Richard Bach is quoted as saying, “Here is the test to find whether your mission on earth is finished. If you're alive, it isn't.” “To live is so startling it leaves little time for anything else,” said Emily Dickinson. Grandma Moses said, “Life is what we make it, always has been, always will be.” “To live remains an art which everyone must learn, and which no one can teach.,“ said Havelock Ellis. Gioacchino Rossini said, “Eating, loving, singing and digesting are, in truth, the four acts of the comic opera known as life, and they pass like bubbles of a bottle of champagne. Whoever lets them break without having enjoyed them is a complete fool.”
I find these quotations inspiring, and I end this essay with my own. But, I must add at this point—an unabashedly blatant commercial—that if you enjoy great quotations, please see my complete collection of over 1600 motivational quotations: SMOERs—Self Motivation, Optimism, Encouragement Rules: Daily Reminders for Outstanding Living (And Then Some Publishing, 2009). You won’t be disappointed.
Most often when we think of celebrating, it is just at those special times (e.g., birthdays, Christmas, New Years, athletic victories, Thanksgiving, Fourth of July, etc.), and we seldom believe (or think) about celebrating on a daily basis. What do most of us have to be thankful for? A brief list may stimulate your thoughts: parents, family, children, health, abundance of resources, liberty and freedom, friends and neighbors, independence, self-sufficiency, and life itself, to name a few.
So often we overlook what we have to celebrate. At the web site, The List, it says, “We live in a country where we are free. We are free to participate in the political process without fear. We are free to practice our religion, whatever it may be. Every child has the opportunity to go to school. And although the economy is bad, we are still living a life that many people in this world can only dream of. We are blessed.” For most people in this country, this is what we have to celebrate, and, too, is exactly what we overlook.
At the web site, nwfdailynews.com and at the end of his essay, “During the holidays, be thankful for what we have,” Buddy Duncan writes: “Each night as I tuck my little girl in I am thankful for the soft cozy bed, the electricity to heat our home, the job and the health with which I can afford the electricity and other needs and comforts. I believe we have so much to be thankful for it is a waste of precious time bemoaning our lacks.”
We don’t need to wait for tomorrow and the success, affluence, wealth, or riches it may bring. All you need to do is survey your life for your own personal stories, experiences, and joys—the way your life has purpose, the needs that have been satisfied, and the beauties of nature that surround you. You have a wealth of wonderful stories, experiences, and joys—even if there may be no major successes, affluence, wealth, or riches in your life thus far.
At the USA Today web site, Gladys Edmunds has written an essay, “Entrepreneurial Tightrope: Things to be thankful for,” in which she lists things anyone in business has to be thankful for (I have condensed her thoughts and used them verbatim here without quotation marks): 1) Be eternally grateful for having a sense of purpose, the guiding light that keeps you motivated to keep on keeping on no matter how rough the road. 2) Be thankful you know that an easy way to reach your larger goals is to set the smaller goals that you can more easily see. 3) Be thankful for keeping negative thoughts out of the way. 4) Be thankful for all of the wonderful books, CDs and articles that help you to keep a positive, upbeat attitude toward life and living and being in business. 5) Be thankful for recognizing that self-confidence like self-esteem is not a steady state; it comes and goes depending on the situation you find yourself in. 6) Be thankful that you recognize the tell-tale signs of imbalance—lack of energy, irritability, over—or under—eating to name a few—and you have scheduled quiet time for yourself to evaluate your situation and implemented the necessary things to get your life back in order.
There are three more items in the list. 7) Be thankful for the ability to bring people into your life that will lead you to success: mentors, advocates, a coach when needed, good employees and of course the necessary subcontractors to help you have time to yourself. 8) Be thankful you recognize that success depends on consistent learning. And, when you stop learning, you stop living. 9) Be thankful that when opportunities show up you recognize them and seize the opportunity to your advantage. More important, be thankful that even when opportunity seems to have hidden itself from you, you have the good sense to use your creativity to create an opportunity for yourself.
I have often advocated the need for quiet time, and I have often written about the time I have to myself when I am jogging early in the morning. These are not just some of the most creative times I experience, but they are times, too, to celebrate what I have learned, appreciate my place in life, and to plan for the day, next week, or even next year. To carve out just a few moments each day to clear our minds and to think about all that we have to be thankful for are moments of quiet celebration—quiet joy. Celebration need not be loud, boisterous, animated, exuberant, and noisy. It is just as purposeful and meaningful when it is restrained, low-key, peaceful—and private.
