My reaction was the opposite: in a world gone mad, the only sane people are (some of) the “crazy” ones.

I hadn’t intended on seeing the film; I wasn’t aware it existed until the day before it screened. Indeed, while I’ve been to Sundance many times, this year, I hadn’t planned on attending; for entirely coincidental reasons, I found myself in Park City during the first week of the festival. Having some free time on Tuesday evening, and tickets procured by others, did I find myself stumbling into The Rebel in the Rye (starring Nicholas Hoult, Kevin Spacey, and Sarah Paulsen; written and directed by Danny Strong).

In a world gone mad, the only sane people are the “crazy” ones.

The Artist Isn’t Their Art

In truth, accidentally is the only way I could have seen it; normally, this is the sort of movie I avoid. I prefer not to read books or watch films about real-life writers, filmmakers, or visual artists. The more I appreciate their artistic work, the less I want to know about their personal lives or the hidden stories behind their achievements. Seldom does knowing more about the foibles and struggles of the artists enhance my experience of their creations.

One reason for this, of course, is that most artists — most people — are profoundly flawed human beings. It’s easy to bog down in the minutiae of their imperfections. I prefer to experience their work as a reflection of the highest and best parts of themselves: that (sometimes small) light within them reaching for transcendence. Their creative output, and its impact on me, should speak for, and be complete in, itself. (Of course, there are exceptions; there are always exceptions: situations when knowing something about the creator is of paramount importance.)

Salinger’s Journey to Hell—on Earth and Inside Himself

Which is to say: prior to viewing this movie, I knew little about J.D. Salinger’s life. Like most creatives, he was driven by a multitude of (sometimes conflicting) desires: to create, to earn a living, to become famous, to be loved. He was plagued by doubt, heartbreak, fear, and (what today we would call) posttraumatic stress disorder, the sad remnant of his time as a soldier during World War II, where he participated in combat during D-Day, the Battle of the Bulge, and the Battle of Hürtgen Forest.

Salinger began The Catcher in the Rye prior to combat but didn’t finish it until years after returning from the war. In between, he suffered severe writer’s block, for which he eventually stumbled into the counsel of Swami Nikhilananda, founder of the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center of New York and proponent of the Indian spiritual philosophy of Vedanta. Nikhilananda taught Salinger to meditate, find peace of mind, rediscover the source of his joy, and return to writing. It seems unlikely that The Catcher in the Rye — or any of his subsequent work — would have been finished without the Swami’s assistance. (Later, too, it’s worth noting that Salinger’s daughter, Margaret, says that Salinger and his wife, Claire, began practicing the Kriya Yoga of Paramhansa Yogananda, something I practice myself.)

In itself, this is only mildly interesting. The real revelation is how Salinger’s growing spiritual insight led him to the decision to cease publishing his work. To be clear: he didn’t stop writing, only publishing. According to the film, from the point in the early 60’s when he announced he no longer intended to publish until his death in 2010, Salinger continued to write almost every day. It’s incredible to imagine how he sustained this intensive literary effort for nearly fifty years; all without any interest in letting the world read his output. Supposedly, there is a trove of completed works — novels and short stories — that may or may not ever see the light of day.

So…Crazy, Right?

Twice, once during the credits (the film received a rare standing ovation), and once as we shuffled from the theater, I overheard conversations in which it was proffered that because Salinger stopped publishing at the peak of his fame, he was, obviously, crazy.

I understand their reasoning: Salinger was so sought after that his publishers would gladly have printed anything he submitted. Indeed, his two post-Catcher novels, neither of which was especially well received by critics, both shot to the top of the bestseller lists. There is no doubt that Jerry Salinger forfeited millions of dollars (when that was real money) and the concomitant opportunities to burnish his fame and bask in public adoration. What’s crazier than that?

A Different Perspective

I thought his decision made perfect sense.

Whatever other foibles and failings Salinger (undoubtedly) had, this was not one of them. If anything, this indicates that he was the embodiment of sanity, or at least, was reaching for it.

He wasn’t being capricious; behind the decision stood a profound realization: that his meaning and joy came from the creative process itself, and not the fruits of his labors. He understood that if he truly enjoyed writing then he didn’t need the accompanying recognition, (more) money, approval from strangers, or an audience of any sort. You might call it insane; I call it beautiful.

Which isn’t to say that what is right for him is right for everyone. For starters, on a practical level, Salinger could write without publishing in part because he had already achieved enormous success; the sort of rare attainment that frees one from all sorts of pressures: financial, the need to prove oneself, to make an impact. Still, let us not make light of the magnitude of his sacrifice: it’s often more difficult to surrender that which we have attained than to abandon what we never possessed.

In Salinger’s case, however, it was a reasonable step: he saw the limited value of money, fame, and approval precisely because he had experienced them enough to know their essential vacuousness.

An Internal Not External Model

Let’s get a few things clear. First, while I don’t think that Salinger was crazy for ceasing to publish his works, or turning his back on wealth and fame, that doesn’t mean he was a saint. By many accounts, he was an asshole to those around him, especially his romantic partners. And while not a pedophile, he certainly liked young women, even when he was an old man. Let’s face it, even though his sexual partners were all over eighteen years of age, that’s creepy; doubly so when you read the details of how he treated them.

Second, Salinger’s decision to turn his back on our usual pursuits was a personal choice, the one right him: his life, his goals, and his spiritual needs. The lesson isn’t that we should mimic Salinger’s outer actions; it’s to reflect on his inward decisions. Each of our lives has its unique characteristics and circumstances. It’s the consciousness behind his choices that are worthy of contemplation; how we apply the essential insight to our own lives is up to each of us to decide for ourselves.

The lesson isn’t that we should mimic Salinger’s outer actions; it’s to reflect on his inward decisions.

Albert Einstein (purportedly) said, “A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?”

It’s an important query, one that everyone who strives for self-awareness should periodically ask. Salinger was an unusual man, and not merely quirky but obviously flawed in important ways. But imperfection isn’t insanity.

As I walked out of Rebel in the Rye, and heard people question his sanity, my only thought was, “We should all be so crazy.”

Our world – including, perhaps especially but not exclusively, the United States – appears to have taken a dark and chaotic turn. This has been building for some time, though only now bursting into full view. Contrary to the beliefs among some, this is neither an isolated incident nor is one particular group of people particularly responsible. The truth is: we are all equally to blame.

Politics isn't the primary culprit. Both good and bad – constructive and destructive – people exist across the socio-religious-political spectrum. Our current predicament transcends politics and gives lie to problems rooted deep within our consciousness. What is bubbling to the surface is the accumulated fruit of many wrong turns in our understanding, from which few of us are exempt, including many of those who believe themselves to be on the "right side" of the current issues and turmoil.

When we scrape past the superficial differences in belief, there exists a nearly universally agreed upon and alarmingly pernicious view of ourselves and world, one that is continually reinforced and even celebrated by a wide swath of humanity: our reflexive tendency toward tribalism and group identification.

