Everyone?

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

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

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?

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!

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!

The Deception of Positive Thinking, Part V

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

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

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:

1. Why? Why do I think or feel this way? (Identify what exists.)
2. What situation would I like to exist in place of this one? (Identify what could exist.)
3. 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:

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

Childish Emotions

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.

The Deception of Positive Thinking, Part III

This is the third post in “The Deception of Positive Thinking” series. If you have not read the first or second post, I encourage you to do so before continuing. As we have seen, the deception of positive thinking describes the tendency of “positive thinkers” to focus on a positive aspect of a given situation while simultaneously ignoring their ability to correct the situation itself. While it is one thing to read a story or article, it is quite another to incorporate it directly into our lives. We must therefore begin exploring what can be done to conquer the deception of positive thinking, should we suffer from it.

The first thing we must do is increase our awareness of ourselves and our circumstances. The woman from our story is obviously not aware that she is perpetuating the very circumstance that is responsible for her unhappiness. Although her words conveyed unhappiness, she was not completely aware of what she said. Her first step then, insofar as positive thinking is concerned, is to work toward becoming aware of her reality. Here are a few suggestions that may be useful for those seeking to gain a greater level of self-awareness:

Listen To Yourself When You Talk

The words used and the way they are used can give enormous insight into the realities of ones life. Listen for words and tones that may indicate dissatisfaction or unhappiness. What do you hear yourself say out-loud or to other people? Examples include:

• “I hate my life.”
• “It's not worth it.”
• “My boss is a moron.”
• “That's impossible.”
• “What's the point?”

Pay Attention To Your Internal Dialog

Developing the habit of listening to our internal dialog is a vital step in becoming more self-aware. Internal dialog is simply what you say to yourself mentally. If your spoken words are similar to those listed above, chances are your internal dialog will be even less admirable. Most of us are much harder on ourselves mentally. What do you say when you talk to yourself? Examples include:

• “I'm so unhappy.”
• “I hate myself.”
• “I feel so useless.”
• “I'm fat.”
• “I'm unattractive.”

Listen To What Other People Say To You

When one is given advice about something, the natural response is to become defensive. The woman in our story was very defensive if anything was asked regarding her relationship. However, just because an observation comes from another person (instead of you) doesn't mean it's wrong. In fact, listening to the observations and opinions of others can grant huge insight into our lives. How many people have tried to talk to the woman in our story about her relationship? How would her life be different now if she had realized the truth of her situation years ago? Pay attention to what other people say to you (don't just blow it off), it may be worthy of consideration.

An increased awareness of oneself and one's circumstances is the first step toward conquering the deception of positive thinking. We will discuss additional steps in the near future.

The Deception of Positive Thinking, Part II

This is the second post in “The Deception of Positive Thinking” series. If you have not read the first post, I encourage you to do so before continuing. Picking up where we left off, let us now examine exactly what “positive thinking” is:

A proper understanding of positive thinking is based on the following concepts:

1. What currently exists. i.e., the reality of a given situation.
2. What could exist. i.e., the reality that could or should exist within the context of a given situation.
3. The knowledge that one has the ability to alter or change one's circumstances.

In light of these concepts we are better able understand what it means to think positively: First, we must consciously accept and acknowledge the truth of a given situation or reality. At the same time we must understand what could exist in place of such a situation or reality, especially if it is not what we desire. Lastly, we must realize that our ability to act enables us to potentially change such circumstances from what does exist to what could exist. Hence, positive thinking is the ability to accurately discern the reality of a given situation, irrespective of how “negative” it may be, while simultaneously apprehending what could or should exist in its place, and further still understanding that one has the ability to alter or change such situations for the better.

It is a sad fact that many people are not willing to come to even the most basic understanding of a negative situation before (perhaps subconsciously) seeking to avoid it and shift their focus to something of a more pleasant nature. But positive thinking does not seek to avoid reality, even if it happens to be negative. Rather, it seeks to expose the true nature of reality: that despite negative situations, all individuals, through action, have the ability to alter or change their circumstances. People may not be aware they have this ability, nor believe they possess it. But the fact remains: if there is a part of your life that you are not satisfied with, it is within your ability to change it. Truth will be truth, regardless of any one persons ignorance or refusal to believe.