And I want to close this essay on celebrating daily life with my own quotation: The beauty of celebrating everyday life is the joy of having a carnival of the spirit, a festival for our frame of mind, and a tribute to our way of thinking that boosts our morale and provides an ongoing force that drives our daily espirit de corps. Celebrating our daily life may not seem that important; however, it gives each of us a chance to show our appreciation for those things that really matter to us, and daily celebrations remind us of how fortunate, privileged, or simply lucky we are.
-----
At PR Log: Free Press Release, the essay is entitled, “Give Thanks! The Gratitude Collection Celebrates I Am So Thankful Month,” and the point of the essay is given in the subheading: “The Gratitude Collection is celebrating National I Am So Thankful Month by offering suggestions on how you can show your gratitude and thankfulness to others.” There are three great suggestions that allow us all to celebrate everyday thankfulness.
Marelisa Fabrega, on her Abundance Blog, has an essay, “50 Ways to Celebrate Life Every Day,” in which she wants readers to “establish a goal to celebrate life in some way, however small, every day. Below,” she writes, “you will find a list of 50 simple joys to help remind you to slow down, celebrate life, and enjoy the moment!” Some are small and trivial, others aren’t, but they are fun suggestions designed for everyday celebrations.
-----
Copyright November, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Take healthy risks for positive rewards
My motto was “Vote for Weaver, he’ll work like a beaver.” It was a lousy slogan, true, and may have been one of the reasons I failed in my run for student-council president. Another possible reason for not winning could easily have been that students didn’t want me to be their president! At the time, I didn’t care the reason. Of course, I ran against one of the most popular guys in the school and losing was a foregone conclusion (had I really considered it), but I had one heck of a good time making posters and banners, giving speeches, and shaking hands. I gave it a lot of time and effort.
At the time I didn’t think of it as a risk, although I stepped far beyond my comfort zone to do it. Now that I look back, I found the experience to be valuable in both learning and personal growth. I had never done anything like it before. From my previous leadership experiences — head of the hall monitors, captain of the junior deputies, leader of my scout troop and my cub scouts as well, president of junior achievement — I realized this experience was just one more on my growth chart. I really believed I had the interest of students at heart, and there were some changes I wanted to work on during my term — giving students more freedom and responsibility. Also, I never thought about failure. Even when I failed, I didn’t look back. It had no immediate effect on me. (Long term, it gave me an essay topic some 50 years hence!)
Until now I haven’t reflected on the whole experience. By challenging what was, looking to what could be, and having a healthy disregard for the impossible, I truly thought I could make a difference in the students’ world and in that of those people around me. I thought big. A risk taker — and I certainly didn’t think of myself as one at the time — challenges his or her comfort zone and becomes comfortable being uncomfortable.
One of the things about running for student-council president that stands out in my mind is all the preparation that went into it. I remember, for example, that all my friends who supported me had examined the situation and thought I could win. We began early, even before my chief competitor (and winner) entered the race. We knew the risk of losing, however, all of us thought the challenge and the run would be fun — there was really nothing to lose except, perhaps, our pride, but a loss of pride never entered our mind. We were young; who cared?
It was the group as a whole that clarified the objectives of the campaign, agreed on the slogan I came up with, evaluated basic approaches we needed to take, and decided on me to spearhead the movement — as the one most willing (or stupid enough!) to take the risk. We planned the posters, designed banners, prepared small business cards with the slogan to hand out, even decided where we would stand around the school (covering all the exits) to hand out the cards and shake hands. The strategy was a saturation campaign so everyone would at least know who I was. Not a great deal of thought was given to campaign promises, the need for change, or any kind of campaign platform, and that, indeed, may have been one of our weaknesses. These latter three items were to be handled solely in the campaign speech.
Implementation was simple. The group (there were about 5-10 of us) worked together on the strategy, and each member of the group was given a job to do with respect to advertising — seeking permission to hang the banner, obtaining janitorial help (a ladder) to hang it, getting the posters and business cards finished and then putting them up and handing them out. Other members of the group worked on the campaign speech. All of us looked at the entire experience as an adventure, not as a set of risks. “Risks” were never a consideration. To complete the adventure, we all looked forward to the action forthcoming.
