The Catalyst of Confidence

Introducing The Four Personalities

2013-06-19T12:44:00.001-04:00

Many of you may have read about and studied what is commonly known as “the four personalities,” or "the four temperaments." Today there are many theories about personality and personality types in psychology and folk psychology, and it is not my intention to outline or discuss them all. Rather, in this post and in the posts that follow I will be considering one, which says that (generally speaking) people can be broken down into four different categories of behavior: Sanguine, Choleric, Melancholy and Phlegmatic. This post marks the beginning of a series of posts which will further discuss the details and implications of this perspective.

As a side note, I have never written about what I will from now on refer to as “The Personalities,” though I have been a student of it for many years. What I am going to write in this and future posts is not material of my own creation. The best and most accessible book I can recommend on the subject is Personality Plus by Florence Littauer.

Above I stated that people can be broken down into four different categories of behavior: Sanguine, Choleric, Melancholy, and Phlegmatic. A “category of behavior” is simply a set of behavioral dispositions, or personality traits, that people consistently display, each one broadly being labeled with a different word. This is not to say that everyone is either Sanguine, Choleric, Melancholy, or Phlegmatic. A given person may indeed be considered a “Sanguine,” or a “Phlegmatic,” but such a label is not supposed to tell us all there is to know about their personality (it may, however, tell us a lot). The fact is is that everyone is a combination of the four personalities. We all have elements of each of the four personalities in varying proportions, and in varying ways, which combine to make up our own unique personality. Moreover, most of us will find that we dominate in two of the four personalities, having a “strong pair” and a “weak pair” to describe ourselves (generally in each pair one will be stronger). Thus, even though I have elements of all four personalities in my own personality, my strong pair happens to be Choleric (50%) and Sanguine (37.5%), while my weak pair happens to be Melancholy (7.5%) and Phlegmatic (5%). If you already understand The Personalities, then you already have a pretty good grasp of mine, though the way in which I instantiate traits from each personality type will be hidden from you until you become acquainted with me.

In the posts that follow we will begin discussing each personality in detail. First up will be Sanguine (stay tuned).

Blame Yourself

2013-06-11T12:57:00.000-04:00

Generally speaking I support the notion that we ought to blame ourselves for everything bad that happens to us. Perhaps that sounds a little radical? It is true that such an assertion should be qualified a bit, especially considering the “generally speaking” clause will likely prove insufficient to many. It could be argued, for instance, that the word “everything” is a bit strong. As if the crazed ice hockey spectator who takes a puck to the face should blame themselves for it. Like other things which are easily dismissed, such maxims—while at first glance appearing to be exaggerations, if not sheer nonsense—often encapsulate deeper meanings. Still, exaggerations can be life-enhancing (this last point is one I plan on discussing in more detail in the future).

Before we get too far it will be prudent to define exactly what is meant by the term “blame.” By blame, I simply mean “to place responsibility upon.” If I blame myself for something, I am acknowledging my responsibility, or behavioral/causal role, in whatever it is I am considering. I do not use the word blame to refer to a form of brow beating or self-loathing, which is, unfortunately, a common connotation that many people attach to the word.

The idea that you should blame yourself as far as possible for everything bad that happens to you is one that simply encourages personal responsibility on your part. It says, “I look to myself for accountability: what can I do personally?” Suppose you are late for work because of road construction. Should you blame yourself for being late? You should, if only because you actually are late (remember: I am not using blame as a synonym for “beat yourself up”). You may protest, “but I had no control over it!” But that makes no difference. What is the purpose of transferring responsibility on to some other party? Does it make you feel better? Is that what matters most to you? What do you actually accomplish by placing responsibility on the construction crew? Nothing, really. Yet in fact, this is how many people take first steps toward becoming “professional blamers,” i.e., people who are, practically speaking, almost incapable of taking responsibility for anything. It starts with something small and insignificant, yet over time, and if left unchecked, such behavior can grow into a real problem. “I was late because I didn't leave for work early enough to account for road construction: from now on I will leave early enough to get to work on time” is a much better alternative. It keeps the focus on what you can control, and not on external circumstances. A little wounded pride is a small price compared to a victim mentality buffered with self-pity.

Hello Again (& Some News)!

2013-06-06T13:53:00.004-04:00

As you can see, I've been somewhat out of the loop. Posting less and less, until my disappearing act was near complete. At least until now. Given the lack of activity on this blog during recent months, please allow me to ask, you, gentle reader, to bear with me as I emerge from the depths and shadows, and claw myself back into the habit of regular posting.

Writing, it seems, is largely a game of inertia (as is most any activity, perhaps). It can be difficult to pick up the pen again after one has spent a given amount of time in hibernation, as it were. But the end is nigh, and the ink must flow again.

