Flourishing

Adam Grant X Post on Happiness

2024-01-10T11:39:00.001-05:00

Adam Grant has written several books that are among my favorites, such as Think Again. He posted this on X today.

Happiness is not about reaching your goals. It's about aligning your goals with your values.
Progress without purpose is empty. Achievement without impact is fleeting.
Success is most rewarding when it serves the people and principles that matter to you.

Habits of Highly Successful People - Tips from Adam Grant

2023-11-13T08:54:00.000-05:00

Adam Grant, author of Think Again and Give and Take, posted this article: I study highly successful people for a living. Here are 11 little habits they practice every day. Check it out!

What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known? Russell Conjugation - Eric Weinstein

2022-12-19T10:55:00.001-05:00

What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known?

I came across a reference to something called the Russell Conjugation, an idea created by the philosopher Bertrand Russell. (It’s also called an emotive conjugation.) It consists of three statements that describe the same behavior from different perspectives. Here is an example from an article by Eric Weinstein.

I am firm. [Positive empathy]
You are obstinate. [Neutral to mildly negative empathy]
He/She/It is pigheaded. [Very negative empathy]

As Weinstein explains:

In order to understand the concept properly you have to appreciate that most words and phrases are actually defined not by a single dictionary description, but rather two distinct attributes:

I) The factual content of the word or phrase.
II) The emotional content of the construction.

How would this apply to political disagreements? Would it be the following? “I am right (because I have the correct principles). You are mistaken (because your principles are wrong). They are evil (because they have no principles, or their principles are evil).” In this case, “I” refers to yourself. “You” refers to a friend who disagrees with you. “They” refers to a politician or pundit who is on the other side.

I pose it this way because I think we are not likely to label a friend as evil. If we believe a friend is evil, why are we friends? But it is much easier for us to call someone we don’t know evil precisely because we don’t have a personal connection. As philosophers like Jonathan Haidt (The Righteous Mind) remind us, our psychology has deep tribal roots. Many experiments run by researchers show that they can get participants form us vs. them groups based on superficial qualities such as eye color or sports team affiliation. (See more at this You Are Not So Smart episode.)

I know that my observation on how we label friends versus people we don’t know doesn’t hold up all the time. I know friends who have disowned family members or have terminated friendships over political disagreements such as which presidential candidate to for. But I also know people who haven’t done this.

Elon Musk Thinks Every Child Should Learn About These 50 Cognitive Biases | Inc.com

2022-12-19T10:53:00.000-05:00

Elon Musk Thinks Every Child Should Learn About These 50 Cognitive Biases | Inc.com

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1472647410568642564?s=20

The article in Inc. lists the 50 cognitive biases that Elon Musk thinks kids should be taught about in school. The second link takes you to the tweet Musk posted that shows these biases in an infographic. Given the number of these biases covering them would require a course dedicated to them. (This list, by the way, isn't comprehensive.)

New Neuroscience Reveals 7 Secrets That Will Make You Emotionally Intelligent - Barking Up The Wrong Tree

2022-12-19T10:51:00.001-05:00

New Neuroscience Reveals 7 Secrets That Will Make You Emotionally Intelligent - Barking Up The Wrong Tree

Eric Barker who wrote Barking Up the Wrong Tree: The Surprising Science Behind Why Everything You Know About Success Is (Mostly) Wrong also has a blog where he shares his insights based on Barker’s research. I recommend his book. I also recommend reading his summary of another book which I read recently. It’s Conflicted: How Productive Disagreements Lead to Better Outcomes by Ian Leslie.

I’ve been reading several books lately on how to overcome the extreme polarization we see, particularly in politics. So far, I haven’t come across anything in these books that I found to be earthshaking, “eureka!” insights. But there is one that I believe deserves promoting; Eric Barker agrees. He devotes a long blog post to capturing the key points of Conflicted. Below I’ve provided Barker’s summary of these key points. I debated whether to do this because you might read the summary below and think, “Eh, what’s the big deal?” If so, I invite you to read Barker’s entire post to get a better idea what is behind these key points.

Without further ado, here is the final section of Barker’s post.

Sum Up

This is how to have emotionally intelligent disagreements:

Remember The Relationship: Enemies don’t say, “You are right. I am wrong.” Friends do.
De-Escalate: If your disputes sound even half as snarky as my writing, you’re doing it wrong.
Stop Trying To Control What They Think Or Feel: When their autonomy is threatened, people attack or shut down.
Help Them Make Their Argument Stronger: If you can’t disprove the best version of their argument, then you’re not “right”, you’re just playing tricks. And, more importantly, “steelmanning” shows you’re listening and that you’re sincere. [HCS comment: steelmanning is the opposite of using a straw man argument in which we purposely oversimplify or exaggerate someone’s argument in order to discount it. Steelmanning involves trying to strengthen the argument of your conversational partner before trying to rebut it.]
Disrupt The Script: Constructive conversations have ups and downs. Don’t escalate tension. Make a joke or say something positive.
Get Curious: So those aliens that talk to you, do they give good advice?
Help Them Question Their Own Thinking: Therapists don’t say: “That’s ridiculous. Where in your brain did the stroke occur for you to have an idea so stupid?” No, they ask questions until you start to question your own thinking and it crosses the blood-brain barrier that what you’ve been saying is the equivalent of 2+2=147.

New Neuroscience Reveals 7 Secrets That Will Make You Emotionally Intelligent - Barking Up The Wrong Tree

2021-10-04T10:15:00.000-04:00

New Neuroscience Reveals 7 Secrets That Will Make You Emotionally Intelligent - Barking Up The Wrong Tree: Conflicted: How Productive Disagreements Lead to Better Outcomes

Without further ado, here is the final section of Barker’s post.

Sum Up

This is how to have emotionally intelligent disagreements:

Remember The Relationship: Enemies don’t say, “You are right. I am wrong.” Friends do.
De-Escalate: If your disputes sound even half as snarky as my writing, you’re doing it wrong.
Stop Trying To Control What They Think Or Feel: When their autonomy is threatened, people attack or shut down.
Help Them Make Their Argument Stronger: If you can’t disprove the best version of their argument, then you’re not “right”, you’re just playing tricks. And, more importantly, “steelmanning” shows you’re listening and that you’re sincere. [HCS comment: steelmanning is the opposite of using a straw man argument in which we purposely oversimplify or exaggerate someone’s argument in order to discount it. Steelmanning involves trying to strengthen the argument of your conversational partner before trying to rebut it.]
Disrupt The Script: Constructive conversations have ups and downs. Don’t escalate tension. Make a joke or say something positive.
Get Curious: So those aliens that talk to you, do they give good advice?
Help Them Question Their Own Thinking: Therapists don’t say: “That’s ridiculous. Where in your brain did the stroke occur for you to have an idea so stupid?” No, they ask questions until you start to question your own thinking and it crosses the blood-brain barrier that what you’ve been saying is the equivalent of 2+2=147.