Everywhere we look and to almost every person we speak, we discover that we've created and assigned ourselves to a bewildering array of groups; so very many, I couldn't begin to list them all. There are the big, obvious ones of course: race, religion, nationality, political beliefs, socioeconomic class, gender, education, region, and sexual identity. But also the endless number of smaller ones: our jobs, hobbies, cultural preferences, neighborhoods, clothing, affinities, personality types, bodily constitutions, lifestyles, and so forth. The list of group slicing, dicing, joining, and jostling is, for all practical purposes, infinite. We thick slice and thin slice ourselves into so many groups that most people would struggle to list all of the groups with which they've chosen to identify at one time or another.

And not only do we ascribe ourselves to a panoply of affinity groups, we unconsciously assign everyone we meet, read, or hear to them as well, often assuming – indeed, choosing – their affiliations for them, without knowing anything about them personally. Then, of course, we proceed to judge and/or interact with them on this basis.

None of this is benign.

When we assign ourselves to groups and sub-groups of humanity and concomitantly appoint every individual we encounter to a group – when we fashion our identities around our group affiliations – we create the underlying condition that leads to misunderstanding, devaluation, hatred, and violence.

The moment we identify with a group(s), anyone not in our group becomes "The Other" or "Not us." And that's when the darkness creeps in: "The Other" is easy to dehumanize: they aren't like us; they don't think, or feel, or behave like us; they are inferior in some fashion; or, if we are feeling magnanimous, we will concede that "they" are equal to us, but intrinsically and forever separate; and in that eternal separateness, they threaten our existence – or, inevitably, will at some point, since eternity is enough time that anything will eventually happen; and as such, we become justified in our distrust, fear, and ever-harsher treatment.

And, no, I don't care how mild or neutral you think claim your group attachments are; the damage wrought is intrinsic to the creation of and affiliation with any group. Don't believe me? Do a quick search for how many people are killed over their allegiances to a football team, or the outcome of a single, meaningless game.

For too many of us, our identity is inextricably bound – created – by a long list of group affiliations. Let me ask you right now: who are you? Stop and think about it. Or write down a list.

How many groups just popped into your mind? Did you just define yourself by your race, religion, nationality, gender, sexuality, job, parenting status, hobbies, economic class, or some other affiliation? I'll bet you did. Can you even think of a way of expressing who you are without referencing a group? I'll bet not. Try it, right now. I'll bet that even if you start off okay, it won't take long for a group to slide on through.

Too many of us see ourselves as members of an overlapping series of groups. Our self-identity is nothing more than the central field in a Venn diagram, forever (and conveniently) shifting prominence and allegiance based on our needs of the moment.

Here's the radical truth: you are none of these things. Not on your deepest and highest level.

At best, our list of group of affiliations is a superficial and meaningless way of defining ourselves. But most of the time, it's much worse than trivial, it's deleterious to humanity and a threat to our universe: when we craft our identities through the lens of group membership, we create the conditions and excuses that engender anger, fear, hatred, and – ultimately, inevitably – bring evil into our world.

I know what some will say: tribal or group affinity is "natural." It's always been this way. It's part of the order of things. It's innocent – or even good. Groups provide protection. They allow us to live in security and comfort with like-minded folks. Groups may even help us recover or bolster our pride and self-worth.

But the more we examine it, the more we discover this is the wrong way to achieve these (sometimes) noble goals. Think about it: from whom does your group need protection? Other groups, of course! Groups that we perceive – sometimes correctly – as threats. So we band together in groups of our own to fight off the threat of another group. And why do we need to bolster our self-worth? Usually because some other group has belittled or repressed us!  So we decide to turn the tables by embracing our group and diligently working to counter the negative perceptions of our group by emphasizing all that is positive about it.

The more we succumb to group consciousness, the more inevitable it becomes that at some point our group will be pitted against another. This isn't the only danger, however. Perhaps worse: the more we emphasize our group affinities, the more we lose our individual selves. Our personal selves become subsumed by the broad and impersonal nature of our group.

Retreating into tribal consciousness not only fails to resolve the underlying problem, it further entrenches it. Yes, it's true, all sorts of ignorant, even pernicious, groups roam the Earth. But the solution isn't to create more groups or retreat into the safe confines of our group(s), it's to dismantle the whole damn apparatus. Anything less and we've done nothing but perpetuate the problem.

Here is the truth that will set us free: we are unique individuals and we are all in this together; we are one or everyone – and nothing in between.

Those are the only two "groups" that truly exist; and their truth is simultaneous. We are individuals, unique and original in every way. There is no broad list of groups that can define or contain us. The world has never seen anything like you before, nor will it again. Concurrently, all seven billion of us – and, really, that's a gross understatement, as it's not just humanity but all creatures and matter throughout the universe – are whole and indistinguishable; interlinked, interdependent, and united as one.

It's important that we don't see ourselves exclusively as unique individuals or a united humanity. We must see these two poles as aspects of the same reality. Pure individualism in philosophical isolation leads to a callous self-centeredness that too easily devolves into sociopathy and may leave us prone to feelings of isolation, angst, and ennui. And if we see ourselves solely as tiny, insignificant and meaningless dots in the infinite fabric of the universe, it becomes too easy to ignore our uniqueness and devalue our individual lives. Each is the complement and antidote to the other, the perfect balance through which humanity will thrive.

Peace, harmony, joy, and love: these come only when we transcend the artificial boundaries that we've imposed on ourselves.

The silver lining of our current dark predicament: instability leads to opportunity. It's time to take a good, long look at how we've come to this place and get serious about lasting solutions. We cannot reduce hatred and resolve conflict by continually reinforcing our group identifications, no matter how noble we believe those groups to be. Instead of recommitting ourselves to the widespread and tragically mistaken framework that has brought us to the brink of destruction, we can seize the opportunity to expand our understanding and rid ourselves of the tribal consciousness that lies at the root of so many of our problems.

Know and embrace this, now and forever: we are one and everyone – and never anything in between.

This in turn provoked a response from Miley in which she mocked Sinead's admitted history of mental illness, among other insults. Which in turn deeply upset and offended Sinead, who has now (as of this post) written three additional open letters to Miley. 

Sinead of course has a well-known history of expressing controversial opinions and behaviors, the reasons for which are not always clear. Believe it or not, there are actually some interesting psychological and spiritual issues lurking beneath the surface of this seemingly ridiculous war between pop musicians. To put it succinctly: does Sinead have a strong point or is this just one more desperate plea for relevancy on behalf of a pop star who is no longer popular? Or perhaps we might be looking at two pop stars at different life stages, both expressing various forms of insecurity and mental illness?

Let me begin by stating what's probably obvious: I do not, nor have I ever listened to the music of either. Nor have a seen an episode of Hannah Montana, nor even listened to the music of Miley's famous country-music dad. In short, I have no emotional or artistic dog in this fight.

Some of what Sinead writes is obviously correct. While I have no idea the exact ratio of white males in control of record companies these days, the broader observation that the executives in charge of the music labels (be they male, female, transgender, white, Asian, African-American, Latino, or Martian) almost certainly don't care much about Miley in any personal sense. This has nothing to do with race or gender so much as economic class and position. Music industry executives are no different than the executives in many industries; they care mostly about their own careers and the profits they can generate for their shareholders. This hardly qualifies as breaking news. Frankly i'd be surprised if Miley wasn't already well-aware of this. After all, her dad has been in the industry for decades. She grew up in Beverly Hills. She is hardly a wide-eyed innocent recently off the bus from Kansas. In fact, I suspect that Miley probably knows more about how the industry works than Sinead, who has always been somewhat of an outsider.

