The Cluttered Mind Uncluttered

Have you ever listened to an inspirational talk, for example, The Last Lecture by Randy Pausch? Have you ever read an inspirational book such as Born to Run? Or watched an inspirational film like Hoosiers? How do you feel after? Well, inspired, right? What a great feeling! You’re fired up and ready to take on the world. You’re brimming with confidence. Your eye is on the prize and, by gosh, that prize is yours!

Then something rather deflating happens. You wake up the next morning and the inspiration is gone. You’re still the same old you. And you may even feel worse about yourself because, after the previous day’s inspiration, your failure to take even one small step towards your goals is all the more glaring.

So what happened? The truth is that you, and millions of other people looking for inspiration to change their lives, have been hoodwinked by the “inspirational-industrial complex,” a multi-billion dollar industry. Why, you ask? Because the inspiration that comes from other people is manufactured from the outside. This “synthetic” inspiration simply can’t last long because when the source of the inspiration (i.e. the talk, film, or book) is gone, its shelf life is very short.

True and lasting inspiration can’t, unfortunately, come from outside. It must arise from a very deep place within us. This life-changing inspiration verily forces its way out of us, demanding that we take action. That is the inspiration that propels people to monumental acts of courage, willpower, perseverance, and, ultimately, change.

Also, the inspiration that comes from talks, movies, or books is designed to provoke maximum inspiration (that’s what sells), but provide minimal follow-through. The reality is that inspiration is a necessary, but not sufficient, contributor to positive change. Yes, inspiration gets you out of bed or off of the sofa, but motivation to change without a clear direction to change has little value. Also, inspiration and direction aren’t even sufficient if you lack the knowledge, skills, or support necessary to catalyze action towards your goals.

Okay, I will give a little and say that it is theoretically possible for inspiration from others to motivate change. A very small segment of the inspiration-deficient population is teetering on the edge of change and just needs the slightest nudge of inspiration which they might get from outside of themselves. Or the inspiration generated from the outside is very immediate, deep, and resonant, such as the courageous efforts of a dying parent to stay alive for their child’s wedding or birth of their grandchild. Or the sports coach who gives a rousing pep talk to their team at half time and the team comes back to the field en fuego (but the inspiration usually fades by the end of the third quarter).

Our culture venerates the inspirational leader, whether a president, CEO, military officer, coach, or teacher. There are some who have the ability to inspire others to new heights. Then-candidate Obama had it during the 2008 presidential elections (please no partisan retorts). General George Patton had it. And the legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden had it. But the “it” that these and others had was not, as most people think, their ability to create that burst of inspiration before, say, an election, a battle, or the big game. Instead, what makes the great inspirations so, well, inspirational is their ability to help others find their own personal inspiration every day. It is that personal inspiration that motivates people to have a vision of what they want to achieve, work hard and prepare well so they have not only a clear direction in sight, but also the actual wherewithal to get where they want to go.

So, next time you want to feel that wonderful rush of inspiration, go ahead and watch an inspirational movie, read an inspirational book, or listen to an inspirational speaker. But if you want real inspiration, the kind that will consume every pore of your body, sustain itself not only through the next morning, but many mornings to come, and drives you to achieve your goals, look deep inside and see if you can find it in you. If you do, then you’ll be able to devote all that time and money that you would have spent on that manufactured inspiration to rewarding yourself for having achieved your goals because you found the real thing right under your nose.

In my last post, I argued that common sense was vastly over-rated as a tool for making sound judgments and that we need to engage in “reasoned sense” that includes both extensive direct experience and critical thinking. Taking steps that include the informal use of the scientific method can help us make better decisions.

However, as recent research has demonstrated, even scientists who strictly adhere to the scientific method can’t guarantee that they will draw the best possible conclusions. When I read this research my first thought was, “How could such highly educated and precisely trained professionals veer off the path of objectivity?” The answer is simple: They, like all of us, possess one quality from which it is impossible to divorce themselves. That quality? Being human.

As the fields of psychology and behavioral economics have demonstrated, homo sapiens is a seemingly irrational species that appears to, more often than not, think and behave in nonsensical rather than commonsensical ways. The reason is that we fall victim to a veritable laundry list of cognitive biases that cause us to engage in distorted, imprecise, and incomplete thinking which, not surprisingly, results in “perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation” (thanks Wikipedia), and, by extension, poor and sometimes catastrophic decisions.