Scott Adams on Mind Hacks

2021-04-03T13:36:00.001-04:00

While I rarely link to someone's Twitter post this one by Scott Adams was too good to miss.

Here is the tweet thread in case the link doesn't work.

Here’s a reframe that will change some people’s lives forever: Your mind is the outcome of genetics, traumas and hacks.
If you don’t learn to hack (program) your own brain, the default is that you are little more than genes and traumas.
An example of a brain hack is education. It is a conscious choice to physically alter your brain via learning. Another hack is intelligent skill stacking.
Associating self-rewards with habits you want to deepen is a hack.
Learning to reframe your experiences is a hack. Learning to see reality as subjective is a hack. Learning to avoid “emotion pollution” from entertainment products is a hack.
Reframing sleep as a skill that can be learned is a hack.
Learning to put things in context is a hack. Practicing optimism is a hack.
If you make it your system (habit) to routinely learn and test new hacks, you become the author of your own mind, and — because your experience of reality is subjective — the author of your own experience.
Be the hack, not the trauma.

Naval Tweet

2020-10-25T23:48:00.000-04:00

https://twitter.com/naval/status/1320071888551358464?s=20

One of the people I follow on Twitter is Naval. He condenses his thinking into short, pithy posts. Below is an example which I like.

“Artists” calling for censorship don’t know what art is.
“Scientists” citing consensus don’t know what science is.
“Teachers” indoctrinating students don’t know what teaching is.
“Journalists” parroting propaganda don’t know what reporting is.
Programming us all day long.

The Power of Unlearning: Serena Williams' Story

2020-06-16T18:25:00.002-04:00

The Power of Unlearning: Serena Williams' Story

Here is a key paragraph.

Unlearning is the process of letting go, reframing, and moving away from once-useful mindsets and acquired behaviors. It’s not forgetting, removing, or discarding knowledge or experience; it’s a conscious act of letting go of outdated information and actively taking in new information to inform effective decision-making and action.

I have some experience with this from surgeries. In 2012 I had rotator cuff surgery then double knee replacements in June of 2018. In both cases I was unable to play tennis for several months. When I returned to practicing I used this as an opportunity to work on aspects of my game. I think it worked because people commented on how my tennis had improved from the last time they played with me.

Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2020 Snapchat Commencement Address on Overcoming Obstacles

2020-05-19T15:06:00.003-04:00

I liked the message in this video Schwarzenegger made for 2020 commencement. Below is the opening words. Be sure to watch to the very end. There are a couple reasons I like this video. First, the message: follow your vision. Two: enjoy the journey and the work it takes to make the vision come true. Third: the ending. I don't want to spoil the ending so that's all I'm going to say!

I am not going to bullshit you and say this is a fantastic time to graduate. But I am going to tell you about one of the biggest obstacles I faced in my life, because the obstacles that coronavirus had created won't be the last you face, but they can prepare you for the next obstacle.

Self-examination and anxiety: Twitter post by Naval

2020-05-09T20:58:00.000-04:00

I like the post below by Naval in Twitter. Naval has 826,000 Twitter followers including a number of people I follow such as Scott Adams, Mike Cernovich, Mark Manson, Sam Harris, and Jonathan Haidt.

Just like a low resting heart rate is the byproduct of intense exercise, low anxiety is the byproduct of intense self-examination.

The only thing I'd add is that it needs to be productive self-examination. By that I mean you're looking for ways to improve. I think some people believe they're examining themselves when they're indulging in self-doubt or self-recrimination.

Review of How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide

2020-04-08T13:32:00.001-04:00

It seems just about everyone agrees that the vicious rift in how we disagree with each other has never been worse than it is today, especially in politics. Friends have disowned each other over whether they support gun control, immigration, climate change or Trump. We all shake our heads as if this was a hopeless, irreconcilable divide. Although this might be ultimately be true I believe we should still try.

I’ve read several books and articles that offer suggestions on how to bridge this gap. Of the ones I’ve read I’d highly recommend How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide by Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay. Peter Boghossian is a faculty member in the philosophy department at Portland State University and is a speaker for the Center of Inquiry and an international speaker for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. James Lindsay holds degrees in physics and mathematics, with a doctorate in the latter. Because I liked this book I’ve been planning to write a review for this blog. However, this review by Eric Barker, author of Barking Up The Wrong Tree, does such a nice job hitting the key points that I’ve decided to quote from his blog entry to share the key points from How to Have Impossible Conversations.

I should note that the book’s advice is laid out in a sequence starting with beginner’s level recommended skills then intermediate and expert levels. The authors explain that they evolved these skills “drawn from the best, most effective research on applied epistemology, hostage and professional negotiations, cult exiting, subdisciplines of psychology, and more.”

Quoting more from the book, it is “organized by difficulty of application: fundamentals (Chapter 2), basics (Chapter 3), intermediate (Chapter 4), advanced (Chapter 5), expert (Chapter 6), and master (Chapter 7). Some techniques teach you to intervene in the cognition of others, instill doubt, and help people become more open to rethinking their beliefs. Other techniques are oriented toward truth-seeking. Some are just plain good advice. Their underlying commonality, regardless of your conversational goal, is that they all empower you to speak with people who have radically different political, moral, and social worldviews.”

So what are the key points of this book? Here I’ll rely on Eric Barker’s summary. (I’ve edited it slightly and added comments to explain a point if it needs to be expanded.)

· Be a partner, not an adversary: If you’re trying to win, you’re going to lose. The best approach is: Be nice and respectful. Listen. Understand. Instill doubt. (I refuse to change my mind about this.)

· Use Rapoport’s rules: They can seem awkward but they reduce conflict better than Valium. [I’ll add an explanation of Rapoport’s rules below.]