Yes, it's true that Miley has gone a bit of a naked streak. Which raises the very real issue of why women so often feel pressured to sexualize themselves in order to advance in their field, whatever that may be. It's a sad state of things that's hardly confined to the music biz. This is something to be genuinely watchful and concerned about across all facets of society. However, in this particular case, I think Sinead might be misreading Miley's motivation. I suspect this isn't so much about a young woman feeling guided or pressured into sexually exploiting herself in order to advance her short-term career. Then what is it about?

To answer, it's essential to understand Miley's age and background. She's 20 years old. Which is to say: college aged. What did you do during your college years? If you're anything like me or most of the people I knew, this is the age that young adults make a conscious break from their teen selves. These are years of exploration, of learning about oneself, of breaking away from our families, from the person we were during our teen years, and to experiment with new versions of ourselves in the healthy attempt to figure out who we are, what we want to do, what's important to us. This may be doubly the case when one has spent their tween and teen years literally growing up on television and playing a TV character whose personality was morphed into our own. This is why Miley recently declared that "Hannah Montana was murdered." 

Miley is in the process of finding her authentic self. Is the current emphasis she's placing on her body and sexuality her final self? Probably not. (Hopefully not.) But it is an obvious starting place, especially for a young woman who's rise to fame was based on playing a carefully non-sexualized star operating within the Disney kid-oriented, wholesome family entertainment marketing juggernaut. There's hardly anything unique happening here--and it has nothing to do with fame or pop culture. Many (most?) of the college-aged kids I knew thought about and explored their sexuality, at least to some degree. 

We have to see people within the context of their directional unfoldment as human beings. We're all on a journey to find our true selves. The Miley we see now is surely not the Miley of 30 or 40 or 60 years old. What's really happening here is that Miley has unofficially begun her conscious march towards understanding herself, her place in the world, the nature of happiness, the purpose of her life, and even how she fits into the very fabric of the Universe itself. This is the universal quest that we all embark upon, though not always consciously.

The one area in which Miley should be taken to task: dismissing Sinead by mocking her history of mental illness. She could've simply not responded at all; goodness knows, many of her fans and the media would've done it for her. Or she could've released a brief, respectful, and utterly plain reply, the sort that politicians and athletes resort to on a regular basis. However she proceeded, a more thoughtful and kind response would have been preferable. Which is another lesson for us all: people will criticize you -- often unfairly. The challenge is not to stoop to their level in response but rise above it. Miley's failure here is a bigger issue than her sexual exploits. Yet even here, lenience is required. She's quite young, after all. I can remember doing and saying hundreds of stupid things at that age, thank goodness for me they weren't all publicly broadcasted across the world. The things I said at that age make Miley look like an enlightened saint in comparison.

The mistake that Sinead made first then Miley in response-- and more to the point, that we all tend to make -- is to make assumptions and judge others at a distance. We look at their words, actions, and sometimes entire being through the lens of ourselves; where we are at in our lives, our priorities, our level of understanding, our values and not through theirs. While there is most certainly genuine right and wrong, good and evil, in this world, much too often we mistake what merely would have been our particular choices, germane to only ourselves, for universal truths that must be rigorously applied to others, even when we don't truly know them in the slightest. 

The trick is to replace judgment with compassion, mean-spiritedness with kindness, and the specific with the universal. When we can do this, not only do we avoid needless confrontation, but we ourselves gain a measure of inner peace, happiness, and even wisdom. 

Who would've thunk so much could be learned from Miley Cyrus?

Literary fiction is "serious" literature -- think everything from Dostoyevsky to Diaz -- as opposed to the majority of mainstream spy thrillers, romances, legal dramas, mysteries and the like that many of use for light reading. Presumably, one of the key differences between light and literary fiction is that light reading is not only more plot-driven, relegating character development to second-tier status, but also that the characters themselves are generally shallower, more two-dimensional in their presentation. They tend to reflect expected stereotypes that we've come to expect and have already encountered. In contrast, literary fiction -- with it's nuance, subtly, and complexity -- stimulates our own minds and imaginations as well as gives us newfound insight into the minds of others. We are exposed to new perspectives, behaviors, and understandings of our world and the people who inhabit it.

What literary fiction does then, at least according to this study, is allow us inside the minds of others, helping us understand complex mental states that aren't otherwise familiar. Which is another way of saying: it broadens our understanding of and empathy for other human beings. This is important for a number of reasons. Numerous other studies (scroll down to Chapter 17: Found in Sixty Seconds) have shown that empathy improves our physical health, makes us kinder people, reduces anxiety, lessens negative emotions, and generally makes us happier. Just as importantly, empathy is what makes society in general a better place. The more empathetic we are and the more people that are empathetic, the better and more advanced society as a whole becomes.

Of course, it's not just literary fiction that improves our empathy. The authors of the study themselves theorize that many types of art are likely to have similar effects. So, too, does travel to other places and cultures. Most importantly of all, empathy and compassion can be directly practiced and learned, even without external influences, as I elucidate and teach in The Bliss Experiment.

Still, reading literary fiction is indisputably important for our growth. My own spiritual teacher, Paramhansa Yogananda, perhaps in defiance of the typical image of the wise "guru" on the hill who poo-poos all things of the world, actually recommended that everyone read at least a little bit every day-- and not solely "spiritual" material either. Yogananda recognized that reading helps expands and uplifts our understanding and consciousness. 

Just as vitally, it's important to note that this study found positive results accrued in just a few minutes. So you needn't force yourself to hunker down with War and Peace for three hours per day to see benefit (though there's nothing wrong with it if you do!). In fact, it turns also turns out that you don't even have to particularly enjoy the literary fiction, either! The empathetic benefits still accrue, even if you feel like you're slogging through it.

So the next time you're wondering what good is High Art, your children are grumbling about their English class assignments, or you find yourself stuck with someone droning on about the injustices and overisghts of year's Man Booker short-list, remember that there just might be something to this reading stuff after all. If you happen to have a few spare minutes here and there, don't hesitate to pick up that fine piece of literature you've always wanted to read (or at least thought you should try). In all scientific seriousness, it will change your life.

It's not uncommon to think that buying something shiny and new will boost our positive feelings; we've all tried out that theory at one time or another. The bad news is that not only can't we purchase our way to happiness, it turns out that the more we try, the less likely we are to have appropriate levels of self-esteem and the more prone we are to anxiety, stress, and the negative psychic impacts of traumatic events.

At root here is the tendency to look to physical goods as a buffer for our anxiety, threats to our security, and above all our sense of mortality. The materialistic perspective seduces us into believing that these objects can either distract us or perhaps that in some way their physicality can even act as an anchor in an uncertain world. We also hope that objects might be able to confer upon us a status we lack without them. Of course, if we think about it, when we seek esteem through material objects, we're revealing that we in fact don't feel particularly good about ourselves intrinsically speaking. We are saying we need these inanimate things to fill a missing hole inside us. 