Well-known examples of the results of cognitive biases include the Internet, housing, and financial crises of the past decade, truly stupid use of social media by politicians, celebrities, and professional athletes, the existence of the $2.5 billion self-help industry, and, well, believing that a change in the controlling party in Washington will somehow change its toxic political culture.

What is interesting is that many of these cognitive biases must have had, at some point in our evolution, adaptive value. These distortions helped us to process information more quickly (e.g., stalking prey in the jungle), meet our most basic needs (e.g., help us find mates), and connect with others (e.g., be a part of a “tribe”).

The biases that helped us survive in primitive times when life was much simpler (e.g., life goal: live through the day) and speed of a decision rightfully trumped its absolute accuracy doesn’t appear to be quite as adaptive in today’s much more complex world. Due to the complicated nature of life these days, correctness of information, thoroughness of processing, precision of interpretation, and soundness of judgment are, in most situations today, far more important than the simplest and fastest route to a judgment.

Unfortunately, there is no magic pill that will inoculate us from these cognitive biases. But we can reduce their power over us by understanding these distortions, looking for them in our own thinking, and making an effort to counter their influence over us as we draw conclusions, make choices, and come to decisions. In other words, just knowing and considering these universal biases (in truth, what most people call common sense is actually common bias) will make us less likely to fall victim to them.

Here are some of the most widespread cognitive biases that contaminate our ability to use common sense:

The Bandwagon effect (aka herd mentality) describes the tendency to think or act in ways because other people do. Examples include the popularity of Apple products, use of “in-group” slang and clothing style, and watching the “Housewives of…” reality-TV franchise.

The Confirmation bias involves the inclination to seek out information that supports our own preconceived notions. The reality is that most people don’t like to be wrong, so they surround themselves with people and information that confirm their beliefs. The most obvious example these days is the tendency to follow news outlets that reinforce our political beliefs.

Illusion of Control is the propensity to believe that we have more control over a situation than we actually do. If we don’t actually have control, we fool ourselves into thinking we do. Examples include rally caps in sports and “lucky” items.

The Semmelweis Reflex (just had to include this one because of its name) is the predisposition to deny new information that challenges our established views. Sort of the yang to the yin of the Confirmation bias, it exemplifies the adage “if the facts don’t fit the theory, throw out the facts.” An example is the Seinfeld episode in which George Costanza’s girlfriend simply refuses to allow him to break up with her.

The Causation bias suggests the tendency to assume a cause-effect relationship in situations in which none exists (or there is a correlation or association). An example is believing someone is angry with you because they haven’t responded to your email when, more likely, they are busy and just haven’t gotten to it yet.

The Overconfidence effect involves unwarranted confidence in one’s own knowledge. Research has shown that people who say they are “99% certain are wrong 40% of the time.” Examples include political and sports prognosticators.

The False Consensus effect is the penchant to believe that others agree with you more than they actually do. Examples include guys who assume that all guys like sexist humor.

Finally, the granddaddy of all cognitive biases, the Fundamental Attribution Error which involves the tendency to attribute other people’s behavior to their personalities and to attribute our own behavior to the situation. An example is when someone treats you poorly, you probably assume they are a jerk, but when you’re not nice to someone, it’s because you are having a bad day.

I could go on and on (for an exhaustive list of cognitive biases, do a search on Wikipedia), but you get the point. If you look at your own thinking, you’ll likely find yourself at the mercy of these distortions (though I may just be suffering from the False Consensus effect). But I really am sure that we fall for cognitive biases all of the time (I may be guilty of the Overconfidence effect). In any event, all the research I read supports this post’s claims (uh-oh, I think I just fell for the Confirmation bias). Note to self: Need to continue to work on resisting cognitive biases.

I have a confession: I’m having a “bromance.” You may know the term from the movie I Love You, Man; it describes a close, though non-sexual relationship between two men. Yes, my wife knows about and she supports it.