· Facts are the enemy: Unless we’re talking about the savvy, attractive people who read this blog, yes, facts are the enemy. [I have some additional thoughts below.]

· Use the “Unread Library Effect”: Let them talk. Ask questions. Let them expose their ignorance. Do not cheer when that happens.

· Use scales: Bring extreme statements down to earth with numbered comparisons. And unless they’re certain at a level 10, they’ll mention their own doubts which can aid your cause.

· Use disconfirmation: “Eric, under what conditions would disconfirmation not be effective?”

· Serious beliefs are about values and identity: Don’t attack what they believe, focus on the validity of their reasoning process and whether that identity is the only way to be a good person.

What are Rapoport’s rules? Impossible Conversations explains, quoting from Daniel C. Dennett’s book Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking. (Rapoport is a game theorist.):

1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”

2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.

4. And only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

Rapoport’s rules would fall under the concept “steelmanning” in which you restate your opponent’s case in the strongest possible way before challenging it. This approach treats your partner’s beliefs more fairly than using the “straw man” approach in which you purposely weaken or exaggerate someone’s case then refute it.

What about facts? Why do Boghossian and Lindsay urge us not to argue with facts? Well, they don’t say you should never use facts. “It does mean that introducing facts into a conversation is likely to backfire unless done at the correct moment and with great care. … Many people believe what and how they do precisely because they do not formulate their beliefs on the basis of evidence – not because they’re lacking evidence. … Few people form their beliefs on the basis of rigorous consideration of reasoned arguments. Complicating matters, most people believe they do have evidence supporting their beliefs. … We tend to form beliefs on the basis of cherry-picked selective evidence that supports what we already believe or what we want to believe. Virtually everyone formulates most of their beliefs first then subsequently looks for supporting evidence and convincing arguments that back them up.” As Jonathan Haidt says, we think we’re being detectives who piece together the facts before reaching a conclusion when in fact we act like lawyers who choose facts to make a case.

The authors conclude that introducing facts can backfire and harden your partner’s viewpoint rather than leading your partner to change their mind. They suggest that a more effective way to work facts into a conversation is through questions and by saying something like “I may be wrong about this. It’s my understanding that …”

They also offer a valuable tip on choice of words: eliminate the word “but” and replace it with “and.” For instance, instead of saying “Yes, but how should we deal with the children of illegal immigrants?” we say, “Yes, and how should we deal with the children of illegal immigrants?”

I’ve found that when I disagree with someone on a subject the person I’m talking with often asks why I disagree. They’ll ask what evidence do I have. That gives me the opening to introduce the facts I’ve used to support my conclusion. I should note that sometimes my partner doesn’t ask for my reasons. The less reasonable person will just launch into an attack because I dare to disagree with their unshakeable opinions. In that case, I might still cite my reasons but find a way to end the conversation. Diplomatically, of course!

While I admit I haven’t mastered all of the techniques in this book the key points discussed above have helped me when talking with people who don’t see things the way I do. Read How to Have Impossible Conversations because I think it is possible to have reasonable conversations.

Scott Adams on Twitter: "The #Coronavirus is acting like an unwelcome Olympics for scientists, doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs, techies, leaders, parents, and ordinary heroes of every kind. Setting records in every event." / Twitter

2020-03-31T16:00:00.000-04:00

I posted this on my Thinking Objectively blog and am reposting here because I think what he says about the lessons we learn from the Coronavirus pandemic about our systems and civilization can also apply to us on a personal level.

The link takes you to a Twitter thread he posted; I've also added the text below in case the link doesn't work.

Scott Adams on Twitter: "The #Coronavirus is acting like an unwelcome Olympics for scientists, doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs, techies, leaders, parents, and ordinary heroes of every kind. Setting records in every event." / Twitter

The #Coronavirus is acting like an unwelcome Olympics for scientists, doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs, techies, leaders, parents, and ordinary heroes of every kind. Setting records in every event. You can almost feel humanity getting smarter. The most capable among us are forming lasting connections. Sharing best practices. Learning shortcuts. Building a working trust. Creating tools at blazing speeds. One way to imagine the future is that the economy will lose trillions of dollars and we will never get it back. Another filter on the future is that energy doesn’t disappear, it only relocates and changes form. A huge amount of energy is leaving the economy. We know that for sure. What is less clear is where that energy is going. My filter shows a global “mind” being formed, in real time, to fight our common enemy, the virus. That mind needs a lot of energy, like a newborn. And wow, is it getting it. I had resisted the common pundit prediction that “everything would be different” after this crisis because I expect a speedy recovery. But I revise my opinion. While I still expect a speedy recovery, I also think this experience is rewiring the collective mind of civilization. We probably crammed years of innovation into months. We’ll be coming out of this with a LOT of extra knowledge about our systems and ourselves. And that energy will get channeled back into the economy. The coming weeks will test us all. But when it is over, we will be far smarter, and far tougher, in every way. As Steve Jobs proved, the right thoughts and the right skill stack can turn into trillions of dollars. Civilization’s skill stack is undergoing a major upgrade. Watch how much energy that later pumps into the economy. It will be amazing.

An Idea for Civil Discussion

2020-03-02T09:23:00.002-05:00

I posted the entry below in my Thinking Objectively blog but I thought it would be worth posting it here too. The overall topic covers a political discussion I had this week but the lesson I learned can apply to personal development as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently I had dinner with a couple friends when our conversation eventually drifted to the 2020 presidential election. One of my friends expressed disappointment that President Trump had done nothing about gun control. I said that I’m happy he hasn’t been pushing for more gun control. Knowing that my friend is liberal I figured it would carry more weight if I cited a study done by Leah Libresco, a statistician, former news writer at FiveThirtyEight, a self-described liberal and an advocate of gun control. Libresco wrote an article on a study in which she describes a study she conducted. (I also wrote a blog entry on her article.)

[M]y colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I'd lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

Libresco’s study revealed that most gun deaths fall into one of these categories: suicide, gang violence and domestic disputes. She admits that the most commonly touted gun control measures would have no impact on these outcomes. When I cited this study to my friends I also referred to the high murder rate in Chicago which has tough gun control laws.