Perhaps this would be all well and good if mere things could actually do this for us but they simply cannot. Only we -- in our heart, mind, and soul -- can truly fill ourselves, complete ourselves, make ourselves happy and our lives rich with meaning. The more we outsource this onto things outside ourselves, the more insecure, not less, we become. For when our happiness is dependent on external things, we continually run the risk that that these objects will be taken away from us. We might lose our jobs, spend all our money, lose it in a divorce, or have it taken away by illnesses, economic depression, terrorist attacks, changes in governmental policies, or crumbling social stability. Not to mention, all objects have wear and tear on them, they immediately begin degrading from the day we acquire them; cars break down, clothes wear out or become unfashionable, electronics become obsolete. The more we depend on these things for our happiness, the more we put ourselves on an unending treadmill.

One of the key findings of this study is that materialistic people use shopping as a way to cope with fear of death. Which is of course a strategy doomed to failure. After all, how can a bunch of shiny objects really help us cope with our mortality? They solve no existential problem, offer no insight into our human condition, provide us with no sense of interconnectedness, social support, love, or meaning. The best they can do is temporarily distract us…but only until the novelty of the purchase wears off. And even then, as we play with our new toy, at some level we remain indelibly aware that our deepest needs and concerns haven't been addressed, only temporarily shunted aside.

In times of crisis -- personnel or societal -- there is only one lasting solution. We must begin by getting to know ourselves and confronting that inside us which we fear or do not like. Only we can fill ourselves can fill our existential gap. No object can do that for us. The good news is that it can be done, relatively quickly and easily if we know how.

So the next time you're feeling anxious or unhappy, instead of heading online or to the mall, use that time to try out something more effective. Take internal stock, learn to turnaround your negative feelings, make a positive connection with another person, serve humanity in some way, or practice affirmations, prayer, or meditation. There's lots of things you can do...and the best news of all is none of them require a large bank account or taking on mounds of debt.

Question from a reader:

I have a question about the section in your book on forgiveness. I really like, no love, that part but want to know how to apply it right. After we forgive someone, do we have to resume a relationship with that person again? Also, how do we know if we've really forgiven that person?

Sean's Answer:

Alas, there are no hard and fast rules about how one "ought" to proceed after forgiving another. It's highly situation dependent. Factors such as the nature of the offense, the type of your relationship, and you're inner state of mind are all critical factors.

For example: in the book, I tell the story of a woman who learned to forgive a childhood acquaintance who sexually assaulted her.

 By no means would it be appropriate for her to have any kind of relationship with her attacker. The forgiveness was an inward act for herself, not for him, so that she could stop reliving the trauma which was making her miserable and move forward in her life. Her attacker needs to stay at a distance--forever. There would be no reason to seek him out and invite him back into her life. On the other hand, one could imagine a situation where something similar happened with a close family member. Would some kind of continued contact be acceptable, even preferable, after forgiveness? Possibly. But also possibly not. That's not something for which there's a one size fits all rule. 

Forgiveness does not mean that we allow ourselves to be hurt or re-victimized. Remember, just because you've forgiven them doesn't mean they've changed! They might remain unrepentant. Don't let that prevent you from forgiving them, just do it from a distance! 

The most important criterion to make the decision is your own heart and mind. Will being around the person you've forgiven harm you or pull you down in any way? Is the person who committed the transgression likely to do it again (and again and again)? If you believe it won't happen again and feel that you can -- or even want -- to now be around this person again without it having a negative effect on you, then by all means, give it a try. But proceed slowly and carefully until you're absolutely certain that post-forgiveness contact is a net positive for you. 

This segues into answering your second question: one way (but not the only) we can know if we've truly forgiven another is to be around them again and then observe our thoughts and feelings. If we honestly -- no faking -- feel at least calmly neutral, possibly even happy, when around them, that's a positive sign that our forgiveness is for real. On the other hand, if being in their presence immediately touches off an uncontrollable downward spiral of negative thoughts and feelings, that's a sign we might have more forgiving to do.

There are at least four clear signs that we've forgiven another. The first two are the simplest and easiest to discern:

1) We don't find ourselves ceaselessly thinking about what they did/said to us. That is, we are no longer replaying it in our mind or dwelling upon it. We've mostly stopped thinking about it/them and are instead focused on other aspects of our lives.

2) When we are reminded of that person -- we see them face to face, someone brings them up in conversation, or we see their photo or some place or object that reminds us of them -- we don't have a severe negative reaction. We can handle it without relapsing into our previous pattern of dwelling upon them in an emotionally and psychically harmful manner.

There's a third sign which might be the best indicator of all: when we can bring ourselves to feel genuine compassion and love for those who harmed us. Realize that whatever they did, it's because they are ignorant, confused, and suffering. The worse their behavior, the worse their suffering. This doesn't mean we should confuse their behavior, but understand it and want it to change for their sake. Compassion starts when we realize just how much psychological and spiritual pain they must be in to have behaved in that way towards us. Genuinely want them to feel and think better. If they can heal whatever drove them to those actions, not only will their lives turn around but they'll stop inflicting misery on others (you can bet that you aren't the only person they've hurt, though not necessarily all in the same way). As well: the more compassion we can muster, the less likely we are to fall into the negative thoughts and feelings which caused that individual to lash out. Presumably, we don't want to be very much like the person who behaved badly towards us. The ability to feel authentic compassion for them inoculates us from that fate.

Finally, the best possible indicator that we've truly forgiven another comes back to the very reason why forgiveness is so vitally important. We should feel lighter, happier, and free inside. Forgiveness is essential to both our happiness and capacity to move forward with our lives. If you now feel like a weight or burden has been lifted from your soul, that's not only a great sign but the very essence of the practice.

Let me begin by saying that I'm a political independent more interested in maintaining an internally consistent and authentic, non-hypocritical worldview than worrying about towing a "Democratic" or "Republican" party line. Frankly, I don't think any of us should be loyal to a political party so much as to our own higher selves. I've known, taught, and learned from people across the political spectrum; I can state, for a fact, that both Republicans, Democrats, and non-political folk can all be equally spiritually aware or unaware. So the following isn't to be construed as a political position but rather a spiritual one.

No one who cares about integrity, democracy, or creating a better society should support Anthony Weiner's candidacy for New York City mayor -- or dogcatcher. Not because of his political views -- I don't know his specific positions on many issues and don't care -- and not because an unusual ( perhaps perverse) sex drive and predilections are wrong or bad in and of themselves. The issue here is the repeated lying to the public and the message it sends to politicians and bureaucrats if we reward those who engage in that behavior. Anthony Weiner has been caught lying again and again and again, including lying about his supposed "overcoming" of his cheating compulsions while he was in fact engaging in them.

I don't care if you're a hardcore Democrat and Anthony Weiner's political perfectly line up with yours. If we want to create a better society, we simply can't reward this kind of behavior. If we elect politicians of either party who have been caught purposefully and publicly lying to us then it is we who have perpetuated the breakdown of our society. We signal that honesty and integrity don't matter. That only naked ambition (no pun intended) and political maneuvering matter. What matters most in improving society is the consciousness of the people, ourselves and those we elect. The lower the consciousness, the more our society becomes debased. The higher the consciousness, the more likely our society will grow harmoniously and advance.

Here's the key point: the specific positions of a politician matter far less than their inner consciousness.

We would do far better as a society to stop electing those who will most ruthlessly enact our social and political preferences and instead focus on electing those who represent our highest aspirational qualities. The kinder, more compassionate, more harmonious, fair-minded, authentic, and visionary our politicians, the better our society will be. That's the real way to make lasting progress and positive change. Not through base, bare-knuckled immoral, lying, hypocritical, or hate-filled proponents of our pet causes.