My bromance was certainly unexpected. In fact, he (I’ll call him Drew) is probably my first ever. That may come as a surprise given that the nature of my work and that fact that people who know me would characterize me as being a “sensitive” guy.  Also, I’ve never been a “regular” guy. I don’t like beer, I gave up watching sports on TV years ago, and I find sexist jokes offensive and “guy talk” boring. Given all that, it’s probably not surprising that I haven’t had many guy friends at all, much less a bromance.

Then Drew came into my life. He moved in down the street with his wife and two children. I learned that he was a successful business guy and a pretty serious cyclist (which I am also considered to be). So we decided to go for a ride one day. And it was, well, bromance at first sight. From the first mile, we were just talking, but not just talking, communicating and connecting at a deep level. There was an openness about Drew that I rarely found in a guy and I found it easy to open up to him. And that connection has never flagged despite many miles in the saddle.

It’s been a year now and our bromance is still going strong. We even spent a Dads’ weekend skiing in the mountains this past winter where we bonded even more. Drew and I talked about all the things that women regularly talk  about, but are viewed by most guys as too “emotional” to discuss: love (with our respective spouses, not each other), sex (frequency, not gory details), income and retirement savings (how big is yours?), plus baggage, doubts, concerns, and fears we have. I can’t tell you how much of a relief it is to know that other guys feel the same things that I do. But since guys don’t usually talk about these sorts of things, how could I have known.

Our wives have become friends and they have accused us of having a “man crush” and going on “man dates,” but we don’t care. We just enjoy being together.

It’s really not fair for guys. Women get to do this all the time and it’s no big deal. There’s no cute name for this kind of relationship among women. You know what they’re called? Friendships. And it’s fine for women to have TV shows such as Oprah, Ellen, and The View where women sit around and talk about their emotions, in public no less. But shows like that for men? Fuggedaboutit (said in a deep and manly voice)!

So close relationships between men have to have a special name, a portmanteau no less (just saying that French word makes me feel less macho). And being labeled a bromance actually prevents men from having these relationships because the very name feeds so many men’s (and our culture’s) homophobia.

Men have feelings too, you know. And it’s just plain tiring to suppress them all the time to stay in the box of what it means to be a man in the hyper-masculine culture in which we live. When guys express emotions, it’s a sign of weakness; just don’t go there, our culture says. We have to be tough and stoic and just plain hard as nails or we’re accused of being a sissy or a wimp or the like, all code words for, you guessed it, being gay.

But it doesn’t take courage to not express emotions. There’s nothing strong in doing what is safe and comfortable. There’s no risk in simply complying with societal norms. In fact, I think that is anything but courageous.

All men have doubts, worries, and fears, even the ones who appear to be so manly (perhaps especially them because they’re so afraid of being seen as anything but macho). What does take guts is to be vulnerable, to express all of the emotions that every man feels, but has been conditioned to keep inside otherwise, well, you know what you’ll be labeled. With risk comes vulnerability and with vulnerability comes fear of being rejected by peers and society. And therein lies the courage that comes from being what I would call a “real” man.

I used to think I was being manly when I was ski racing down mountains at 60 miles an hour, competing in karate tournaments, or doing Ironman triathlons. But, in retrospect, those were just posturing masculinity because I couldn’t really express my true masculinity. I can tell you that I have never felt like more of a man than when I held my daughters as newborns or smother them in hugs and kisses or tell my wife to take the night off because she does so much for our family. It is in those moments that totally go against our traditional definitions of manhood that real manhood is experienced.

And I feel the same way when Drew and I are immersed in our bromance. I have to admit that it does feel a bit weird because I can’t totally deny the decades of conditioning I have received about what it means to be a man. But it is also incredibly fulfilling and validating because it is the closeness of this intimate (in the emotional sense) relationship that make me feel most true to myself, most connected with others, and most engaged in my life.

And the fact that I can be open and vulnerable with Drew in our bromance while ascending a long and steep mountain on my bike or descending a long and steep mountain on my skis, two very macho activities I should point out, is just icing on the cake.

Oh, one more thing. I don’t want you to think that I can’t also be a regular guy on a occasion. In a few days, Drew and I are going on a man date to see X-Men: First Class. Believe it or not, you can actually be both sensitive and enjoy guys beating each other to a pulp and stuff being blown up.