In recent news, Amazon.com has discounted Discipline, and The Catalyst of Confidence by 10%, lowering prices to $6.24 and $8.54 respectively. Also, Goodreads.com will soon be offering a "giveaway" of my book Discipline. You can throw your name into the ring to potentially receive a free signed copy of the book. I will provide details as they come.

William James on Exercises in Discipline

2013-03-20T10:55:00.001-04:00

In The Principles of Psychology, William James gives us a brilliant explanation of what I have referred to in my recent book Discipline as "exercises in discipline." He writes:

Keep the faculty of effort alive in you by a little gratuitous exercise every day. That is, be systematically heroic in little unnecessary points, do every day or two something for no other reason than its difficulty, so that, when the hour of dire need draws nigh, it may find you not unnerved and untrained to stand the test. Asceticism of this sort is like the insurance which a man pays on his house and goods. The tax does him no good at the time, and possibly may never bring him a return. But, if the fire does come, his having paid it will be his salvation from ruin. So with the man who has daily inured himself to habits of concentrated attention, energetic volition, and self-denial in unnecessary things. He will stand like a tower when everything rocks around him, and his softer fellow-mortals are winnowed like chaff in the blast.

We are spinning our own fates, good or evil, and never to be undone. Every smallest stroke of virtue or of vice leaves its never-so-little scar. The drunken Rip Van Winkle, in Jefferson's play, excuses himself for every fresh dereliction by saying, "I won't count this time!" Well, he may not count it, and a kind Heaven may not count it; but it is being counted none the less. Down among his nerve-cells and fibres the molecules are counting it, registering and storing it up to be used against him when the next temptation comes.

A Tale of Fat Ken

2013-02-27T12:36:00.001-05:00

“Whatever you do, don't end up like Ken Parsell.” “After he got married, he totally let himself go.” “He's like huge now—seriously—doesn't even look like himself.” “We use to play soccer with him, he probably can't even run anymore.” “...” etc., etc.

Such things were probably said about me during the years following my marriage, and rightly so. To say the least, I bulked up a bit. To be blunt, I got fat. Not that I was terribly self-conscious about it. For the most part it was just annoying. When I was younger I would scoff at people who said things like “I can't button my pants anymore!” “What do you mean you can't button your pants?!” I would think to myself. “How does that even happen?” Well, how exactly, I'm not entirely sure of. At first I thought that my wife was shrinking my clothes. “What kind of laundry detergent are we using?” I would ask her. “I think it's shrinking my clothes.” “Are you doing something different? These shirts are getting tighter on me.” “You're gaining weight” she would say. “What?! Like those people who couldn't button their pants that I would laugh at when I was younger? Pfft! No—this is different—my clothes are definitely shrinking.”

Fortunately the self-deception ended, and I realized the problem didn't involve things like the way the laundry was being done. The problem was me. When I got married I weighed somewhere around 175 to 180. During the highpoint of my “bulking” endeavors I reached upwards of 220 to 225. I would fiddle with diets, or exercise, or both, but never really took it seriously. The following pictures illustrate my change of appearance quite nicely:

The picture on the left was taken in May 2007 (8 months before I got married), when I probably weighed about 160 or 165. The picture on the right was taken in December 2010 (36 months after I got married), when I weighted 1,000 lbs. Just kidding. Actually I have no idea how much I weighed when that picture was taken, but I remember screaming “Madre de Dios!” when I saw it. The picture was taken by my aunt during Christmas, and at the time I was sure that she must have had some funky-weird camera lens that created the optical illusion that I was bigger than I was. To my horror, my wife assured me that I actually did look like that, and it was at that time that I realized my clothes weren't shrinking after all.

But again, for some reason I wasn't that concerned. So I continued halfheartedly flirting with random diet and exercise regimens. If I lost some weight, great. If I didn't, I wasn't seriously hurt by it. This continued until the spring of 2012 (last spring). I happened to be organizing my notes and getting ready to start writing Discipline, when I got the idea that I should take my “research process” a step further. Since I was going to be writing about the subject of self-discipline, why not apply my “discipline process” to my own weight loss? I had been slowly growing more concerned about the prospect of potentially becoming a diabetic, I was still annoyed with my tight fitting clothes, and I knew that I wanted to lose weight eventually. So I decided to take the plunge.

After a period of trial and error, I settled on combining elements from Doug Varrieur's Fat To Skinny diet, and Tim Ferriss' Slow-Carb diet, mixed in with two to three 15 minute kettle bell workouts per week, and committed myself to it exactly as I advise a person to do in my book Discipline. When I began on May 14^th, I weighted just under 210. By July 20^th, I weighed 180, was down to 170 before the end of the year, and have since been maintaining that weight. The picture below was taken in October 2012. Thankfully, I no longer weigh 1,000 lbs.