Part of any true risk-taking experience, too, is evaluation. If you are to learn anything from what has taken place, some assessment must occur. What did you do that was right or that worked? Where did the campaign go wrong or what didn’t work? Where could the entire experience have been improved? That is, what could you have done better? What could you have done that you didn’t do? Overall assessment may be helpful as well. Given what you know now, how might you approach such a situation differently? Did you achieve the goals you set for yourself? What were the obstacles, and how could you overcome them in the future?
There were several important learnings that emerged from my run for student-council president. First, and this is supported by research, I never regretted the effort. A report in the journal Psychological Science reveals that whether you miss achieving a goal by a little or a lot, you won’t lament going after it nearly as much as you think you will. The failures from risk-taking behavior, for the most part, don’t last long with respect to regret, sorrow, sadness, disappointment, or residual unhappiness.
The second set of learnings from my run for president is that I still got a great learning experience, I still got the peace of mind that comes from knowing that I tried doing something,
and I still got the knowledge of how to do something. My mind was now freed up to start working on other things. As a kid, I was never a slacker; I always had things to do; and I always worked hard at whatever I tried.
From this experience — and other similar risk-taking adventures — I have some advice for those who want to increase their ability at taking risks. First, approach any risk with a positive mental attitude and strong positive expectations. You must slay the dragons of negativity as soon as you notice them creeping in. Take any risk with an intensely strong belief that you will succeed.
Second, if you approach any risk with a success mindset and the right mental attitude, more often than not you are going to succeed. You will be amazed at the resources you are able to assemble — your own and those of others — to make success possible.
Third, if the risk you are planning to take (or are currently engaged in) is not right for you, you will start noticing your intuition giving you certain messages (e.g., warnings, more information, barriers, etc.) about it that will help you make the right decision.
The important thing to remember when it comes to taking risks is that you live life only once. Life is too short to be wasted on things you don't want to do or on things that you have done over and over. That’s how comfort zones develop. You don't need to live on the sidelines. Trying to achieve new goals, cross fresh barriers, or develop new skills, will broaden your horizons, generate new knowledge, and expand your repertoire of options and alternatives. With such results there will be no regrets, and you will die knowing that you did the best you could. Start now taking healthy risks. If you believe you can, you can.
-----
Frances Lefkowitz, at wholeliving.com, has an excellent essay entitled, “The importance of taking risks.” At the end of her essay, Lefkowitz discusses “The Rewards of Risk,” and ends her essay saying, “Perhaps the most immediate benefit of risk is that it's simply plain fun. Neuroscientists explain this bliss with biochemistry: New, challenging, and risky activities trigger the release of dopamine, a feel-good neurotransmitter that's part of the brain's reward system. Call it the ultimate antidote to boredom -- it's the best way I know of to wake up and feel fully and ecstatically alive.” Lefkowitz also has an essay on “Risk-Taking Tips."
At Accessmy library.com, Mary R. Rolison and Abraham Scherman, have a sophisticated essay entitled, “College student risk-taking from three perspectives.,” that I found both fascinating and enlightening. Rolison and Scherman stated at the outset, “With so many college students taking risks involving so many negative consequences, it would be beneficial to have one general model or framework from which to understand college student risk-taking behavior,” but three were discussed, and no single unifying theory was proposed in the portion available online. First, “one theory indicates that individual traits, such as self-esteem, social skills, impulse control, sensation-seeking, and locus of control, may explain risk-taking.” Second, “problem-behavior theory has been offered as a way to explain risk-taking in adolescents and young adults. Problem behavior theory looks at risk-taking from a developmental and personal environment interaction perspective.” Third, “college student risk-taking could also be explained from the decision-making perspective. Furby and Beyth-Marom have proposed that adolescents may not be capable of competent decision-making.”
-----
Copyright November, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
At the time I didn’t think of it as a risk, although I stepped far beyond my comfort zone to do it. Now that I look back, I found the experience to be valuable in both learning and personal growth. I had never done anything like it before. From my previous leadership experiences — head of the hall monitors, captain of the junior deputies, leader of my scout troop and my cub scouts as well, president of junior achievement — I realized this experience was just one more on my growth chart. I really believed I had the interest of students at heart, and there were some changes I wanted to work on during my term — giving students more freedom and responsibility. Also, I never thought about failure. Even when I failed, I didn’t look back. It had no immediate effect on me. (Long term, it gave me an essay topic some 50 years hence!)