Change. Whether you call it self-help, personal transformation, growth, or just plain change, it is a goal to which virtually everyone aspires. Gaining self-esteem, losing weight, improving relationships, achieving success, getting rich, or finding happiness are just a few of the ways in which people the world over want to alter their lives. Our ability to achieve these goals depends on whether we can change the way we think, feel, and behave in ways that will encourage the pursuit of those goals. Without change, as the old Texas adage goes, “If all you ever do is all you’ve ever done, then all you’ll ever get is all you ever got.”

Yet is there anything that we devote more time, effort, and money to than attempting to achieve that elusive goal? And is there anything that we pursue with such vigor and yet with such poor results than the quest for change?

Thankfully, there are a lot of people out there more than willing to help you change, for a small price, of course. Did you know that self-help is a $10 billion-a-year industry? By the way, as the late and great comedian George Carlin riffs in one of his stand-up routines, “I went to a bookstore and asked the saleswoman, ‘Where’s the self-help section?’ She said if she told me, it would defeat the purpose.”

What does the size of the self-help industry say about change? For one, no one has found The Secret or The Answer (titles, I should note, of two best-selling personal-transformation books); people are still looking for honest-to-goodness ways to change. And, let’s be really frank here, as George Carlin has also observed, “If you’re reading it in a book, folks, it ain’t self-help. It’s help.” But help is okay too as long as it actually, well, helps.

Unfortunately, change has gotten a bad rap because of the self-help industry; it has become a parody of itself and many of its leading proponents, such as Dr. Phil and Anthony Robbins, have truly “jumped the shark.”  Watching self-help gurus on TV is like watching a Saturday Night Live skit of self-help gurus on TV.

Numerous articles have been written about the disingenuousness and downright dishonesty of self-help gurus and their services and products (just do a web search of “self-help industry” and see for yourself). We hear the outrageous promises of fast and easy change that simply affirm the well-known saying often attributed to P. T. Barnum, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” We hear claims cloaked in scientific language (e.g., the Law of Attraction offered in The Secret is, according to its author Rhonda Byrnes, a natural law as real as gravity). We hear the sardonic commentary that the only people who are being helped are the gurus who are making millions off of gullible buyers of self-help books, CDs, and DVDs.

You might say to me, “I really do want to change and I really want to be one of those people who actually changes, but it’s the how to change that’s the mystery!” Well, despite the protestations of Rhonda Byrnes, there really is no mystery. Change is simple. You decide what you want to change, you find a strategy that will facilitate the change, and then you commit yourself to making that change

Change, however, is not easy. In fact, it is downright difficult. That’s why most people don’t change and why the self-help industry is so robust; no one has offered a way for those millions upon millions of self-help consumers to make the changes they want. If someone had actually found the answer to the question, “How do people change?,” there would be no self-help industry, just one very rich person.

People are willing to plunk down $23.95 for a book or $15.95 for a DVD that promises that its method is really—no, I mean really—the one that will help them change (what’s a few bucks for the possibility—whatever the improbability—of finding that pot of gold at the end of the “I can change my life” rainbow?). Of course, when that book, CD, or DVD doesn’t produce the desired change, another self-help product comes along that promises to do the trick. And as long as the price is right, people will continue to line the pockets of the self-help industry in perpetuity. To do otherwise would be to admit defeat and be labeled a loser in our aspirational, “I can have everything I want without any effort” culture. Such an admission would mean a life-long sentence of not being successful, happy, rich, slim, or loved. And that is just plain unacceptable

There are many obstacles that stand in the way of change, ranging from emotional baggage and ingrained habits to an environment that reinforces the status quo and is hostile to change. And, contrary to the assertions of just about every self-help book that has ever been written, change takes incredible commitment, time, energy, and effort. Someone might be able to show you the way, but you have to make the journey yourself.

So if you’re looking for a quick and easy path to change from any self-help book, CD, or DVD that promises you instant and effortless change, put it back on the shelf or return it to amazon. I can assure you that you’re wasting your money and time.