In common practice, positive thinking is often synonymous with simply focusing on the positive rather than the negative aspects of a given situation. Individuals, however, cannot ignore the reality that they themselves have the ability to change these situations to begin with. The woman from our story is obviously in a rather destitute plight. Yet, rather than choosing to focus on a very few positive aspects of a relatively horrible situation, why not change the situation itself? After all, while the vast majority of “positive thinkers” are running around avoiding the negative and focusing on the positive, they are not necessarily improving their lot in life. If positive thinking is concerned with results, why not work to create the results she wants? Why not work to create the life she desires? Why not take steps to improve her relationship, and if this fails—leave—and search out the love she desires? As far as anyone has shown, we only get one shot at life—why live so miserably? It may seem insurmountable for her to confront him, but is it not a small price to pay, especially after taking into account the probable future years of loneliness and sorrow?

The Deception of Positive Thinking, Part I

“I'm really starting to think positively.” “It's very important that everyone stay focused on the positive.” “People are so negative—I focus on the positive.” We have all heard statements of this nature. In fact, the term “positive thinking” has recently become a staple of popular American culture. But in spite of its popularity, more and more people display a general lack of understanding in regard to what truly defines positive thinking. It seems many people, despite their good intentions, allow positive thinking to act as a kind of enabler in blocking out reality, under the guise they must “focus on the positive.”

Recently I met a woman who is involved in a terrible relationship with a man. She deals with constant verbal abuse, disrespect, criticism and a plethora of little “rules” which she must abide by or suffer the consequences. This woman openly shows, through her words and actions, that she is extremely unhappy and has been for the entire duration of her four year relationship. But the worse her relationship gets, the more she seems to cling to and defend it. When asked why she allows her relationship to continue she quickly replies: “Well, I'm really starting to focus on the positive now. It's very important that I stay focused on the positive.” Any questions asked, which may have the effect of exposing her relationship for what it is, are quickly swatted aside in a torrent of “positive thinking” clichés.

My conversation with this woman illustrates a greatly misconstrued application of positive thinking, which unfortunately, describes many people I've met who espouse their commitment to it. After examining the facts of this story we find that:

1. Due to the circumstances of her relationship, this woman is not happy.
2. Questioning the quality of her relationship causes her to assume a defensive position.
3. Her defensive position indicates her resistance to the reality of her situation.
4. Her commitment to, what she calls positive thinking, allows her to quickly shift her focus from her reality onto more pleasant “positive” things.
5. This constant shift in focus serves to perpetuate the circumstance that ultimately constitutes the primary cause of her unhappiness.

In the context of this story we see that, under the guise that “I must focus on the positive,” positive thinking is being used as a tool to blatantly deny reality. As a result, this woman's situation continues unacknowledged and unaddressed. Positive thinking, as she is using it, may serve as a temporary “band-aid,” but will inevitably, over time, only increase the magnitude of her difficulties. This is no way to live, nor is it a correct application of positive thinking.

Positive thinking is fundamentally concerned with one thing: results. Results are the measuring sticks of truth and likewise the effectiveness of positive thinking must be judged by the results it creates. And what is the result of this application of positive thinking? The preservation of her relationship, exactly as it currently exists, which is the problem to begin with. This is no different than the hypothetical situation of an ostrich burying its head in sand in order to avoid the unpleasantness of an approaching lion. In either case, both are moving toward a more detrimental end.

(Companion posts here, here, here, and here.)

Legislation Over Education

My wife recently brought this article to my attention. To summarize, it describes an initiative posed by a rather conservative citizen of the small town of Middleborough, Mass., who apparently has it out for the local potty mouths. If her proposal is adopted, it would basically grant the "police the power to issue $20 civil tickets to anyone who publicly 'accosts' another person verbally with profanity."

I don't care to comment on this politically, or polemically, for that matter. Rather, I wish to discuss something that humanity seems to trend toward in general. Let's call it "legislation over education." What I mean by this is that we as citizens have a tendency to observe things in society that we deem to be wrong, and maybe such things are wrong. However, rather than seeking to educate people in how and why something may be hazardous or morally wrong, it seems that our first impulse or response is to resort to some form of legislation. That is, we seek to pass laws--to ban things or force compliance.