Supporting ridiculous people who just so happen to agree with some specific agenda item of ours is a short-sighted and ultimately foolhardy way to make a better world. Politicians who don't respect the very people who elected them will ultimately fail us in our attempts to make a better world. They might make narrow progress in one or two pet areas of ours but that will always come with a tremendous big-picture and long-term negative cost. They will inject their dishonesty and sleazy behavior into our political and cultural system in myriad ways. In the end, such people will always end up doing more harm than good, if for no other reason they will continue to fracture and destabilize our society.

Right now, America seems on the brink of a total breakdown in civility and mutual respect between those who have differing opinions. Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, the right and the left, are hardly speaking to one another. We've started to reflexively hate anyone who doesn't share 100% of our worldview. This kind of narrow minded partisanship is anathema to not only a better world but also to our spiritual selves. The more we give in to our own baser instincts, support and reward hate-filled divisiveness, the more our own souls become blackened and besmirched.

Their is only one way out of this mess. We must renounce the reflexive political, social, and cultural hatred and dishonesty into which we so often fall. The more we come from and immerse ourselves in negative thoughts and emotions about those who don't agree with us, the more that becomes our own inner reality. We can't spend our days hating others, or living in fear, anger, or anxiety and not expect it to effect us on every level of our being. We must start electing politicians who embrace our highest, most positive aspirations, those who don't spread divisiveness and hate. At a bare minimum, we should look for representatives who are mostly honest, well-meaning, and seem driven by a higher-calling to help humanity and not those who merely seem drawn to politics for personal power, fame, and wealth.

Remember this: we, as a democratic republic, get exactly the politicians we deserve. A better world always begins inside ourselves.

For those of you not scientifically inclined, don't worry, I'm not going to regale you with an intricate scientific discourse as this intriguing possibility isn't my main objective fir this post. Let me just briefly say this by way of background explanation: most mainstream scientists have long believed that the only explanation for the known facts and observations of our universe -- including a phenomenon known as red-shift -- is to posit that the universe must be rapidly expanding, much like a balloon inflating. However, this standard model has always run into some problems which has kept it in the realm of theory rather than proven fact. It can't quite explain all the known cosmological observations, just most of them. In part, these gaps and flaws have opened the door for alternative views such as String Theory.

What's interesting about the new theory proposed by Christof Wetterich, a theoretical physicist at the University of Heidelberg in Germany, is that he's come up with a completely novel third possible way of understanding the same facts and data: instead of the Universe rapidly expanding, what's really happening is that the mass of everything is rapidly increasing. This new theory might explain and account for the initial Big Bang in ways that the widely accepted standard model cannot. If that makes your eyes glaze over, don't worry, I'm not going to say more than that. If you're interested in more detail, you can read the article on the Nature website.

Here's what's interesting about all of this from our perspective:

It turns out that for nearly one hundred years, the same facts could have been strung together in an entirely different way, leading to a different model and set of conclusions. What's fascinating about Mr. Wetterich's proposal is that it's NOT based on new evidence that only recently came available. For all these years, there was an equally (perhaps more) plausible understanding of how our Universe works that no one in the scientific community ever noticed!

The point is: there are always different ways to interpret the facts and situations we are given. If we lock ourselves into believing there is only one "right" interpretation -- and usually we gravitate towards the bleakest most negative one -- we aren't necessarily being truthful. We may well be overlooking equal or better possibilities that are right under our noses, we just can't see them.

At a macro level, it's important to ask: how come no scientist came up with this alternate theory before? We are told that science is the objective search for truth. If so, it shouldn't have taken nearly a 100 years for someone to pose an alternative to the conventional wisdom. The truth is that we are highly influenced by those around us, by our society, our family, friends, the media, and our teachers. What they tell us we should believe often structures and narrows our world view. We can lose sight of other equally plausible explanations.

If you find yourself locked into a particularly destructive point of view and are reinforcing that by telling yourself, "this is just what the facts say" or "I'm just facing the truth" you might be deluding yourself. What you claim is the only way to see a situation might not really be the case at all, even if others agree and reinforce your point of view. What we accept as "truth" or "reality" is often just one possible interpretation, presented as fact but not necessarily so. We must make every effort to break out of our blinders, be open to alternative possibilities, not insist that we know everything, and certainly not insist that those who tell us "this is how things are" are always, or even usually, right.

The next time you're sure that you're right about how the world works, what someone is thinking, why someone is behaving a certain way, take a moment to ask yourself: what other possible explanations could there be for what I'm thinking or feeling? Making a habit of doing so expands our awareness, counteracts our dogmatic tendencies, and allows us to see the fuller range of opportunities available to us.

Needless to say, Hendrix's music was playing throughout the exhibit space. While watching some film footage of Jimi in concert, I realized that I was smiling and feeling not just happy but genuinely uplifted. Grinning ear to ear and feeling lightness and joy. Which was especially interesting because the song playing was "Hey Joe," the lyrics of which tell the story of a man who shot his wife and is on the run to Mexico. Here's a little snippet:

                    Hey Joe, I said where you goin' with that gun in your hand?
                    Alright. I'm goin down to shoot my old lady,
                    you know I caught her messin' 'round with another man.

Not exactly cheery. So why was I feeling so uplifted?

Because Jimi Hendrix is a genius. His guitar playing, his presence, the flow he was in while on stage, it was all so clear, so vital, so beautiful.

Wherever there is genius there is bliss. Genius in any form -- science, arts, technology, military , culinary, athletic, and anything else you can think of, most especially spiritual-- requires tapping into our highest potential. Genius occurs at the intersection of the human and divine consciousness; it's breaking through the ordinary into the supernal.

Of course, the genius herself doesn't always fully realize the divine nature of what she's doing. This is because as uplifting as genius can be, it can also be limited in the sense that the breakthrough often occurs in just one specific area. Sometimes the genius is aware of the larger field into which they've tapped (which is why so many of the great physicists, for example, write almost mystically about their discoveries) but sometimes they don't see or feel beyond their very specific tapping into the divine. The bigger picture eludes them. This is one reason that spiritual genius is the highest form of genius: by definition, it requires an understanding of the big picture and its ramifications for humanity.

In Jimi's case, however, it should be pointed out that he did indeed realize he was tapping into the Divine. Hendrix called his music Electric Church and fervently (and correctly) believed that it manifested spiritual consciousness. Hendrix himself said that he designed his music to, "inside the soul of the person, and awaken some kind of thing inside, because there are so many sleeping people."

We, as the observers and beneficiaries of their genius, can always appreciate, enjoy, and receive upliftment through their accomplishment. Fortunately, too, genius is omnipresent. I've had similarly transcendent experiences at restaurants, watching a fantastic athlete, reading a great work of literature, absorbing a new scientific discovery, and above all, of course, learning from a great spiritual teacher.

The last thing we should do is resent genius or try to tear it down. We should delight and exalt in it, seek it, and welcome it with great enthusiasm when it appears. For not only is it a positive reminder of our own limitless potential but in its presence, we too are uplifted and transformed. Opportunities for inspiration are all around us, even in the most unlikely places, we just have to be open and willing.