My point in discussing this is simply to illustrate that discipline directly affects our ability to do things. Yes, the regimen I followed was effective, but it doesn't matter how effective it happened to be if I failed to actually do it. Discipline helps us do things, regardless of what it is that we are trying to do. If I had failed to adhere to my commitment, I wouldn't have succeeded as I did. It's as simple as that. A lack of discipline undermines our ability to do things. Whereas, the more disciplined we are, the better able we are to do the things we set out to do.

My recently released book, Discipline, discusses the subject and how to develop it in detail.

Now Available: Discipline

2013-02-18T11:34:00.003-05:00

I am pleased to announce that my latest book Discipline is now available for sale on Amazon.com!

Here are the links to the paperback, and the kindle editions ($6.93 for paperback, $1.99 for kindle—and by the way, you can read kindle books on a variety of different devices, click here for details).

Discipline is a lightning-fast read that will help you develop self-discipline in record time. It's a super focused look at one of the most daunting tasks many people face, conquering the “what,” “why,” and “how” of this often hard to pin down subject.

If you're a member on goodreads.com, you can add/review the book here.

Get Ready!

2013-02-16T13:30:00.000-05:00

I have received confirmation from Amazon.com that Discipline will be available for purchase this coming week in both kindle and paperback formats! An "official release" announcement, complete with links to the book, will be posted the day everything is ready to roll.

I would also like to apologize for previously stating that the book would be released in January. There were a few unanticipated hiccups and quirks that needed to be sorted out during the final phases of publishing which caused a bit of a delay.

Answer the phone!

2013-01-25T13:52:00.000-05:00

Our lives are filled with things that are seemingly urgent. If the phone rang when I was a kid, almost everyone in the house (including myself) all-but-killed-themselves trying to answer it as quickly as possible. Imagine heating a tea kettle on a stove—what do we almost unhesitatingly do when it begins whistling? Naturally, we try to stop it as quickly as we can. How about when the doorbell rings? What about when an alarm sounds? Most likely the same answers apply. What's interesting about these observations is not that we tend to respond to such things, but rather, that we respond to them so urgently and without conscious thought.

Now I am not seriously suggesting that when the phone or doorbell rings, we should not respond appropriately. I am not suggesting that when the timer on the stove goes off you should consider letting your food burn. Nor do I think that those of us who seemingly “can't resist” answering a text or email are suffering from a kind of insanity. What I am suggesting is that, for many of us, our years of responding to such things in an urgent and necessary fashion has conditioned us to react to many things without realizing that we have a choice in the matter.

Regardless of any urgency we may feel, we can choose not to answer the phone or doorbell. We can choose not to get the food out of the oven—and let it burn—just as we can choose to leave the tea kettle screaming on the stove top. Again, I am not suggesting to actually do these things. I am simply making the point that we are not obligated to do them, despite our behavior often suggesting otherwise.

As an exercise in self-control, try to overcome the impulse of acting automatically. Try to subdue it and master it. Things that you may perform automatically, unhesitatingly, urgently—deny them their urgency and importance. Respond to them differently. Deliberately heat a tea kettle on the stove, for instance. When it whistles, take your time getting to it. The sound might drive you nuts, but let it go for a minute or so and then slowly remove it from the burner. See? The world didn't end. You're still very much alive and kicking. You survived the discomfort. No tea kettle? Try the same exercise with something else. Flex those self-control muscles a bit, you never know when you might need them.

Coming Soon...

2013-01-23T11:58:00.000-05:00

"Official Announcement" forthcoming.

New Year's Resolutions & Book Announcement

2012-12-21T11:29:00.000-05:00

As the year draws to a close many people will begin committing to "new year's resolutions." Resolving to save money, or lose weight, or eat healthier, or pay off debts, or be more friendly, or whatever: they begin the new year with hope and anticipation. But oddly enough (hilariously, in my view), by the second month of the new year, most, indeed the great majority of them, will have failed to follow through on their resolution(s). Statistics vary, but the data generally shows that by February almost 90% of "new year's resolution makers" will have either forgot about their resolution altogether, or given up (for whatever reason) on actually doing it. Why is this? The short answer is because they lack discipline.

Of course I'm not talking about you, dear reader. There isn't a doubt in my mind that you are a member of the elite 10% who actually has the sense to do what you commit yourself to do. After all, you read this blog. And you don't just read it, you act on it. You don't just understand this stuff intellectually, you take the time and put forth the effort to understand it functionally as well. So naturally it isn't a surprise that you're not a member of that "90% riff raff" that spends their days mindlessly wandering the planet. Indeed, no surprise at all.