Until now I haven’t reflected on the whole experience. By challenging what was, looking to what could be, and having a healthy disregard for the impossible, I truly thought I could make a difference in the students’ world and in that of those people around me. I thought big. A risk taker — and I certainly didn’t think of myself as one at the time — challenges his or her comfort zone and becomes comfortable being uncomfortable.
One of the things about running for student-council president that stands out in my mind is all the preparation that went into it. I remember, for example, that all my friends who supported me had examined the situation and thought I could win. We began early, even before my chief competitor (and winner) entered the race. We knew the risk of losing, however, all of us thought the challenge and the run would be fun — there was really nothing to lose except, perhaps, our pride, but a loss of pride never entered our mind. We were young; who cared?
It was the group as a whole that clarified the objectives of the campaign, agreed on the slogan I came up with, evaluated basic approaches we needed to take, and decided on me to spearhead the movement — as the one most willing (or stupid enough!) to take the risk. We planned the posters, designed banners, prepared small business cards with the slogan to hand out, even decided where we would stand around the school (covering all the exits) to hand out the cards and shake hands. The strategy was a saturation campaign so everyone would at least know who I was. Not a great deal of thought was given to campaign promises, the need for change, or any kind of campaign platform, and that, indeed, may have been one of our weaknesses. These latter three items were to be handled solely in the campaign speech.
Implementation was simple. The group (there were about 5-10 of us) worked together on the strategy, and each member of the group was given a job to do with respect to advertising — seeking permission to hang the banner, obtaining janitorial help (a ladder) to hang it, getting the posters and business cards finished and then putting them up and handing them out. Other members of the group worked on the campaign speech. All of us looked at the entire experience as an adventure, not as a set of risks. “Risks” were never a consideration. To complete the adventure, we all looked forward to the action forthcoming.
Part of any true risk-taking experience, too, is evaluation. If you are to learn anything from what has taken place, some assessment must occur. What did you do that was right or that worked? Where did the campaign go wrong or what didn’t work? Where could the entire experience have been improved? That is, what could you have done better? What could you have done that you didn’t do? Overall assessment may be helpful as well. Given what you know now, how might you approach such a situation differently? Did you achieve the goals you set for yourself? What were the obstacles, and how could you overcome them in the future?
There were several important learnings that emerged from my run for student-council president. First, and this is supported by research, I never regretted the effort. A report in the journal Psychological Science reveals that whether you miss achieving a goal by a little or a lot, you won’t lament going after it nearly as much as you think you will. The failures from risk-taking behavior, for the most part, don’t last long with respect to regret, sorrow, sadness, disappointment, or residual unhappiness.
The second set of learnings from my run for president is that I still got a great learning experience, I still got the peace of mind that comes from knowing that I tried doing something,
and I still got the knowledge of how to do something. My mind was now freed up to start working on other things. As a kid, I was never a slacker; I always had things to do; and I always worked hard at whatever I tried.
From this experience — and other similar risk-taking adventures — I have some advice for those who want to increase their ability at taking risks. First, approach any risk with a positive mental attitude and strong positive expectations. You must slay the dragons of negativity as soon as you notice them creeping in. Take any risk with an intensely strong belief that you will succeed.
Second, if you approach any risk with a success mindset and the right mental attitude, more often than not you are going to succeed. You will be amazed at the resources you are able to assemble — your own and those of others — to make success possible.
Third, if the risk you are planning to take (or are currently engaged in) is not right for you, you will start noticing your intuition giving you certain messages (e.g., warnings, more information, barriers, etc.) about it that will help you make the right decision.
The important thing to remember when it comes to taking risks is that you live life only once. Life is too short to be wasted on things you don't want to do or on things that you have done over and over. That’s how comfort zones develop. You don't need to live on the sidelines. Trying to achieve new goals, cross fresh barriers, or develop new skills, will broaden your horizons, generate new knowledge, and expand your repertoire of options and alternatives. With such results there will be no regrets, and you will die knowing that you did the best you could. Start now taking healthy risks. If you believe you can, you can.
