters your mind what do you do with it?  Do you dwell on it as if it were true?   Take an example from your past, a time when a negative thought just turned over and over in your mind.   What was that thought?  

Evaluate the thought through the prism of these four questions to see if the thought is true.

1. Is the thought true?
2. Can you absolutely know that it is true?
3. How do you feel when you have that thought?
4. Who would you be or what would you feel if it you didn’t have that thought?

Now, reverse the thought and change it to its opposite.

1. Is the thought false?
2. Can you absolutely know that it is false?
3. How do you feel when you have that thought?
4. What would you be or what would you feel if you did something with this thought?

Which scenario is more valid, the positive thought or the negative thought?   Which thought has the possibility of creating a better mood and better outcome?

Take time to think about the positive outcomes and your life will become more positive as a result.

Inlägget om Martin Seligman och teorierna kring inlärd hjälplöshet verkar ha intresserat många läsare, det är ett av de mest läsa inläggen på den här bloggen. Jag lovar att återkomma lite mer kring begreppet inlärd hjälplöshet snart. Det skulle vara intressant att veta vilka tankar och erfarenheter ni har av det, både inom coachningsessioner men även i övriga situationer (kanske till och med från ert eget liv?)

Trevlig söndagskväll

CoachCorner /Jimmy