I'm sure that you've bumped in to some of those 90%er's, haven't you? Perhaps you wonder if there is anything you can do to help them "break the spell"? To help them exercise a bit of their humanity? To help them out of the darkness and guide them into the light? Or (heaven forbid!) you might happen to be one of those 90%er's! One of the few who may be lurking here trying to find a glimmer of hope! In either case, prepare yourself for my new book: Discipline: What it is; How to develop it; Why you should.

To begin with, Discipline will be released next month--just in time for you "new year's resolution" folks! The book is quite short, and is specifically designed to cover the "what, why and how" of developing self-discipline. Unlike The Catalyst of Confidence, which covered a wide range of topics, Discipline focuses on one, and attempts to cover it in scrupulous detail. The book will retail on Amazon.com for under $7.00 in paperback, and $1.99 on Kindle. What could be a better new years gift to yourself?

Stay tuned for more updates!

Some End-of-Year Updates

2012-12-14T11:39:00.001-05:00

It's been a busy year with lots of projects going on. First and foremost I've been working on a new book, which is now in the final stages of completion (announcement forthcoming!). Also, a second edition of The Catalyst of Confidence will be released next year. No new content, just some simple editorial and structural changes, with a new cover to boot! Lastly, in anticipation of the coming semester, Life n' Leadership is currently on sale ($19.92) on Amazon.com until January 10^th, 2013.

Some Thoughts on Communication

2012-12-10T16:01:00.000-05:00

Communication between people is accomplished through the medium of language. We communicate with words. But communication is only possible because words have meanings attached to them. When I say something is “hot” or “cold,” you are quickly able to grasp the basic proposition of what it is that I mean when I use such words. Yet not all words are so easily discernible, so clean cut, so black and white. Indeed, many times people will use a word to mean one thing, when, in their mind, they really mean something entirely different. And thus arises an explanation (no doubt among many) of why real communication can be so challenging.

You can have a conversation, a discussion, even an argument with someone, yet if you don't understand exactly what it is that they mean when they say what they say, you aren't really communicating with them. You're simply talking past one another, and though it may appear that communication is occurring, in reality it isn't. For this reason (among others) I have noticed that it is of paramount importance to understand what people mean when they use the words they do. I often find myself asking others “what exactly do you mean when you say 'x'?” or “when you say 'y,' do you mean this or that?” and so on. Recently I heard someone say that they were “being logical.” But when I inquired as to what they meant by the word “logical,” I found that they were actually thinking that they had a good reason to do whatever it was they were going to do. By “logical,” they seemed to think that they had thought the matter through and were not being rash. Had I not asked, however, I would never have guessed that that was what they meant.

The bottom line is this: don't assume that you know what the other person means when they write or say something. You may have very well read or heard a given word, and they may have very well used that word, but make sure that you are both on the same page when it comes to its meaning. Seek first to understand.

Explaining Losses

2012-11-28T11:19:00.000-05:00

Winning and losing is implicit in the nature of competition. There must be a scorecard, a results tally. Someone must win, someone must lose. However, should the losing party attempt to explain their loss—something that I continuously find rather puzzling, and which usually comes in the form of excuse making or blaming—their explanation, at bottom, usually amounts to: “If only you hadn't won, I would have!” Indeed... a most astute observation.

I often wonder why people feel the need to explain their losses to those around them. Take a card game, Euchre, for instance. When a person wins a trick, you will often find that one of the losers will say something like: "If you didn't have that King, I would have won it!" Or, if the situation is such that whomever wins the trick wins the game: "If you didn't have that King, we would have won the game!" Now, I can't for the life of me think of a more uninteresting thing to say. Again, "If only you hadn't won, I would have!" Great. What an exceedingly riveting observation. Why don't we sit here for another 20 minutes hashing out all the ways you could have won—"if only things had happened differently"?

Why do people do stuff like that? Is it because they're embarrassed they lost? Is it because they want the winners to know that they (the winning party) just barely eek'd out a victory, and that they (the losing party) are not so very bad after all? No doubt I will encounter the said situation again at some point in the future. And when I do, perhaps I can cross examine a few people and figure out just what is going on in their minds when they say such things.

Everyone?

2012-11-20T10:12:00.000-05:00

I've mentioned Dale Carnegie a couple times on this blog (here and here). Recently I came across the following quote attributed to him: “Everyone is your superior in some way.” I'm pretty sure this quote comes from How To Win Friends and Influence People, though it wasn't directly cited.

“Everyone is your superior in some way.” Here we have a proposition that may lead some to scoff. But the scoffers haven't thought carefully enough about it. It's easy to jest when you don't bother to think. To be sure, this quote isn't intended to be a flat-out bearer of truth, akin to something like 2 + 2 = 4 (though a case could probably be made in support of it). Rather, it is intended as a kind of “principle of human relations.”