-----
Frances Lefkowitz, at wholeliving.com, has an excellent essay entitled, “The importance of taking risks.” At the end of her essay, Lefkowitz discusses “The Rewards of Risk,” and ends her essay saying, “Perhaps the most immediate benefit of risk is that it's simply plain fun. Neuroscientists explain this bliss with biochemistry: New, challenging, and risky activities trigger the release of dopamine, a feel-good neurotransmitter that's part of the brain's reward system. Call it the ultimate antidote to boredom -- it's the best way I know of to wake up and feel fully and ecstatically alive.” Lefkowitz also has an essay on “Risk-Taking Tips."
At Accessmy library.com, Mary R. Rolison and Abraham Scherman, have a sophisticated essay entitled, “College student risk-taking from three perspectives.,” that I found both fascinating and enlightening. Rolison and Scherman stated at the outset, “With so many college students taking risks involving so many negative consequences, it would be beneficial to have one general model or framework from which to understand college student risk-taking behavior,” but three were discussed, and no single unifying theory was proposed in the portion available online. First, “one theory indicates that individual traits, such as self-esteem, social skills, impulse control, sensation-seeking, and locus of control, may explain risk-taking.” Second, “problem-behavior theory has been offered as a way to explain risk-taking in adolescents and young adults. Problem behavior theory looks at risk-taking from a developmental and personal environment interaction perspective.” Third, “college student risk-taking could also be explained from the decision-making perspective. Furby and Beyth-Marom have proposed that adolescents may not be capable of competent decision-making.”
-----
Copyright November, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Blind spots in early dating often jeopardize the ability to make proper decisions
Just as I had completed my essay on “Judging Others,” and how important it is to be aware of our limitations, I read an article by Kaja Perina (the editor of the magazine) in Psychology Today (January/February, 2007) entitled “Love’s Loopy Logic,” which explained the reasons why our ability to judge others is so limited — a situation in which Perina explains, “it sometimes pays to deceive ourselves.” I have borrowed some of the language and many of the observations in this essay from that article, and I have, for the most part, refrained from using quotation marks simply because of the distraction that often causes. The ideas in this essay belong to Kaja Perina, and I owe her a debt of gratitude for her insights. Read her essay.
You [the reader] will best profit from [at the very least, identify with] the observations in this essay if you can transport yourself back to the time when you were trolling for the wit, kindness, curiosity, intelligence, and “chemistry” that would allow you to make the proper decision regarding a future mate. It is often within the parameters of such a quest that an explanation for the limitations of our observations and judgments can best be understood. Perina casts both her observations and descriptions within the broad rubric of “mating intelligence,” which, she explains, is as oxymoronic as the term suggests.
The key sentences in Perina’s article are, “We’ve all got blind spots about the opposite sex. And sometimes that’s for the best.”
The first blind spot occurs very early in the dating experience when men are wooing by grossly exaggerating their income, commitment, and affection for the opposite sex, and, despite the outlandish hyperbole, women are accurately gauging their date’s personality. The blind spot occurs in the report of what occurred. For example, if males have a great first date it is likely they will disclose more interest in themselves by their date than females are likely to describe. Women, on the other hand, are likely to give an account that men are interested in no-strings-attached sex than is likely to be the case.
Geoffrey Miller, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico, labels these very early meetings as a “never-ending arms race of romantic skepticism and excess.” Glenn Geher, an associate professor of psychology at SUNY at New Paltz, who, with Miller, has edited a volume on mating intelligence, comes to the conclusion that women who are skeptical of men’s intentions are almost always better off than women who spend hours deconstructing the first date. For women, Geher suggests, using the rule that “men are always pigs,” will more likely result in finding honest, committed, and long-term-seeking males.
A second blind spot, and one, too, that contributes significantly to the first one described above, is how males and females see the world through their own deeply skewed lenses. This has less to do with minds set in mating mode, than it has to do with everyday perceptions. Role play once again, and you are likely to see the problem. Pretend your date is both powerful and beautiful. Isn’t it likely that along with these features you imbue him or her with personal and intellectual qualities he or she is unlikely to possess? —smart, intuitive, creative, knowledgeable, gifted, and talented? In addition, in such a situation, you overestimate your own abilities [after all, you have attracted a powerful and beautiful date!] and downgrade the importance of any skills that elude you.