But here is where I stumbled onto a potentially valuable approach to talking about controversial subjects. Given the findings of this study by a gun control advocate and the results in cities like Chicago I said, “I’m not sure what else we can do.” My friend said maybe longer waiting periods to buy guns and universal background checks would help. She didn’t say “let’s confiscate guns” and didn’t label me as an unrepentant gun nut. I said I’d be willing to consider her ideas. I think by citing these facts from a source on her side of the political spectrum and saying that I didn’t know what else we could do about gun violence left the door open for a civil discussion.

[Note: Libresco concludes her article with: “A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.” Amen!

Rafael Nadal on Doubt

2020-01-10T21:16:00.002-05:00

-->

The Tennis Channel previewed an upcoming 60 Minutes interview of tennis player Rafael Nadal by Jon Wertheim, Tennis Channel commentator and Sports Illustrated executive editor. Nadal ended 2019 with a number 1 ranking in the world and with 19 Grand Slam titles, only one behind Roger Federer. The clip starts with Wertheim asking Nadal to talk about the importance of doubt in his game. Nadal: “If I don’t feel doubt I’m going to be in trouble. Doubt is very important to my success.” Wertheim expressed surprise at Nadal’s answer because Wertheim thought top performers wouldn’t claim doubt as their strength. Nadal’s reply: “If you don’t have doubt it probably means you’re being arrogant. I think it [doubt] is good for me because I feel alert. Tennis is a sport where things can change very quickly.”

I think what Nadal refers to isn’t doubt in oneself but doubt in the outcome, maybe even doubt in how well you will perform that day against that opponent. I also think Nadal is saying that you can’t assume you’re going to win a match against someone whom you’ve beaten before. By avoiding overconfidence you stay alert and not allow yourself to be lured into complacency. As is commonly said in professional sports that’s why the games are played: the outcome is not guaranteed. The underdog can sometimes win if they’re having a good day and the presumed winner is having an off day or doesn’t adjust to something their opponent is doing differently.

In an interview after the 2017 French Open Nadal also said that doubt drives him to improve the weaknesses in his game. This reflects his belief in an growth mindset in which you think you can improve with thoughtful effort as opposed to a closed mindset which believes our talents are set in stone and can’t be expanded. You think either you’ve got what it takes or you don’t. Nadal applied this open mindset when he changed his service motion before the 2019 Australian Open to boost the speed and penetration of his serve.

On the other hand if the doubt we feel reflects a fundamental lack of belief in one’s abilities it would undermine our performance in the heat of competition. It can make it even more likely that we will choke under pressure.

I’d summarize it this way. Doubt about outcome keeps us on our toes while competing and drives us to improve. However doubt in ourselves makes it more likely we won’t step up to the challenge.

Learning is optimized when we fail 15% of the time -- ScienceDaily

2019-11-06T10:13:00.002-05:00

Learning is optimized when we fail 15% of the time -- ScienceDaily

As a junior varsity high school tennis coach I tell the players that they should look at losing matches as an opportunity to learn what they can do to improve their game. (I tell myself that too when I play tennis matches.) If the players can learn from losses they still win in the long run even though they lost the latest match. (I’d also say they can also learn from wins by looking at what they can improve. I do this by keeping a journal in which I rate whether I improved in technique, tactics and mental parts of my game and rate what needs to be improved.)

The Science Daily article links to a paper titled The Eight Five Percent Rule for optimal learning that is fairly technical. The Science Daily article summarizes:

Educators and educational scholars have long recognized that there is something of a "sweet spot" when it comes to learning. That is, we learn best when we are challenged to grasp something just outside the bounds of our existing knowledge. When a challenge is too simple, we don't learn anything new; likewise, we don't enhance our knowledge when a challenge is so difficult that we fail entirely or give up.

So where does the sweet spot lie? According to the new study, to be published in the journal Nature Communications, it's when failure occurs 15% of the time. Put another way, it's when the right answer is given 85% of the time.

So we optimize our learning if we fail about one out of six times. Good to know!

I believe these results parallel what it takes to achieve a state of mind that is called Flow, a concept identified by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, a Hungarian-American psychologist. The Wikipedia entry describes flow as “the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by the complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting loss in one's sense of space and time.”

I say that there is a connection between optimal learning and flow because achieving a flow state requires facing a task that challenges you without being daunting. The Positive Psychology website explains: “an optimal Flow state was created when people tackled challenges that they perceived to be at just the right level of ‘stretch’ for their skill sets. In other words, neither too tough nor too easy as to be boring.”

Putting together the findings on optimal learning and flow it appears that both need a “Goldilocks” challenge: one that stretches you to achieve flow and reveals what you need to improve for the next time.

Lessons from the NFL AFC Championship

2019-01-22T09:53:00.002-05:00

I know many people outside of New England are tired of seeing the New England Patriots playing in the Super Bowl. There are a lot of reasons why the Pats dominate so much but I believe we can apply a couple things Tom Brady said in the post-game interview of the 2019 NFL’s AFC Championship (in which the New England Patriots beat the Kansas City Chiefs 37-31). We can apply these ideas not just to sports but how we live. I’ve provided his response to a reporter’s question with key words in bold.

Q: How do you stay so calm in the biggest moments, especially when your team is down and you have to drive the team right back?

BRADY: “Part of playing sports is just staying in the moment. We always say one play at a time and you can’t make up for things that happen in the past. You just have to think about what you are going to do moving forward. Start of the fourth quarter, they scored. We are up three to start the fourth quarter. What a great opportunity to be against this team and to be ahead three in the fourth quarter with a chance to win is pretty sweet. They blew so many teams out this year. It is just a great opportunity for us, and we took advantage of it.”

His first point, staying in the moment, is key. I’ve seen players and teams get desperate or angry when losing or when calls go against them then try for plays or shots that aren’t part of their normal repertoire. They’re upset about what just happened then try to make up for it by hitting the ball harder or going for shots they don’t “own.” For instance, in tennis (the sport with which I’m most familiar because I play it almost daily) I’ve seen players go for a shot or an angle that they normally wouldn’t try if they were ahead. Instead, they often end up making an unforced error, which only makes things worse. (I know because I’ve done it!)

As Brady says it’s better to forget about past mistakes or calls that go against you and focus on two things: stay in the moment while thinking of what you’re going to do next. One tip I use in tennis after making a mistake is to tell myself, “Next time” while making a couple shadow swings on how I wanted to hit the shot that I just missed. “Next time” means I’m telling myself I’ll do it better the next time I have the chance. This attitude implicitly represents a focus on the process rather than the results. It also reflects their confidence in themselves. And, it also means that their self-esteem isn’t tied to the outcome. Sure, it doesn’t feel good to lose but someone like Brady or Federer just use the loss as motivation to learn from what happened and try to improve. (This also reflects something I’ve written about in a previous post: the difference between having a growth mindset rather than a fixed mindset.)