There would be more than 19,000,000 and counting of those minutes given that is the number of copies of The Secret that have been sold to date. And that doesn’t include collateral minutes born of purchases of her CDs, DVDs, wall calendars, key rings, and assorted other inspirational tchotchkes available for sale. Plus, her new book, The Power, is now number one on the New York Times advice bestseller list, so there are many more minutes ahead for many more suckers to be born.

After reading a recent New York Times essay about these two books authored by Rhonda Byrne, I got to thinking about what makes her messages so compelling and why so many believe her ideas even though they seem so implausible as to be laughable.

Ms. Byrne’s basic premise is that people can get what they want in life – happiness, love, wealth — simply by thinking positively about what they want. For example, if I want to be rich, I’m just going to think about getting money and the Law of Attraction dictates that wealth will come to me. Hey, I believe in the power of positive thinking, but only as a first step to motivate me to do the work necessary to achieve my goals. But maybe all that effort wasn’t really necessary!

In my view, Ms. Byrne is the latest in a long history of American shakedown artists, from the snake-oil salesmen of the Old West to the grifters of the early 20^th century to the motivational speakers of today. What do they have in common? All make impossible-to-fulfill promises and outlandish claims. They create a persuasive vocabulary around their ideas that resonate with people. These charlatans tell convincing narratives in support of their beliefs. And they use the authority of others (e.g., philosophers and scientists) to buttress their absurd assertions. But what I find most remarkable is the fact that so many people accept her blather as gospel.

I have to hand it to Ms. Byrne though; she has a masterful understanding of the human mind. She plays the human psyche, as the saying goes, like a drum. She exploits one of our greatest human weaknesses, namely, the belief that we can get something for nothing, that we can achieve our goals without any blood, sweat, or tears. What I find fascinating about this is that it flies in the face of reality for about 99.99% of the people on Earth (the other .01% are either lucky or born rich). Sure, there are exceptions, such as lottery winners and the victors on reality TV shows, both, by the way, statistical impossibilities for everyone. The ability of people to delude themselves, even when repeated attempts to apply the laws and powers described by Ms. Byrne fail miserably, and even with clear and consistent evidence to the contrary from our daily lives, is astonishing and puzzling for anyone who tries to understand the human psyche.

Ms. Byrne also takes advantage of every cognitive bias at her disposal to mislead and manipulate people. There is the Bandwagon Effect in which people want to do things that others are doing (“19,000,000 people can’t be wrong, can they? And I don’t want to miss out!”). The Confirmation Bias which involves looking for and interpreting information that confirms one’s preconceived notions. There is the Illusion of Control where people tend to overestimate the control they have over events. Then there is Argument from Authority in which Ms. Byrne references and quotes philosophers, scientists, and other deep thinkers to give her ideas an air of legitimacy where none actually exists. What about Illusory Correlation which is the tendency of people to assume cause-effect relationships where one doesn’t actually exist (e.g., I thought about an old friend and he emailed me the next day). And don’t forget the granddaddy of them all, Wishful Thinking that involves forming beliefs and making decisions based on what one wants rather than on reason or evidence. The list goes on and on. The more you learn about cognitive biases, the more amazed you are that people ever make rational decisions.

Ms. Byrne also uses the vocabulary of science to add credibility to her decidedly unscientific assertions. As the New York Times article discusses, she talks a lot about magnetic properties, frequencies, energy, and the universe. She even throws in quantum physics to build her case. Ms. Byrne sure has chutzpah; she has the audacity to state that the Law of Attraction is an actual physical force akin to the Law of Gravity! Of course, she offers no scientific evidence to support her crazy ideas. Why should she if tens of millions of people will just take her at her word.

What does this ready embrace of the outlandish and the impossible say about people? Are people so gullible that they are willing to plunk down $25 for The Answer (the name of another one of these shyster books, by the way), in fact, any answer that they want to hear. Are people so lazy that they are willing to believe anyone who tells them they can have everything without doing anything? Or are we just victims of the human mind and the myriad biases and distortions of reality that lie within it?

Perhaps to acknowledge the absurdity of The Law of Attraction would be to admit that wealth, fame, love, happiness, and other dreams aren’t within reach for most people. And to do so would be to surrender to the meaninglessness and hopelessness of life itself. But the real harm that Ms. Byrne and her ilk bring upon their feckless audience, beyond the vast amounts of money and time that are wasted, is that it prevents people from doing the work necessary and making the changes to actually make their dreams come true.