Consider the person who flatly believes that they are superior to others. How are they likely to treat others when their behavior is predicated on the belief that they are a superior kind of human being? Contrast such a person with the opposite: he or she who approaches others with the understanding that everyone they encounter is, in some way, their superior. How are they likely to interact with others? Which person would you rather associate with? The point here isn't to “bow down” to everyone you interact with because they are better than you in some unknown or mysterious way. It is simply a psychological tool that can be used to help avoid arrogance and snobbishness, both of which are rather unlikable traits.

To state the same idea differently (my apologies to the anti-philosophy crowd), think of it this way: If the proposition that A) everyone is my superior in some way, is true, then it is equally true that B) I am superior to everyone in some way. The truth of one entails the truth of the other. But again, consider the difference in my potential outlook and behavior when I act on the basis of A instead of B. Both A and B are equally valid, yet they produce mutually exclusive outlooks and dispositions. The one I choose to focus on, and thereby think in terms of, affects my behavioral disposition, particularly in how I view myself and those around me, and will no doubt flow over into my daily interactions with others.

Lance Armstrong and Certainty

2012-10-22T12:52:00.000-04:00

Lance Armstrong has been viewed by many people to be the best contemporary example of human potential in action. And it isn't hard to see why. His official website briefly explains his biography:

If scripted by Hollywood, the story would be dismissed as trite melodrama: A deadly disease strikes a promising athlete. Despite desperately thin odds, he manages not only to beat the affliction but also to return to the sport and win its top prize, not once but a record seven times. Unbelievable, except it's true.

But the story doesn't end on the finish line at the Tour de France. His experience made him a part of a cancer community, and motivated him to unleash the same passion and drive he does in bike races to the fight against cancer.

Since he made history in 1999, he has won the tour six more times, and has become one of the most recognizable and admired people of this era.

And yet earlier today cycling's governing body—Union Cycliste Internationale—agreed to strip the seven Tour de France titles of Lance Armstrong and ban him from the sport for life; citing a recent doping investigation conducted by the USADA, which has reportedly revealed Armstrong's participation in various deceptive activities of the USPS Pro-Cycling Team. For the purposes of this post, I will assume the findings of the USADA investigation to be brute fact (it is of course possible that the investigation of the doping conspiracy is itself a conspiracy, but let that pass).

Few people have provided the modern world of “motivation” with a better real-life example of human potential and performance than Lance Armstrong. And it's no surprise that Armstrong's story has been used (and perhaps overused) as a megaphone to serve that purpose. But now that the best living example (arguably) of human achievement has been shown to be a fraud, his story (if it is mentioned at all) will have to be changed to something like “he could have been what we thought he was, if only he had done x.”

What this little debacle illustrates is the distinction between perception and reality. Between the way we think things are, and the way they actually are. No doubt there are people out there who cannot bring themselves to believe that such an indictment on the great Lance Armstrong could possibly be true, and no doubt they will tie themselves in knots trying to explain why or how it is false. It's one thing to know the character of a person, or rather how we have experienced a person's character in the past. But knowing what we know about another person with certainty is a different matter altogether. And the certainty of the character of a public figure is, as a brute fact, one of the least certain certainties of all.

On Greener Grass

2012-10-11T12:09:00.000-04:00

No doubt the adage “the grass is always greener on the other side,”—or something akin to it—has, at one time or another, reached your eyes or ears. The saying is quite common, and is generally interpreted to mean that regardless of circumstances, we humans tend to think that the “other person” has things better off than we do. We tend to think of the other person's grass as being ever green, so to speak, while simultaneously evaluating our own grass (life, circumstances, etc.) as shoddy and in need of sustenance.

Taken literally, the statement “the grass is always greener on the other side,” leads to absurdity. Were the aforementioned statement literally true, it would seem to follow that there would necessarily be a hierarchy of “green grasses,” which would eventually culminate in a single person possessing the “greenest grass” of all. But if a single person possesses the “greenest grass,” then the grass cannot always be greener on the other side, because there would be no existing superior grass for the said person to gaze upon. Moreover, if I find myself somewhere in the middle of the “grass hierarchy,” (continuing the assumption that the statement is literally true) I would only be able to gaze upon those with grass superior to my own, since if I gazed upon a patch of inferior grass, then the grass couldn't possibly always be greener on the other side. It seems therefore, that the statement can only be taken literally by he or she who possesses the absolute worst grass possible—a single person. Hardly the criterion needed to establish a “common saying.”