But why is it that we as a society tend to resort first to legislation rather than education? Is it not better to explain why something is potential hazardous or morally wrong than it is to simply deem it illegal? Does forcing or coercing a person to comply with a moral standard make them a moral person? Why are we more apt to ban a person's behavior than we are to teach them how to behave? Are we really solving problems by merely passing laws? I do not mean to imply that legislation is unnecessary. It just seems to me that a great deal of that which we seek through legislation could be better accomplished with the right education.

Quantitative vs Qualitative Goods

Getting good grades, winning competitions, and receiving awards are all examples of things we have sought. They are all things which our society sees as good and worthy of pursuit, and rightly so. But these things largely derive their social status from the fact that they are quantitative. Academic grades, competitions, and awards, are, for the most part, based on a measurable system of scoring. Notwithstanding the varying situations and circumstances, the best or highest scorers are generally the winners. We know who ranks where, and what the results are.

But many of the most important things in life do not share the same admiration in the public forum. Things like learning, wisdom, personal growth, confidence, and one's ability to deal with failure, for example, do not share the same social esteem. And though few of us would personally dispute that such things are indeed more valuable and beneficial, we, as a society, tend to ignore them. Why is this? One reason could be that while the former examples are measurable and quantitative, the latter are largely intangible and qualitative. It is less clear who ranks where, and what the real results are.

The Path of Least Resistance

There's an old adage which says “taking the path of least resistance is what causes all rivers and some men to become crooked.” There is perhaps no better way to destroy your life than developing the habit of taking the path of least resistance. It's true that flowing water will always take such a path, it has no choice. But we do have a choice. And it is our choices which largely determine the results in our life.

What Might Have Been?

We as human beings have a tendency to look back on our past experiences and lament the fact that we could have done something differently. “If only I had done X, how my life would be different!” This form of reflection is beneficial as long as we use it to learn from past mistakes in order to make better choices in the future. But to the degree such hindsight is used to brood and wallow over, with a kind of “what might have been?” self-pity, it is destructive. Such behavior inhibits a person's ability to change and plants seeds of despair in their mind. Failure is not always fatal, but failing to change might be.

Why Do You Think What You Think?

If and when you make assertions, be prepared to defend them. If you can't explain why you think what you think, then why do you think it in the first place?

The Power of Ideas and Human Action

Anything that has been brought into existence by human ingenuity can be traced back in time to two things: 1) an idea, and 2) a person or persons. The immaterial reality of ideas precedes the material reality of created things. A house exists in the mind of an architect before it exists as a physical structure. A business can be traced to the ideas and inspirations of its founders. It is the ideas which we harbor in our minds and subsequently act upon that shape our futures. What ideas are you harboring?

The Engine of Your Life

If you were to identify the most important thing associated with your existence—what would it be? It seems it would have to be something that you could-not-possibly-function without. Someone special, a spouse or close friend may come to mind, a person that you may believe you “couldn't live without.” But to be sure, you could live without this person. It may not be easy, but your existence is not dependent on theirs. So it seems that a person, irrespective how important they may be to you, cannot in principle be the-most-important-thing-associated-with-your-existence.

Given a little time for reflection and introspection, most people will identify some variation of their mind as the most important thing associated with their existence. If you think about it, everything you have ever done or could possibly do, is inextricably dependent on the existence of your mind. One may object and say that the mind is equally dependent on the existence of the body, and that without a strong healthy body, a person cannot function properly. But it seems that the mind would still take precedence over the body. A person suffering from heart disease, for instance, can still exercise the power of their mind. They can make decisions, communicate, process information, express joy or sorrow. But a person without a mind cannot do this, even if their body is in perfect health. Naturally a vibrant healthy body is to be preferred over one which is failing, and though a healthy body serves to reinforce the mind, the mind doesn't seem to be dependent on the body in the same way that other things (such as intentionality) depend on it for existence.

Consider the analogy that the mind is the engine in a car. Everything a car is capable of doing is clearly dependent on the engine. Yes we can turn on the radio or the headlights without starting it, but by doing so the battery will be drained. It is the engine that (while running) keeps the battery charged. Yes we can put a car in neutral and drive it down a hill, but without an engine to further propel the car, it will eventually slow down and stop. The engine itself, however, requires other things, such as clean fuel and lubrication (oil), in order to run properly and effectively. It seems the same can be said of our mind.