That's what Jimi was asking, calling out to us, inventing us into the Electric Church of superconsciousness. Hey you: Are You Experienced?

The study, to be published in the journal Psychological Science, found that the act of reminding elderly people of the stereotype that they are forgetful, prone to "senior moments" or even outright senile, actually caused their memory to deteriorate. In other words, their mind and memories were functioning more or less fine, then researchers hit them with the belief/stereotype that they had poor memory and in response, the seniors started to display memory problems that were not present before they were reminded of the stereotype!

This is more powerful evidence that we what we internalize and believe about ourselves becomes our reality. It's not always the case that we should see something first, then believe it. Sometimes, what we believe greatly changes the reality we see and create for ourselves. 

Just as importantly, this study also reminds us of the terrible effects of stereotyping others. Whether racial, religious, cultural, gender, or ageist, stereotypes of any kind are pernicious. Not only do they prevent us from seeing the individual as they truly are in front of us, but there is real risk that by voicing a negative stereotype we will actually induce that behavior, thereby harming others and degrading our own society.

It wouldn't be hard to think that the world is getting worse in so many ways, including a rise in religious intolerance. Judeo-Christians and Muslims seem to be at war across the globe while fundamentalist religionists in America seem ready to do battle against virtually everyone who doesn't agree with their biblical interpretations. And some of the fastest growing religious movements -- evangelicals, Mormons, Scientologists -- hold very exclusive beliefs about their own piety and sanctity compared to non-believers. Perhaps worst of all, the manner in which we converse with each other seems to be growing more shrill and dismissive with every passing year.

Yet for all this, the truth is that Americans are actually growing more religiously tolerant, not less. And more respectful of other people's beliefs, not less. Most interesting of all, the rate of this positive change is happening very quickly.

According to the study:

When asked about mutual respect for all religions, one-third of PALS participants in 2006 said they respected all religions equally. By 2012, 58 percent said they did.

"A major shift has occurred among Americans in just six years," Emerson said. "We have become far more respecting of the diversity of religions than we were in 2006. Very much unlike in 2006, the majority of Americans no longer single out a religion that they disrespect."

Despite what many of our doomsday prophets and politicians might claim, the reality is that ever so slowly, the world becomes a better place with each passing year. Of course, this isn't an automatic process that we should take for granted. A lot of hard work and effort goes into making this progress. We can't rest on our laurels. But we also can't overlook the fact that world is far better place than it was 1000 years ago, or a 100 years ago, or maybe even 10 years ago. Social change is not only possible, it's happening. Social change is made up of millions, if not billions, of us individuals changing our hearts and minds.  That's the bottom line: the world can get better, is getting better, and it all starts with each one of us.

"I had lunch with Will Smith and listening to him talk, it made me think I don't know what love is. He said something profound. He said love is when you become one and you need that person. It's not about wanting anymore; you need that person. Hearing that, I don't know if I've ever felt that way. I've held women in very high regard almost to the point where I felt like I needed them for a very long time, but I don't know if I comprehend it yet, and I'm OK with that." 

I'm sorry Will (and Drake) but...no. Just no. This is most certainly not what love is. Needing another person isn't love, it's codependence. This is a very damaging myth that we take turns perpetuating in our culture.

This understanding of love implies that we are incomplete in and of ourselves, that we all have a giant, unfillable hole inside us and that only another being -- and usually just one very specific person, not many people, and certainly not humanity in general -- can fill it.  

This means happiness and fulfillment lies outside ourselves, that we are dependent on some external person (and the circumstances in which we meet and stay with that person) for our happiness. I can't think of a faster way to make ourselves miserable. 

It's such an important issue that I spend a whole chapter discussing this in The Bliss Experiment, complete with a bunch of scientific studies that prove this isn't really true.

For now, let me just suggest this: real love is open, unconditional, and comes from the very source of our being, radiating outward. It's not something "out there" that we must find and capture, rather it's something we tap into within ourselves.  

At their best, relationships, then become vehicles through which we can learn to tap into our own inner reservoir of unconditional love. Our partners don't complete us, they walk the path of unconditional love along side us.

For her, the Aum symbol reminded her of her spiritual commitment and of all the positive, life-affirming thoughts and goals in her life. Having that reminder at precisely her place of weakness was essential in helping her overcome it.

I thought this was a brilliant and effective practice. There's a couple of chapters in The Bliss Experiment that recommend similar strategies, though perhaps not quite as inventively imagined as this! It speaks not only to the power of meaningful images -- if spiritual images don't do it for you, something like personal like a snapshot of your family might -- but how small interventions can produce big results. Often times, we just need a little nudge here and there, delivered at just the right moment, to entirely change a destructive behavior into a positive one. It doesn't always have to be big, dramatic, difficult, and painful. Small changes can make a difference.

You needn't get a tattoo (unless you want!). But think of some small reminder you can bring into your life -- a picture, spiritual icon, favorite saying, affirmation, or whatever -- and try placing it somewhere you'll see it. For example, if you're trying to lose weight, maybe put a positive saying or photo of you when you were skinnier (or even, I suppose, of someone else whose body you'd like to emulate) on your fridge. One person I know who wanted to lose weight put a mirror on her fridge, just to remind herself what she currently looked like, though I'm not certain this was the optimum approach (thought it did seem to work for her). Ideally, try to choose an image or reminder that reinforces a positive direction or outcome rather than something that highlights the negative.

You'll be surprised how even small reminders of our positive goals can make a difference in our ability to achieve them. This is because, at the end of the day, even grand goals and plans require daily, minute-by-minute choices. The woman with the Aum tattoo used it to remind herself cigarette by cigarette and day by day to quit smoking. Over time, if we can win enough of the micro-battles, we'll look up to find ourselves victorious in the big ones.

Here's the findings of three interesting studies:

•  A 1997 study gave two groups of people the same amount of alcohol. One group was consciously aware they were drinking alcoholic beverages. The other group wasn't told that alcohol was in their drinks. This second, unaware group exhibited far more symptoms of drunkenness than the consciously aware group, performing far worse on cognitive and motor tests.
• The shape of the glass from which we drink impacts how quickly we consume a beverage. We drink more and faster from curved glasses than straight ones.
• People given alcohol in an office setting got drunker than those given the same amount of alcohol in a bar setting.
• Another discovery from this office/bar study: people who drank alcohol in the office setting had higher heart rates than those who drank it in the familiar bar setting. The context changed their physical response to the booze.

So what does any of this have to do with spirituality or personal development? At least two observations:

1. We are affected by our environment. It's imperative that be aware of our environment and the environmental choices we are making. Choose positive environments and our life will be better; negative ones will drag us down. Another way of understanding this is to realize that we are open systems, the boundary between what we consider "us" and the "outer world" is porous and not clearly defined. There is no true distinction between the two. We are intimately and intricately connecting with the world around us. We can't place ourselves in damaging environments and expect to be unscathed. Whatever is "out there" and "around us" -- the physical environment, the people we interact with, the media consume, flows into us and changes us.
2. Awareness changes our self-control, actions, and perceptions. The more consciously aware we are of our decisions and environment, the more control we can exert over ourselves and potential outcomes. If we can moderate something hard and physical such as our bodies response to like alcohol, including our heart rate, we can certainly regulate soft things like moods, emotions, and thoughts.