What needs emphasis is that the grass is not “always” greener on the other side, but rather, that we humans tend to merely perceive it as being greener. We tend to think that so-and-so has things better off than we do, which may or may not be the case. This interpretation brings to light the distinction between appearance and reality. It may be true that so-and-so has things better off than we do, but on the other hand it might not be. Thus, the above adage may be amended to something like “the grass often appears greener on the other side.”

But this too is fallacious, in a sense. When we think that so-and-so has things better off than we do, what we find—when we really stop and think about what we are thinking—is that so-and-so has something specific that we find desirable. What we are really thinking about are particular instances of a person's life. We might think that so-and-so has a good job, and thus more financial security than we do. (Even this boils down to the fact that we assume the other person has more financial security, since, despite having a good job, it's possible they could be addicted to online gambling, or mired in debt, or some such thing.) We might think that so-and-so is married while we are single, and that so-and-so is consequently happier than we are. Or maybe so-and-so is particularly talented at a given thing, while we are not. In any case, we are thinking about particular instances or aspects of a person's life (at least as they appear to us).

So thoughts of another person's grass being greener is really an oversimplification. What we are really thinking about is this grass, or that grass, in a person's life, rather than the whole grass. Seeing a patch that we take to be greener than our own, we mistakenly conclude that this or that particular instance of a person's life is indicative of the whole. We see this patch of grass as being greener, and because that is what we see, we assume that all of it must be greener as well. We see so-and-so having a good job, and because we may be struggling financially, we conclude that so-and-so is better off than we are. We see so-and-so being married, and infer that so-and-so must be happier than we are, ad infinitum. But what about the things we do not see?

You may think that so-and-so has the prefect life, or a close approximate, but if you reflect on this accurately you will find that you are confusing part with whole. Certain particular instances of someone's life may be desirable, but you do not know what you cannot see. You do not know what you do not know. You can only see so much, you cannot see everything, and if you could, you might think twice about envying the life of another person. The wishing away of one's life circumstances, or the fantasizing about the life of another, is, in most cases, naïve. Don't be so quick to wish your own life away. You may wish for different circumstances, but if and when you get them you will often find that such circumstances carry complications of their own. Those among us who are truly happy and content, are happy and content here and now.

Are You Good With People?

2012-09-26T15:10:00.001-04:00

No offense, but what you think doesn't really matter. What matters is what the other person thinks. That's right, other people are the best judge of how well we interact with them. It's easy to read a few books on people skills and think “I know how to deal with people.” But what we think doesn't really matter. It's the other person who has to deal with us. We can think we're wonderful all day long, but in the end, if the other person doesn't think so, we're deceiving ourselves. Of course not everyone will think you're great 100% of the time. You might have the best of intentions, and you might even behave exactly as you should have, and sometimes someone will still be offended. You can't please everyone all of the time, but you can try. And by doing so perhaps you can be pleasing to a majority, a majority of the time.

Try!

2012-09-20T10:07:00.000-04:00

Success in a given endeavor is achieved by those who try to succeed. (In this context, the word “try” should be understood as being synonymous with action—with exerting the actions necessary to accomplish an objective.) Yet sometimes we think it's “too soon,” or that we're “not ready,” or that there's no point in taking action because we'll probably “fail.” But what is the real downside here? What is the worst that could happen? More often than not there is little to lose by trying, and a great deal to gain if successful. If that is indeed the case, by all means try!

TalentSmart Articles

2012-09-12T18:52:00.001-04:00

I've followed TalentSmart since I first read The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book back in 2005. Their work has been instrumental in developing my understanding of emotional intelligence as well as the impact it can have on a person. They keep an up-to-date list of their published "newsletter articles" on their website, and many of them are well worth perusing if you have a moment.

On Being Active

2012-09-07T10:35:00.000-04:00

I was in the process of deleting some of my old bookmarked web pages when I came across this article, which gives a brief account of the passing of the then oldest living man—Walter Breuning—who was 114 and 205 days at the time of his death in April 2011. What stood out to me was that Breuning seems to credit his longevity to staying active, stating: “Everybody says your mind is the most important thing about your body. Your mind and your body. You keep both busy, and by God you’ll be here a long time.”

Perhaps you too have noticed that those who live a long time—aside from generally having good genetics—always tend to keep themselves busy. They always seem to be in the process of doing something. You don't find them sitting alone in a room staring out a window for hours on end. You don't find them enjoying a daily TV-induced coma. What you do find is a person engaged in some form of activity. Be it reading or writing, or working on hobbies, or participating in social activities or ministries, or cooking or crocheting. You find a person engaged, not idle.

I have often wondered about people who fantasize about “doing nothing.” Are they serious? Do they really want to do nothing? Sometimes I find myself wishing I was doing something other-than whatever I happen to be doing, but surely I want to be doing something as opposed to doing nothing. It seems that life and activity are inextricably related. Be active—live. Do nothing—die.