I was having a conversation with a friend recently about happiness. Our conversation began with her asking me if I thought that buying a new house would make her happier (she asked this question only half facetiously). My initial reaction was that a house can’t bring happiness. In fact, a robust finding of the growing body of research on happiness is that money and material things don’t increase happiness once basic needs are met (and her current house exceeds that minimal threshold). Further, contrary to popular perception, some of the best predictors of happiness have nothing to do with “stuff” (as George Carlin riffed so insightfully and humorously in his now-famous rant). The quality of your relationships, a satisfying career, having a passion for something, pursuing meaningful goals, and having a positive attitude bring people the most happiness.

But then I got to thinking about the meaning of a house (and other stuff) beyond its shelter and comforts. I decided that a house could potentially make my friend happier, but only if two criteria are met. One, is the house in which she currently lives (e.g., the physical structure, neighborhood, or location) inconsistent with what she values or the lifestyle that she wants to lead? For example, if you live in a suburban development, but love the city, open space, or 1920′s home architecture, then your house might interfere with your happiness. Two, would a new house be more consistent with what she values and enhance the quality of her life experience? For instance, does its design give you aesthetic pleasure or does its location give you easy access to activities that you enjoy?

In other words, happiness doesn’t come from our stuff, but the values that underlie our stuff and how it impacts the quality of our lives. For example, I have several very nice bikes and they make me happy. But they don’t make me happy because I own the bikes or they are expensive or they look very cool (if you’re into bikes), but rather because they are consistent with my values of exercise and the outdoors, and they enhance the quality of my biking experience.

Will things outside of ourselves make a sea change in our happiness? I’m not sure. But I do believe that the more we align our outer worlds (e.g., home, neighborhood, marriage, friends, work, avocations; each of us has our own list) with our inner worlds (what gives us meaning, satisfaction, and joy), the more likely happiness will result. So, finding happiness is about creating that congruence between our inner and outer worlds, our values and the lives we live.

A danger in looking for the stuff that will be consistent with what we value is that if it continues to escape us, we may continue looking for and getting more stuff that we think will provide that fit. In fact, that’s a real problem in our “aspirational” culture where so many are looking for the B.B.D. (bigger, better deal) in the futile belief that they will, sooner or later, after much consumption, find that thing that will bring them true happiness. Of course, in all likelihood, they won’t because they’re looking in the wrong places.

Now here’s an interesting question: If people align their lives with “bad” values (I realize I’m making a judgment here), for example, celebrity, physical appearance, and conspicuous consumption, in other words, just about everything that is valued in our popular culture, will they find happiness according to my theory? As I noted above, according to the research, the answer to that question is no. But if you really believe that a fancy car, a role on a reality-TV show, or augmented breasts will make you happy, well then, wouldn’t it? I’m not thoroughly convinced one way or the other, but I guess I’ll conclude to the contrary. I believe that there is something intrinsically meaningful in things that really do bring happiness and that intrinsic value is simply missing from those superficial things.

My friend offered what might be a better alternative than trying to change our lives to better fit our values. She suggested that, rather than changing our outer world, we should alter our inner world. In other words, we should change our values or our attitude toward what we have so we can more comfortably accept the life we have instead of pining for the life we wish for. For example, we could focus on the joys that our present life provides or simply be grateful for what we have. Or we could look other places that might more directly influence our happiness, such as our relationships, work, or even within ourselves. This approach has the benefit of saving us a lot of time and money because we wouldn’t be looking for and buying that next thing that we absolutely know will bring us happiness. A downside to this strategy is that it may be harder to change our minds than to change our stuff; years of therapy or yoga or Eat, Pray, Love global searching may be even more time consuming and expensive.

I suppose when all is said and done (and, by the way, more is almost always said than done), the best way to find that happiness that eludes so many of us is to strike a balance between changing our inner and outer worlds, in which we make small changes to both. In this process, we can more easily create that sought-after alignment between our values and our lives by bringing our two worlds closer together without requiring a 7.3-on-the-richter-scale “lifequake.” The result of which is, happily enough, happiness.