The upshot of these studies is that they remind us (admittedly from a unique angle) that we have much more control over our lives, bodies, thoughts, and emotions than we often realize.  Our happiness and well-being is largely under our control. The choice is ours.

Her story reminded me of two of my own.

As someone who lives in constant chronic pain, my bed is important. The time I spend in it each night directly impacts my pain level for the next day. It's not the only factor of course but it's an important one. So I spend a lot of time (and money) fiddling with my bed, anything to help shave even a little pain from my life is worth it. The tendency has been to improve my comfort through addition: adding another layer of cushion, buying yet another bed, sandwiching foam in just the right spots and so on. Despite all this, over the last few months, slowly but surely, my pain has been increasing every morning upon waking--sometimes it's been so bad that the pain wakes me in the middle of the night. As the pain worsened, I kept adding more and more things to my bed in any effort to produce just the right adjustment. And still things kept getting worse.

Finally, at the suggestion of my partner Brook, I took a different tack: I stripped everything back to basics, swapped out my mattress for a more basic one, and got rid of all the extra layers I'd been using. The result was immediate: from the first night, my pain (and sleep) improved.

This is a pattern that's repeated itself endlessly. Years ago, my primary doctor had me on so many medications, I could hardly keep track. Medictations for the pain, then even more medications to manage the side effects of the pain medications. Then even more medications to manage the side effects of the meds that were supposed to manage the first round of side effects! I was a mess. Not only was I getting worse, the situation was confused. I couldn't tell what really helped and what didn't. So I started from scratch: I discontinued almost all the meds (slowly and carefully) and only took the bare minimum of medications that I was absolutely certain beyond any doubt made a major contribution to my well-being. The results again were amazing: I started feeling much better. At least half of what I was experiencing turned out to be side effects and not the original pain. It all went away when I stripped things down.

Often, our tendency is to try to solve problems and improve our lives by adding to it. We tell ourselves: "If I could just buy X,Y, or Z" or "Hire this or that person" or "Go here or there" or "Do this or that," our lives will be so much the better. Most of the time, it's not true. The more we acquire things, the more complexity we bring into our lives. The more complexity, the more stress. I've seen it again and again in my life and others. It doesn't matter if it's material things, emotional entanglements, or even pharmaceutical medications. More isn't usually better.

So that's my life motto (though I don't always remember it myself): When in doubt simplify. You'll find that things will almost always improve, often immediately.

Recently, a controversial new study was released in which the authors claimed they found evidence that wealthier people are indeed happier than poorer people. If so, this would overturn dozens (if not hundreds) of prior studies that found either no correlation between wealth and happiness or even a negative correlation (that is, richer people are less happy than poorer ones). Given that I dedicated an entire chapter on this topic to The Bliss Experiment including analyzing many of the most interesting studies, it's essential to take a close look at this new claim.

I've taken the time to read the study from beginning to end, check the references and data, compare it to other research, and generally think it through. There's a lot that I can and will say about it but I realize that some of you aren't interested in wading through the technical ins and outs of the following analysis so for you, I'll cut to the chase:

This study is badly flawed to the point of being useless. To use some pointedly unscientific parlance: it's wrong, wrong, and more wrong in virtually every way imaginable. The conclusions don't stand. Our current understanding is correct: it's proven that wealth and happiness are not strongly correlated. There are dozens, possibly hundreds, of studies that corroborate this (including those of Nobel Prize winning economist Daniel Kahneman). Once we've got enough money to fulfill basic life needs, getting richer isn't going to do anything for your happiness -- and may even decrease it.

The first and important point: despite how the media portrays it, this isn't really a scientific study at all. Typically, a "scientific study"  means one of two things. Either it's a direct study of a group of subjects recruited by the researchers or it's a meta-analytic review of the known body of already published studies on the subject. Direct studies of subjects involve the researchers finding subjects, divise an experiment structure, test the subjects' response, guard against bias through standard practices as making the experiment double-blind, setting up a control group, and then carefully reporting the data. This wasn't that type of study. The other accepted type of study is called a meta-analysis. Often, there already exists a large number of studies in a field, some of which may claim contradictory results. In these instances, it can be valuable for researchers to conduct an analytical review of most or all the published studies in a field, looking for overarching themes, attempting to reconcile different conclusions, statistically analyzing the combined data, and so on. This "study" is not any kind of a systematic review of the body of literature in the field.

This "study" is in fact something that I've rarely encountered: it's a cherry-picked, manually selected slice of just a few studies -- out of hundreds -- that have been conducted on this topic. And it's mostly not even that. What the researchers have cherry-picked mostly aren't other studies but mostly other polls (and again, to be clear, just a small fraction of those). Polls are not scientific studies, nor do they claim to be. Polls are self-reported and non-verified statements from people in which both the methodology used and the specific wording of the questions greatly influences the answers received. This is why political polling -- who's winning an election before it happens? -- is notoriously unreliable and the results can be radically different depending on which company conducted the poll.

When it comes to self-reported answers, what's the one thing that people lie about the most? Their income level. People will tell you their race, religion, and political party but income: that can't trust it without verification. This isn't just my assumption, there's plenty of evidence, such as here and here.  Any credit card company processing applications will tell you this. One survey found that 55% of men lie to their friends about their income. Income is consistently overstated;  many of these "rich" people who are supposedly so happy aren't actually so rich in real life.

But even if polls were valid scientific studies (they are not) what's worse is that the authors of this paper clearly and unequivocally cherry-pick just a few select surveys. Here's why cherry-picking a tiny group of polls is so problematic: If you're not conducting any original research and you're not doing any kind of comprehensive review of the literature, then all you've done is report on your own biases. Why were these surveys included but not others that showed different results? The authors don't say. If one is trying to do a meta-review of the many studies on happiness and wealth, why would you only look at those using the poll/survey format? The authors don't say. They chose what they wanted to look at because they wanted to.

For these reasons alone, this article (we shouldn't even call it a "study") is meaningless. When we delve more deeply, it gets worse. I've personally read tthe original, raw data plus the conclusions gleaned from that by the researchers who originally collected it. In several instances, the authors of this new paper have clearly and unequivocally misstated their data (or maybe they just didn't understand it, not sure which is worse). I could give at least a half-dozen examples but since that would make this post intolerably long, here's just a couple observations:

1. In this new paper, the authors make no attempt to control for or  factor in or out other reasons for why people are feeling happy or unhappy. In fact, some of the polling data that the authors base their conclusion that happiness and wealth are positively correlated isn't even asking people about their level of "happiness." In the Gallup World Poll that the authors cite, most of the answers people provided was in response to this question: "In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in your personal life at this time?" Life satisfaction and "happiness" are not the same thing. When people are thinking about their "life satisfaction" they are thinking of dozens, if not hundreds, of factors beyond their income level. It's a pure assumption on the part of the authors that people in lower GDP countries report lower "life satisfaction" because of their income. That's nowhere in the raw data. Many of these people live in corrupt governments, have no healthcare, often dwelling in politically, socially, and religiously unstable environments. They are comparing counties like Somalia with the United States on a general scale of "life satisfaction." You can't just assume that the reason for the Somalis lower life satisfaction is money.  Countries like Somalia are in a state of civil war, there is no government, and people are being murdered in the streets. Infant mortality rates are high. The country is a mess. There is no reason to assume that their lack of money is the sole or even main reason for their reporting lower life satisfaction. On the flip side, in many wealthier countries, it's not just that people are materially richer, it's that we live in stable democracies. We aren't being hacked to pieces on the street, people have freedom of expression and religion, among many other things. We have better healthcare, less religious strife, and a host of other positive things going for us.