Later Brady said that the Pats had a “great opportunity” when starting the fourth quarter with a three point lead over a team that was seeded #1 and had beaten other teams by large margins. I find it interesting that he didn’t say it was a challenge or that they were nervous. This is one of the qualities I’ve noticed with champions like the Brady, the Patriots or, switching to tennis again, Roger Federer. They are unflappable. They see facing a tough opponent as an opportunity to excel rather than a challenge for which they might not be good enough.

So what accounts for this calmness? I’d say these factors: focus on the present, confidence in yourself without tying the outcome to your self-esteem and a process-oriented mentality.

Tennis Reminders

2019-01-02T15:56:00.000-05:00

I originally posted this in January 2018 in my blog on Talking Sports and updated it today. It occurred to me that some of the ideas could also apply to flourishing and self-development so I've pasted the post below.

Tennis Reminders

In an earlier post, Can I? versus I Can!, I shared results of research on how people performed when they asked themselves the question “Can I do this?” versus coaxing themselves with “I can do this!” I mentioned that I apply this by asking myself “Can I play well today?” then answering “Yes!”

At the end of that post I also mentioned that I also use the acronym LIFE3 as part of my pre-match routine to remind why I’m playing: to Learn, Improve, have Fun and to Express myself, to Explore my capabilities and to Exercise.

The final pre-match self-talk covers key reminders on the techniques I want to use. I use two phrases, one for groundstrokes and one for serving. For groundstrokes I say, “Watch me Catch Butt.” This actually contains three reminders in one. Watch: reminds me to watch the shadow of the ball. Why the shadow? To narrow my focus to something specific on the ball, not the ball itself. (I actually don’t watch the ball over its entire flight. More on that in a later post. Hint: has to do with something called saccadic eye movements.) Catch: reminds me that on my forehand I’m holding my left arm across my body and basically parallel to the baseline as if I’m going to catch the ball. This forces me to turn my upper body, which sets up the coil needed to generate power. On the backhand I pretend I’m going to catch the ball with the butt of my racket. On volleys Catch reminds me to set up my racket as if I’m catching the ball with it. Butt: reminds me to pull the racket through contact to help generate racket speed.

Finally, when serving, I use the word UP to remind myself that I’m hitting Up on the ball and to Pronate.

By the way, in case you were wondering, here is a little background on my tennis playing ability and experience. When I’ve taken tennis lessons in the past couple years I’ve asked the four different instructors how they’d rate me on the NTRP (National Tennis Rating Program) scale. All of them say I’m at least a 4.0, maybe a little higher. Of course, all of them say this is based on what they see during lessons and that the rating could change depending on how I play in actual matches.

I constantly study the game by watching YouTube videos, reading many books and subscribing to a bunch of email newsletters of pros and instructors such as Wil Hamilton, Clay Ballard, Brent Abel, Peter Freeman, Ramon Osa, Jorge Capestany, and Ian Westermann. For the last three years I also have kept a tennis journal in which I rate myself whether I made incremental improvement in technique, tactics and my mental/emotional state. The journal also records observations on areas that need to be worked on for the next match.

I also use the Babolat POP wrist sensor to track my strokes. The POP collects average and maximum speeds of groundstrokes and serves, the kinds of groundstrokes (top spin, slice or flat) and gives an overall rating based on spin, speed and style. (I record this information in a spreadsheet to look for trends.)

All of this information aims to show that even though I might not be a 4.5 or higher rated player my constant study has resulted in my game continuing to advance. I believe I’m playing better now at the age of 67 than I have ever played before in the 50+ years that I’ve played this sport. And I’m not done!

UPDATE 1/2/2019

Since writing this a year ago I've tweaked and added to my pre-match routine. The UP reminder for serving now is PUPSS which stands for Point at the toss, hit Up, Pronate, start the serve take back Slowly and try to keep my body Sideways longer. I added these to my pre-serve reminder because I was finding myself starting the take back too fast then stopping or slowing down and my body was opening to the court too early which I think caused my first serve to go into the net too often.

The following might sound hokey but I also ask why am I playing. The answer is LIFES. This stands for to Learn more about the game and myself, to Improve, to have Fun, to Explore, get Exercise, have Excitement and Express myself with Style. The Style reminder is to get me to focus on playing smoothly and on the process of hitting the ball rather than the results. I got this idea after reading Gabriele Wulf’s Attention and Motor Skill Learning in which she describes the results of her research on the difference between having an external focus rather than an internal focus in performing athletic skills.

Here is how Amazon summarizes her book. “Attention and Motor Skill Learning challenges traditional views that the method of learning a motor skill involves focusing attention on each part of the skill and internalizing proper execution. Instead, author Gabriele Wulf argues that the learning of new motor skills suffers when attentional focus is on the coordination of movements. When attention is directed to the desired movement effect, however, performance levels rise. Not only is a higher level of performance often achieved faster with an external rather than an internal attention focus, but the skill is retained better.”

Her book discusses experiments she conducted with people doing a variety of skills such as standing on a balance bar and trying to keep it steady. The internal group was told to try to keep their feet as steady as possible while the external group was told to try to keep two lights that were on the balance beam as steady as possible. The external group consistently did better than the internal group and maintained this advantage when tested days or weeks later.

You could argue that my emphasis on making my shots with style actually is an internal focus but I would say it’s more of an external focus. By thinking about making my strokes with smooth style I’m thinking about the result, not on the mechanics of how to play with style. And I’m thinking mostly about how the forehand, backhand or serve look when they’re completed rather than the whole stroke. Bottom line: I think it works, at least for me!

What Separates Champions From ‘Almost Champions’? -- Science of Us

2018-07-05T09:50:00.000-04:00

What Separates Champions From ‘Almost Champions’? -- Science of Us

I’m going to start of with a long series of quotes from an article in The Cut titled “What Separates Champions From ‘Almost Champions’?

It’s the perennial million-dollar question of nature versus nurture, sure. But the difference between the greats and the almost-greats (which, by the way, applies well beyond sports) also appears to be at least partially driven by one specific thing — how each group responds to adversity. The greats rise to the challenge and put in persistent effort; the almost-greats lose steam and regress.