The Deception of Positive Thinking, Part V

2012-08-31T11:55:00.000-04:00

This is the fifth and final post in the series titled “The Deception of Positive Thinking.” If you have not read the first, second, third, or fourth posts, I encourage you to do so before continuing. In the fourth post we discussed a correct way to cognitively respond to negative or undesirable circumstances. All that remains is to emphasize the importance of taking action.

There is a fable which tells of two birds sitting on a fence post, when before long, one bird decides to fly away. The question is then asked, how many birds remain sitting on the fence post? The answer: two. This simple story illustrates a distinction that can be made between decision and action: It is one thing to decide to do something, it is another to actually do it. Action is the ultimate defining factor in creating positive results. Decisions without action are dead. The woman from our story may conclude that, in order to solve the problem, either the relationship must change or she should leave. It will not help that she has become aware of her situation, or even dug deep to find a probable solution to remedy it, if she, in the end, does not act. If she fails to act on her convictions, nothing will happen, the situation will continue and she will remain unhappy. Positive results can only be created through action. Without action, without movement—nothing moves—and therefore nothing changes.

It must also be stated that with all forms of action come potential failures. We may not solve our problems completely in our first attempt. It may take time, it may take persistence. There are learning curves that correspond to all forms of action, especially when we first begin something. Failure is only failure if accepted as such. The reality is that all problems and difficulties can be solved in one way or another. With action, persistence, and the willingness to learn, anything is possible.

In review:

An analysis of “The Deception of Positive Thinking” can be found here and here.

The steps needed to guard against or overcome “The Deception of Positive Thinking” may be summarized as follows:

Step 1: Awareness (see the third post).

Become aware of your circumstances.

Step 2: Response (see the fourth post).

Respond to undesirable circumstances by asking questions and looking for answers.

Step 3: Action (stated above).

Support the answers to your questions with sufficient action.

Happiness and Gratitude

2012-08-24T11:38:00.001-04:00

Bill Vallicella, who runs the blog Maverick Philosopher, recently posted the following on gratitude:

Every day find something to be grateful for.

It might be the regularity of nature. Without it, how would you make coffee? And then there is coffee itself and its wonderful taste. What a marvelous, yet harmless, drug! And then there are the thoughts that percolate up under its agency. There are so many of them swarming and demanding attention. Some are even worth writing down. Your notebooks lay ready: they weren't destroyed during the night. And the pens too. Your fingers are supple and free of arthritis. And there is your library of books, thousands of them, to supply you with thought- and blog-fodder . . . .

But if you want to be miserable you should be able to find something to kvetch about.

Now, I happen to relate a great deal to the fact that Bill is grateful for things like coffee and its effects, notebooks and pens, books and thoughts. (In fact I doubt I could have said it better myself.) You might not relate to such things at all. But finding something to be grateful for isn't too hard if you stop and think about it. It seems to me that the most grateful people (those who have developed the habit of regularly reflecting on the things they're thankful for) also tend to be the happiest, the most flexible, and the least likely to hazard an emotional "sawed-off-shotgun" in their social dealings. Don't wait for Thanksgiving to think about the things you're thankful for. Do so on a daily basis.

The Deception of Positive Thinking, Part IV

2012-08-16T11:47:00.001-04:00

This is the fourth post in the series titled “The Deception of Positive Thinking.” If you have not read the first, second, or third posts, I encourage you to do so before continuing. In the previous post we discussed how we can increase our overall self-awareness, so as to begin working to minimize self-deception. At present, we will concern ourselves with the next step. Namely, how to mentally respond to our increased self-awareness.

The protagonist of our story responds to her reality by shifting focus from her dilemma onto the noble ideal of positive thinking. There is nothing wrong with finding the positive aspects of a given circumstance per se. However, problems may arise when a person is solely focused on seeking the positive aspects of a situation, because they will tend to ignore their ability to better the situation itself. As we have seen, the purpose of positive thinking is to create positive results. This means responding to adversity in ways that create positive outcomes. But responding by solely focusing on the positive aspect of an otherwise horrible situation does nothing but prolong the existence and magnitude of the situation itself. It is with this in mind that we must learn how to properly respond to our awareness of our undesirable situations.

After becoming more aware of our words, whether internal or spoken, we may begin to see evidence of undesirable situations in our lives. At this point, many people turn away from what they see and focus on a “positive aspect” of their situation—they respond to their reality by habitually focusing on something else. As stated above, this type of response only serves to provide a temporary relief at the expense of allowing the problem to continue indefinitely. It is also at this point (when we become aware of an undesirable situation), that we are given the opportunity to respond properly—but how? By asking questions. When you ask questions, your mind will begin working to supply you with answers. It may only take a few minutes or it may take a few weeks, but nonetheless, your mind will provide you with probable solutions.