Unless you first control for all the other variables -- the other possible reasons that people might have lower or higher life satisfaction -- you can't assume it's because of their material wealth. And that's the key point: this data does not control for other variables or possibilities. All it tells us is (as one example) that people in Somalia are less happy than people in Scandanavia. It does not and cannot tell us why. Because the authors make no attempt to control for any of the variables, their conclusions are scientifically worthless. If you don't control for other possible reasons -- and this case there are dozens, possibly hundreds of other factors -- you cannot attribute the response to just one of them.

2. The authors of this new paper fail to report that in many cases, the original researchers disagree with these new conclusions. Here's but one example: this new paper puts a huge amount of emphasis on one small survey that looks specifically at the United States, all derived from a single Gallup poll conducted on December 6-9, 2007. It's interesting that the Gallup people, who had asked this same question/poll for decades (not just once in December 2007) concluded pretty much the opposite that the authors of this new paper. Gallup believes that their results actually show that increasing wealth does not correlate with increasing happiness. That's because Gallup looked at the entire body of the data they've collected over decades not just one poll in isolation. What their full body of data revealed is that Americans were no happier in 2007 than they were in 1957, despite a HUGE INCREASE in American's standard of living. Americans are so much wealthier in every conceivable way than we were in the 1950's. Our per capita income is higher, the purchasing power of our money is higher, we have access to more material goods and things that would have been perceived as "luxuries" in the 1950's than ever, yet our self-reported happiness level has not changed. That's the problem with isolating single variables in time.  It's also worth noting that Gallup themselves discussed this in their 2007 results but that the authors of this new paper omitted any mention of these observations and conclusions even though they were printed just one paragraph below the part that they did quote. Hmmm….

Much more could be said. The above is just the tip of the iceberg. I found flaws in the author's data selection, methodology, and interpretation on every single page (sometimes every paragraph) of this paper. If we had the time or inclination, we could easily probe such myriad flaws as what the authors use as the threshold to define "wealth" (in several studies cited, just $64,000!), how they willfully ignore some of the data they've claimed to incorporate when it disagrees with their conclusion, the arbitrary way in which the authors designate countries as high or low income, the categorical refusal to ever consider alternative explanations for their viewpoints, how much of the data the authors of this new paper use is taken entirely out of the context it was corrected, and the larger philosophical question as to what, exactly, survey-based responses really record. In several cases, the questions asked and responses given seem to be picking up people's (mistaken) beliefs that if they had more money, they would be happier and not their actual reality. Many of the questions are really revealing that people are capable of generating limitless desire. Once we consumed by wanting possessions, luxury goods, and material riches, there's no end to how many things we can imagine wanting or buying. But is capturing people's limitless imagination and infinite capacity for desire the same as saying that we are actually happier when we actually attain these things? (Answer: of course not.)

For those that would like to see peruse at least a fifteen quality studies that directly contradict these findings, read here.

The bottom line is that this non-study is bad science of the worst magnitude. I find it revealing that the authors made sure to hire a PR firm and release this paper directly to the media first, before any actual experts had the chance to read it, review it, or prepare a response. To me, the whole thing seems little more than a shameless PR ploy by some folks all too desperate for attention. I guess the quiet life of an academic making meaningful and honest contributions to society isn't good enough for some people.

What makes it particularly sad is that I'm sure many unsuspecting folks will read the gullible media accounts of the study--all of which were published with the reporters taking it at face value and not seeking out other expert opinions-- and believe this drivel, thereby tricking over 99% of the world's population (that's billions of miserable souls) to thinking that they have no shot of genuine happiness.

Eventually, the shoddy conclusions of these two PR hounds will be discarded. No one gets away with the flim-flam of a quick media hit forever. But in the meantime: if you want to find genuine happiness for yourself, don't you believe them for a minute.

Upon reflection, it was equally my fault. Though my initial response to him was factual correct, it wasn't "true" in the sense that it didn't  take into account his emotional needs, mental makeup, and personality. Instead of helping him see more clearly, his ego engaged and he locked himself even more deeply into his position. It reminded me that in times of convict, it's imperative to tune into the other person's reality first and craft our response so that it serves them best. It's not what is easiest for us.

That's not entirely what I want to discuss here. While the above is sound advice for avoid future conflicts, it doesn't help much when we find ourselves in the middle of a challenging interpersonal situation. This fellow and I are already considerably far down the road of hard feelings. What now can be done?

Three options occur. First and easiest, we can keep hammering away at one another. I can keep bluntly insisting on my rectitude and he can keep turning the debate into a personal attack. This could continue endlessly, tit for tat, and never find resolution, even if it brings a certain satisfaction. The problem is that this approach ensures we'll be both stay mired in hard feelings and negative emotions. Sooner or later, these will surely bleed into other areas of our lives.

There are alternatives.

The first is that I can change my tone in our communication. Perhaps make a light hearted joke at my own expense, outright apologize, or otherwise be conciliatory. No matter how "right" I am, I can choose to be the bigger person. Often, once we're willing to make a positive step, the other party will get the message and reciprocate in some fashion. In turn, I can make yet another positive gesture, assuring this person that the first kindness wasn't a one-off fluke but a solid change in direction. From there, we might well proceed towards putting the conflict behind us.

This doesn't always work. Sometimes it's simply too late. The other person is too worked up, too trapped in their ego, to ensconced in their worldview. Nothing we do or say, no matter how positive or conciliatory, gets through. In this case, we needn't return to war. We always have the choice of simply walking away. Not every situation must be resolved in a textbook fashion. Occasionally, there is no middle ground, no opportunity for compromise -- emotional or otherwise.

In these instances, we can choose to disengage from such people and situations. Simply walk away, literally or metaphorically. But when we do so, we must do it properly: not by silently storing and nursing grudges sure to erupt at some future time but by truly and completely letting it go. We must fully release it from our consciousness, not giving it another (negative) thought. Life is too short, precious, and beautiful to waste in petty grudge matches. Unnecessary conflict slowly eats away at us, robbing us of inner peace and joy. No matter how right we are, we still lose.

We always have a choice though in the heat of the moment, we often forget. The next time you find yourself in a conflict, see if you can become aware of what's happening, both in yourself and in the other person. Make a conscious effort to find a positive resolution, whether for the both of you, or just yourself. You'll be amazed at the inner results.

The award is explained thusly:

The Nautilus Book Awards is a unique awards program that recognizes books that promote spiritual growth, conscious living and positive social change. We also value books that stimulate the imagination and offer the reader new possibilities for a better life and a better world. Awards are given to books of exceptional merit that make a literary and heartfelt contribution to the fields of high-level wellness, green values and responsible leadership, as well as to the worlds of art, creativity and inspiration.
 
The Nautilus Book Awards are named for the mollusk whose beautiful, pearl-lined shell contains chambers of increasing size which the sea creature constructs for itself as it grows. The nautilus symbolizes both ancient wisdom and expanding horizons; both the elegance of nature and a continual growth of understanding and awareness.