For a recent study published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology, talent development researchers Dave Collins, Aine MacNamara, and Neil McCarthy examined the differences between athletes who overcame adversity and went on to become world-class (what they call super champions) and those who struggled in the face of hardship (the hearthbreakingly named “almost champions”) . Whereas super champions were playing in premier leagues and/or competing on national teams (think: Olympics), almost champions had achieved well at the youth level but were playing in the less prestigious leagues as adults.

The researchers found that super champions were characterized “by an almost fanatical reaction to challenge.” They viewed challenges in a positive light — as opportunities to grow — and overcame them thanks to a “never satisfied” attitude. This runs in contrast to almost champions, who blamed setbacks on external causes, became negative, and lost motivation.
....

Super champions were driven from within. Their primary concern was self-improvement. They held themselves to high standards, but judged themselves against prior versions of themselves, not against others.
Almost champions, however, were focused on external benchmarks, like national rankings or how they compared to rivals, a mind-set the researchers speculate why almost champions got discouraged during rough patches.

.......

World-class performers, then, don’t rely on either nature or nurture, but on a combination of the two — and they are really good at nurturing their nature. All of which suggests the recipe that gives rise to super champions is worth emulating: Individuals who demonstrate persistent effort follow their interests; practice foremost to get better, not to outdo others; derive satisfaction from within; and feel constantly supported, but not pressured, in their journey toward achievement. If these criteria are in place, experiencing failure doesn’t weaken motivation — it bolsters it. In the words of Michael Joyner, an expert on human performance at Mayo Clinic, “With enough persistent effort, most people can get pretty good at anything.”

These results touch on a number of topics I’ve covered in previous posts: having a growth mindset versus a fixed mindset, focusing on the process rather than results, focusing inwardly on how you’re performing per your own standards instead of worrying about how you’re being perceived externally by your opponent or your friends, engaging in deliberate practice to improve, not just repeating what you already do well and not pushing yourself in practice and having grit as a personal quality. The Cut article doesn’t specifically touch on all of these points while I think they’re all implicitly involved.

I figure someone reading all of this might ask how studying world-class performers applies to us. How many of us really fall into that category? I know it will sound arrogant or obnoxious but I like to think I applied these ideas when designing and delivering presentations when I was working, in my tennis game and in other areas of my life such as relationships, etc. While I’ll probably never climb to the A level of players at the clubs where I play I do know my game has continually improved thanks to my constant investment into getting better. I like to think I’m now a B+ player! ;-) That’s why I believe the quote at the end of the article is key, which is why I’m repeating it below.

In the words of Michael Joyner, an expert on human performance at Mayo Clinic, “With enough persistent effort, most people can get pretty good at anything.”

Amen!

Puzzles versus Problems

2018-06-29T10:35:00.000-04:00

I’m reading Elevate: An Essential Guide to Life by Joseph Deitch (Greenleaf Book Group Press, 2018) which was given to me as a Father’s Day gift by my son-in-law. (Thank you!) Deitch proposes an idea for handling challenges that caught my attention. Deitch introduces the section by talking about responding to new challenges by reminding yourself you have the basic skills to try anything rather than saying “I can’t do that” or “I haven’t learned how to do that.” “A central insight of Elevate” is that certain skills are so basic, so fundamental, so universally applicable that they drive achievement in every conceivable endeavor.”

This leads into Deitch’s idea.

One of my favorite examples of the enormous difference this mental orientation can make is based on a story told by the philosopher George Gurdjieff. Growing up in Turkey, Gurdjieff benefited from an educational system organized around solving puzzles rather than memorizing facts. As a result, he came to see the challenges life presented as a series of puzzles to be solved. Instead of thinking, “I don’t know what to do because I’ve never faced this before,” or, “I can’t do such and such because I haven’t learned how to do it yet,” he would think, “Oh, here’s another puzzle. I’ll figure it out.” ...
Inspired by Gurdjieff’s example, I learned to frame challenges as enjoyable puzzles to be solved rather than as intimidating predicaments. ... Turning situations from problems into puzzles is a universal principle with enormous ramifications.

This idea resides in the beginning of the book where he lays the groundwork for these universal skills which are fleshed out in the second half of the book. I like his idea because, like him, I believe our mind reacts differently when something is framed as a puzzle, something to figure out, rather than a challenge which is usually interpreted as something that could exceed our abilities.

I also believe there is a connection between Deitch’s idea and the “can I fix this?” approach of Bob the Builder that I have discussed in a previous post. I think the mind reacts differently if we ask ourselves “Can I figure out this puzzle? Yes, I can!” versus “I’m faced with a challenge that I have to overcome.”

I think these approaches of looking at things as puzzles and answering the question if can we figure it out with a “yes” also ties in to Carol Dweck’s growth mindset as opposed to a fixed mindset. Someone with a growth mindset sees puzzles (or challenges) as a chance to grow, to learn to do something new whereas someone with a fixed mindset sees challenges as a threat to their abilities. If they don’t figure out the answer to a challenge the fixed mindset person thinks that’s proof of their inherent limitations. On the other hand the growth mindset person concludes that not being able to solve a problem just shows where they need to improve without it lowering their self-esteem.

Can I? versus I Can!

2018-01-17T10:20:00.000-05:00

Having read many self-help books over the years I’ve constantly encountered the idea of using positive self-talk and affirmation statements to help improve your chances of achieving your goals. Many of these books tell you to write positive “affirmation” statements. Examples would be:

I have plenty of creativity for this project.
My work will be recognized in a positive way by my boss and colleagues.
My co-workers and customers respect and value my opinion.
I am successful.
I complete tasks and projects on time.
I expect to be successful in all of my endeavors. Success is my natural state.
I am courageous and I stand up for myself.
My thoughts are positive and my life is filled with prosperity.

When I read these books years ago and tried affirmations like this I believe they helped put me in a more positive frame of mind. However, as I wrote in my April 23, 2017 post “Moving Beyond Positive Thinking”, research has shown that if we vividly visualize our goals our mind doesn’t know the difference between the imagined outcome and the actual results! We can end up having less motivation not more. In this post I refer to work done by Gabriele Oettingen, professor of psychology at New York University and the University of Hamburg and covered in her book Rethinking Positive Thinking: Inside the New Science of Motivation.