As mentioned, everything we have ever done or could possibly do is inextricably dependent on the existence of our mind. But what does the mind itself require to “run” properly and effectively? Information. It is information that appears to be the “language” or “fuel” of the mind. Information provides the mind with the “raw materials” needed to think, to reason, to learn and develop. Without information, your mind has nothing to “work with,” so to speak. But just as dirty fuel or oil will cause the engine of a car to run poorly, a consistent diet of valueless information will cause your mind to lose capacity and adroitness. If a person ceases to learn, for instance, their mind will consume nothing but the information it contacts in daily life. And though some of this information may be of value, the majority of it is certainly not. Unless a person is actively committed to the consistent learning of something, their ability to reason and think will slowly be undermined.

Instead of watching that movie or TV show that you've seen a thousand times, find a topic of interest and begin exploring it. Rather than reading yet another fiction book, pick up something nonfiction. The things that comprise our world can be far more exhilarating than mere pop entertainment. Find a hobby, develop a skill, read, learn, grow—do something! But whatever you do, don't be content with merely being entertained. A byproduct of constant entertainment is boredom and boredom often leads to a loss of initiative and eventually depression. If your mind is your greatest asset, shouldn't you put something useful in it?

The Eye of Thinking

In the previous post in our informal series on thinking we discussed a method of observing, hypothesizing and experimenting as a way to identify and remedy undesirable life circumstances or problems. The effectiveness of this process, however, is utterly dependent upon a certain characteristic. Namely, whether or not the individual utilizing the said process is willing to take personal responsibility to fix the problem, whatever it may be.

Taking responsibility implies that we are going to take action in some form or another. Thus it seems necessary to make a distinction between the things we can control and the things we can't. The former being our most effective option. We know that, strictly speaking, the only thing which we have direct control over is ourselves. That is to say we have direct control over our own actions. In contrast to the things we directly control are the things which we do not, specifically, external circumstances. External circumstances are just that—external—and therefore “outside” of our direct control. The weather, the actions of other people, and random events in life, for example, would all fall under the umbrella of external circumstances. At this point it should be obvious that if we are going to attempt to solve a problem or remedy a given situation, we ought to focus not on the things which are beyond our control, but rather specifically on the things which we are capable of directly affecting. In short, we need to focus on what we can personally do and not on the external circumstances that may exist. It makes no difference in the world what some other person ought to be doing—you cannot control the other person—you can only control yourself.

Consider the likely result when a person fails to take personal responsibility to solve a given problem or circumstance. Take person A, for example, who, rather than seeking to ascertain what they can do to help solve a problem, seeks instead to determine what someone else (say person B) ought to do to fix it. Such a situation would be characterized by a failure to focus on what one can directly control in favor of something one has absolutely no control over—the actions of other people. What would this accomplish? To begin with, unless person B is aware that it is supposedly “his responsibility” to remedy the situation, chances are nothing will be done. Person A will just sit around thinking that person B ought to do something. But on the other hand, if person A confronts person B in order to “get him to do something,” person B could easily turn the situation around and simply respond “that's not my responsibility—get someone else to do it!” It doesn't require very much imagination to see how such a situation could quickly escalate into something far worse than the initial problem. We could further complicate the situation by supposing that person A is in a position of authority over person B and thus, if person B desires to keep their job in good standing, they will do what they've been told. But this is how employees come to resent their bosses. When “the boss” is constantly “pawning off” responsibility for problems on “other people,” the “other people” naturally lose respect for them. Contrariwise, when “the boss” takes responsibility for problems and works to correct them—even if the problems are not “the bosses” fault to begin with—employees will naturally aspire to be more responsible and effective. The likely result then of avoiding personal responsibility to solve a given problem or circumstance—irrespective of what the specifics may or may not be—is not only the probable failure to fix the problem itself, but also the possibility of widespread animosity and pandemonium as well.

The “eye” of thinking should be understood as the “center point” or the heart of thinking, which refers to thinking only in terms of what you can personally do to help a given problem or circumstance. It makes no difference “who's fault” something is. It makes no difference what “someone else” ought to do. The only thing that you have control over is your own actions. If you want to fix a given problem then you must focus on the things that you can do personally to fix it.

Unless of course you would prefer to stress yourself out and frustrate yourself to the very edges of sanity—it's up to you.