Return to the words that clued you in on a specific situation. Suppose the woman from our story became aware of herself saying: “I hate my life” or “I'm so unhappy.” What type of question should she ask that will help start her on the path to solving her problem? She should begin by asking herself: “Why?” “Why do I hate my life?” “Why am I so unhappy?” We know her relationship is a large part of her unhappiness. If she is honest with herself, she will eventually conclude, in one way or another, that she hates her life or is unhappy because she doesn't like the way she is being treated. It is at this point she might continue by asking: “What type of situation would I like to exist in place of the one that I hate?” The woman must conclude that she would either prefer to no longer be in a relationship or be in relationship with a man who treats her with respect and dignity. A final question must be asked as well: “What can I do about it?” “How can I solve this problem?” “Is there anything I can do to create the situation I want?” In posing these questions to ourselves, we must always employ the word “I," thereby focusing on what we can do, as opposed to what someone else can or should do. What can we do to create a suitable situation? We don't have control over other people—only ourselves—and if we attempt to solve a problem by trying to change another person, we're destined to fail. In response to the words you hear yourself say or think, ask yourself:

Why? Why do I think or feel this way? (Identify what exists.)
What situation would I like to exist in place of this one? (Identify what could exist.)
What can I do about it? How can I solve this problem? (Identify how you can create the situation you want. Note: There is always something you can do to better a situation.)

In the previous post it was suggested to pay close attention to and consider what other people say about you. How therefore should you respond to the observations made by other people? Again, by asking similar questions:

Is it possible that this observation is true? (Identify what exists.)
If it is true, what situation would I like to exist in place of this one? (Identify what could exist.)
If it is true, what can I do about it? How can I correct it? (Identify how you can create the situation you want.)

News and Updates

2012-08-09T10:06:00.000-04:00

I want to apologize for my recent lapse in activity. My wife and I have been in the process of moving, and are just now beginning to get settled in at our new place. I've only moved three times in my life but I always seem to forget what a pain it is to move. The unforeseen problems, extra expenses, unpacking, not to mention the tasks of packing and actually moving from A to B. Thankfully the hard parts are behind us and I will once again resume posting in the near future. To my surprise, the site actually hasn't suffered a loss in traffic as plenty of older posts are still being read.

Now for some updates.

CurrClick has the digital-only version of Life n' Leadership on sale through August 24^th for only $4.99! The physical program has been discounted as well for $29.95! Free shipping is also available through Amazon.com. More news coming soon!

Childish Emotions

2012-07-19T11:18:00.000-04:00

When I was a young child in elementary school I didn't ride the bus. Rather, my mom would drive me to school in the morning and pick me up after. But she wasn't always on time. And I just happened to be one of those kids, who, if their ride happened to be late, would assume the absolute worst. Thus, I have many memories of myself standing by the entrance of the school, pacing back and forth, keeping a close eye on the street, wondering if my mom had forgot about me, or got in a car accident, or if our house had burned to the ground, or something fantastic like that. Needless to say, I would let my imagination run wild with every possible “what if” scenario—driving myself to the very edges of sanity—only to reemerge on the other side, intensely relieved, when she finally showed up.

As I grew older my emotional reactions shifted a bit. For example, if I happened to be waiting for my mom to pick me up from somewhere, I would often find myself irritated or even angered that she was “making me wait.” No longer would I assume the worst—no longer would I have visions of the end of my life as I knew it—now I was taking it personally. After all, what else did she have to do in life besides drive me around wherever and whenever I wanted?

Looking back I realize that in both situations I blindly reacted to what was happening. I made no conscious decisions, I acted automatically. I allowed my emotions to get the best of me, and I went with them effortlessly. It was an easy road to take. But it didn't help me at all. My “visions of death” from elementary school can be largely attributed to childhood imagination and ignorance, but the irritation and anger displayed when I was older cannot be rationalized so easily.

Sometime during my first year of college, my car broke down, and my mom once again had to drive me to class and pick me up. And once again she was late, and I was left sitting there waiting. I remember thinking to myself, “Is this really worth getting angry over?” “Isn't it possible for me to just sit here and patiently wait?” “What am I really gaining by getting all worked up over this?” I figured I would try it, that is, deliberately not get irritated or upset. To my surprise, it actually worked. I sat there, at peace with the situation, amazed and astounded. It was a defining moment when I learned that my emotional reactions are within my power to control. And that things work out a heck of a lot better when I don't allow myself to get emotionally hijacked.

You may have had a similar experience, or maybe you haven't—yet. If not, try it. You might surprise yourself.