Daniel Pink, author of books such as Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us and To Sell Is Human: The Surprising Truth About Moving Others, reports on research that says we can be more productive by asking if we can do something then answering with a “yes” rather than declaring “I can do it.” Pink relays research done on a method used by Bob the Builder, an “overall-clad, stop-motion animated construction executive – who debuted on CBBC in 1999 and whose television programme now reaches children in 240 territories and 45 languages – is a management radical. His approach to directing projects, people and himself runs counter to the prevailing wisdom about business performance.”

Most of us believe in positive self-talk. "I can achieve anything," we mouth to the mirror in the morning. "Nobody can stop me," we tell ourselves before walking into a big meeting. We believe we'll do better if we banish doubts about our ability or our strategy and instead muster an inner voice that affirms our awesomeness.

But not Bob. Instead of puffing up himself and his team, he first wonders whether they can actually achieve their goal. In asking his signature question – Can we fix it? – he introduces some doubt.

…

In a nifty set of experiments, three social scientists explored the differences between what they call "declarative" self-talk (I will fix it!) and "interrogative" self-talk (Can I fix it?). They began by presenting a group of participants with some anagrams to solve (for example, rearranging the letters in "sauce" to spell "cause".) But before the participants tackled the problem, the researchers asked one half of them to take a minute to ask themselves whether they would complete the task – and the other half to tell themselves that they would complete the task.

The results?

The self-questioning group solved significantly more anagrams than the self-affirming group.

…

By asking "Can we fix it?", Bob widens the possibilities. Only then – once he's explored the options and examined his assumptions – does he elicit a rousing "Yes, we can" from his team and everyone gets to work.

So the next time you're feeding your inner self a heady brew of confident declarations and bold affirmations, toss in a handful of interrogatives with a few sprinkles of humility and doubt.

The research that Pink reports relates somewhat to Oettingen’s WOOP process. WOOP stands for Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, and Plan. You define what you wish [W] to accomplish, determine the outcome [O], identify the likely obstacles [O] then design a plan [P] to overcome those obstacles.

Am I saying not to use positive affirmations? No! I think they have a place. For an interesting perspective see Scott Adams’ How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life. Adams in hardly a raving advocate of positive mental attitude but he admits to have tried positive affirmations. I think the key take away is not to expect affirmations to have magical powers that will make things happen without work or without accounting for obstacles that could derail your efforts. We need to have a positive idea where we want to go while also asking ourselves what could go wrong and what can we do to deal with it.

NOTE: for a related post on the power words can have on behavior see this post from 2013.

-->

Process Improvement: This Coach Improved Every Tiny Thing by 1 Percent

2017-12-07T12:04:00.000-05:00

Process Improvement: This Coach Improved Every Tiny Thing by 1 Percent

This article by James Clear touches on what I covered in the previous post about journaling. As I mentioned I found that using a journal to record my progress in tennis technique, tactics and my mental/emotional state have helped me become a better player through incremental improvement. Clear's article shows how the British cycling team, which had never won the Tour de France, ended up winning it in 2012 as well as pulling in 70% of the gold medals in cycling in the 2012 Olympics. They did it through “aggregation of marginal gains” as described by Dave Brailsford, General Manager and Performance Director for Team Sky, Great Britain’s professional cycling team.

Keeping a journal helps me keep track of where I'm improving and where I need to spend more time and effort.

While I'm on the subject, Clear also suggests it's better for us to focus on the system we put in place to accomplish goals, rather than the goals themselves. (A point that Scott Adams also makes in his book How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life.) Another way of saying it is to focus on the process (the system) rather than the goal (the outcome). Here are some of his examples.

If you're a coach, your goal is to win a championship. Your system is what your team does at practice each day.
If you're a writer, your goal is to write a book. Your system is the writing schedule that you follow each week.
If you're a runner, your goal is to run a marathon. Your system is your training schedule for the month.
If you're an entrepreneur, your goal is to build a million dollar business. Your system is your sales and marketing process.

Clear goes on to explain the reasons why setting up a system works better than focusing strictly on goals. Rather than repeating them, here is the link.

Continual Improvement Journaling

2017-12-06T09:24:00.000-05:00

A couple years ago I read a tennis book that recommended using a journal to rate yourself after each match on how much incremental improvement you made while playing. (Unfortunately I don't remember the book.) It suggested rating yourself on a scale of 1 for low to 5 for high in how much incremental improvement you made in the areas of technique, tactics, mental/emotional, and adjustments. It also asks what you did well and what you could improve. The idea behind this is that we usually don’t drastically improve our games. It’s more a process of continual improvement, often with the quality of our play declining a bit because we’re trying to change things. (This is a common occurrence when people take lessons.)

After doing this for about two years I can say that keeping this journal has been helpful. For one thing, I’ve noticed trends that help me know what to work on, such as I’m not tossing the ball forward enough when serving or I’m hitting overheads long. It’s also been helpful seeing progress as my self-ratings in the categories have increased over time. It probably sounds like bragging but I have to think more about what needs to be improved because I’m making fewer errors or clusters of mistakes in one area.

I think this diary could be used to evaluate how we perform in other areas of our life. Obviously the categories we would use to rate ourselves would be different but the general concept would be the same: the level of incremental improvement. For instance, my job involved making ten or more stewardship presentations a year to customers. (I used the past tense because I’m retired.) If I were to use this self-rating method I would have evaluated how much my technique improved (pacing, variation of my voice, etc.) as well as the design of my slides (layout, simplicity, clarity, etc.) and so on.

Review of How To Think: A Survival Guide for a World at Odds by Alan Jacobs

2017-11-07T14:50:00.002-05:00

I’ve read a number of books in the last few years that tell us how we think we’re being objective but we’re actually hostage to a laundry list of various biases, many of which influence us subconsciously. Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow probably is the most influential of these books based on how frequently it is cited in the other books. While Jacobs’ How To Think tills some of the same ground there is a difference. Jacobs’ personal background helps him see how biases influence how different groups of people perceive the world and think about it. Why do I say this? Because he straddles two worlds. He is an academic (teaches in the Honors Program at Baylor University) while also being a Christian. This gives Jacobs a unique perspective where he can see how different groups perceive each other.

When I hear academics talk about Christians, I typically think, That’s not quite right. I don’t believe you understand the people you think you’re disagreeing with. And when I listen to Christians talk about academics I have precisely the same thought.

Jacobs differs from Kahneman and others by saying that thinking involves much more than recognizing and fighting our inherent bias. He believes:

[W]e suffer from a settled determination to avoid thinking. Relatively few people want to think. Thinking troubles us; thinking tires us. Thinking can force us out of familiar, comforting habits; thinking can complicate our lives; thinking can set us at odds, or at least complicate our relationships, with those we admire or love or follow. Who needs thinking?

Here is Jacobs’ suggested first step how to address this taken from his Can Evangelicals and Academics Talk to Each Other? in The Wall Street Journal.

[T]here is a first step that all of us can take in resisting the hold of our Inner Rings and the reflex to push away our “repugnant cultural others.”

The Inner Ring that Jabobs refers to is from a C. S. Lewis talk titled “The Inner Rings” which describes our fear of being left out of our preferred social group, of being considered an outsider to the ingroup that we want to belong to. Jacobs’ discussion uses his term “repugnant cultural other” (or RCO) throughout his book. RCO captures how we tend to be repelled by those who disagree with us in politics, religion, or issues such as gun control.

Or another way to summarize his approach is:

The person who genuinely wants to think will have to develop strategies for recognizing the subtlest of social pressures, confronting the pull of the ingroup and disgust for the outgroup. The person who wants to think will have to practice patience and master fear.

I do disagree somewhat with Jacobs’ explanation why some people cast those who disagree with them as enemies worthy of being demonized and even disposed of.

When you believe that the brokenness of this world can be not just ameliorated but fixed, once and for all, then people who don’t share your optimism, or who do share it but invest in a different system, are adversaries of Utopia. … Whole classes of people can by this logic become expendable – indeed, it can become the optimist’s perceived duty to eliminate the adversaries.

I wouldn’t label people who think this way necessarily as optimists. I’d say they’re sadly lacking in objectivity. They’re not asking themselves why people who disagree with them could possibly take that position. I’ve seen this especially rampant here in Massachusetts among my liberal friends, where I’ve chosen in some cases not to get into arguments. I know a couple people who have quit talking to me simply because I disagreed with their support for Hillary Clinton as president. Having said that, I’ve also seen conservative, libertarian and Objectivist friends treat people who disagree with them in a less than civil manner.

Jacobs describes how each group creates their own keywords so that allies can easily understand each other while judging other people by their use of these keywords. (It reminds me of Arnold Kling’s Three Languages of Politics in which liberals talk in terms of oppressors and the oppressed, conservatives cast debates in terms of barbarism versus civilization and libertarians judge whether acts impede our freedom or coerce us.) As Jacobs correctly says, “keywords have a tendency to become parasitic: they enter the mind and displace thought.” After all, it’s easier to slap labels onto ideas we agree or disagree with than it is to objectively consider them.

Jacobs disagrees with the idealistic image of us as independent thinkers who reach our conclusions unencumbered by the influence of what others think. “Thinking is necessarily, thoroughly, and wonderfully social. Everything you think is a response to what someone else has thought and said.” I’m sure we can find examples of people who indeed did heroically work out their ideas in isolation. Based on the summaries of the abundant psychological research I’ve read in the books on how we think, I do believe we are swayed by how our friends think and we tend to surround ourselves with people who tend to agree with us. I agree with Jacobs and others (like Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind) that despite our advancement from our caveman days we still are tribal in nature. However, I also believe that we can strive for objectivity if we follow Jacobs’s advice such as “when faced with provocation to respond to what someone has said, give it five minutes.” Or “value learning over debating. Don’t ‘talk for victory.’ ”

Before I close let me say that Jacobs doesn’t say we should never come to firm conclusions. “You simply can’t thrive in a state of constant daily evaluation of the truth-conduciveness of your social world, any more than a flowering plant can flourish if its owner digs up its root every morning to see how it’s doing.”

I believe if you take the steps Jacobs puts in his final chapter, The Thinking Person’s Checklist, you can still firmly hold and defend your opinions while also accepting that people can disagree with you. You can be secure in your beliefs without demonizing the other person.

At the beginning I said that I’ve read many books, not just on how biases can affect us. For a number of these books after I finish them I sarcastically ask, “Gee, how did the author shoehorn the contents of a three page article into a 300 page book.” By that I mean the author took an idea that made a good magazine article then expanded it into a book by adding filler and stories but not much else. Jacobs’ book sets an example of how to do the opposite: how to pack many ideas into a slim 156-page volume. His book could have been titled How To Think -- and Write.

Moving Beyond Positive Thinking | Big Think

2017-04-23T18:04:00.001-04:00

Moving Beyond Positive Thinking | Big Think

This article nicely summaries the findings of Gabriele Oettingen, professor of psychology at New York University and the University of Hamburg, in her book Rethinking Positive Thinking: Inside the New Science of Motivation. Having read many “positive thinking” books over the years I know that most of these books tell us that we need to vividly visualize the goals that we want to achieve in order to attain them. However Oettingen’s research found that doing these visualizations can actually hamper our motivation!

“Positive thinking can make us feel better in the short term, but over the long term it saps our motivation, preventing us from achieving our wishes and goals, and leaving us feeling frustrated, stymied and stuck.”

In other words if we visualize our goals our mind doesn’t know the difference between the imagined outcome and the actual results! We end up having less motivation not more.

Does this mean Oettingen wants us to abandon positive thinking and become pessimists? No. Her research has shown we achieve more if we try to anticipate obstacles that stymie us and develop plans to deal with them using if-then statements. For instance, we might want to exercise first thing in the morning but we know that we repeatedly hit the snooze button. To deal with this we create the following implementation intention: “If I feel like hitting the snooze button, then I will immediately jump out of bed.”

This sounds too good to be true but studies have shown that this process works. In Oettingen’s studies 80% of those who applied the WOOP approach achieved their goals while only 30% of the control groups did.

Oettingen calls her approach WOOP, Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, Plan. You define what you wish to accomplish, determine the outcome, identify the likely obstacles then design a plan to overcome those obstacles.

Here are some links for additional information on this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implementation_intention

http://woopmylife.org/woop-1

https://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=as_li_qf_sp_sr_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=dadinautumn-20&keywords=Rethinking%20Positive%20Thinking&index=aps&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=ur2&linkId=9ebfba4fbee6591fd609c3cc3a2b1a9f%22