There is a third blind spot, too, that results from gender-related characteristics. When I describe it, you will quickly agree, I’m sure, but what this bias does is tend to obscure other possibilities. Men scan potential mates for sexiness and availability while women scavenge for clues to personality and commitment readiness. Men are not looking for intelligence, creativity, curiosity, talent, or sense of humor. If they find any of these characteristics, of course, it is simply icing on the sexy and available cake they desire.
That is precisely why women are likely to be more accurate and realistic when it comes to looking for relationship partners. They look for the things that will secure the foundation of relationships and better predict longevity such as a man’s character, trustworthiness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability. Their judgment of a male’s commitment readiness may be inaccurate [males often lie about this to increase a woman’s sexiness and availability]; however, despite the static, at least females’ antennae are attuned to the proper station.
The fourth blind spot is embellishment. When all goes well early in a relationship, both partners tend to embellish the other. Many call this the “infatuation stage” of dating. The positive experiences the two of you have tends to turn up the volume on the traits you love. Your date becomes the best-looking guy in his family, or the unheralded star of her office. Faby Gagn , a research consultant and visiting scholar at Wellesley College, found that 95 percent of people think their paramour is above average in appearance, intelligence, warmth, and sense of humor. There is a great deal of wisdom reflected in these observations, of course. Not only does this help confirm a mate’s knowledge that he or she has struck romantic gold, but it, too, increases their own self-esteem for having found a mate of this caliber. Gagn discovered that when partners feel their mate has such outstanding qualities they are more satisfied with their relationship and more committed to their mate.
The fifth blind spot, in a sense, justifies (more than some others) the basic premise of Perina’s article, that it sometimes pays to have blind spots. Self-deception is an equal opportunity bias. She says that the kind of positive illusions illustrated in the paragraph above help us marvel at our mates, overlook irritating or noxious behaviors (especially when a relationship split jeopardizes children, finances, or status), and make exceptions for aberrant or unjustified actions, especially when it is likely to bring on the alternative: uncertainty, distrust, and fractured loyalties. Without the fifth blind spot, there is likely to be paranoia, heartache, and paralysis.
Fortunately for most males and females, their goals, in the end, are overlapping. Both want stable relationships in which to raise children. Women, however, tend to want an earlier commitment than men. But when the female-male tracks converge in commitment, the early biases often fade into the background, and males and females begin to share important goals, the most important of which is preserving the relationship.
-----
At the Relationship Saver Blog, there are four wonderful, informative, and provocative essays that treat the blind spots people face in relationships—all written from different perspectives.
The essay located at the Psychology Today website, entitled, “ Marriage Help: Rear and Side View Mirrors,” (January 23, 2009) ends with the paragraph: “Adjusting for your blind spots in emotional interactions has to be intentional, just as you have to intentionally adjust the rear and side view mirrors of your car. If you drive on automatic pilot on the road or in your relationships, your blind spots will lead you to disaster. Putting a little care and effort in your blind spot adjustments will get you where you want to go.”
-----
Copyright November, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
You [the reader] will best profit from [at the very least, identify with] the observations in this essay if you can transport yourself back to the time when you were trolling for the wit, kindness, curiosity, intelligence, and “chemistry” that would allow you to make the proper decision regarding a future mate. It is often within the parameters of such a quest that an explanation for the limitations of our observations and judgments can best be understood. Perina casts both her observations and descriptions within the broad rubric of “mating intelligence,” which, she explains, is as oxymoronic as the term suggests.
The key sentences in Perina’s article are, “We’ve all got blind spots about the opposite sex. And sometimes that’s for the best.”
The first blind spot occurs very early in the dating experience when men are wooing by grossly exaggerating their income, commitment, and affection for the opposite sex, and, despite the outlandish hyperbole, women are accurately gauging their date’s personality. The blind spot occurs in the report of what occurred. For example, if males have a great first date it is likely they will disclose more interest in themselves by their date than females are likely to describe. Women, on the other hand, are likely to give an account that men are interested in no-strings-attached sex than is likely to be the case.
Geoffrey Miller, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico, labels these very early meetings as a “never-ending arms race of romantic skepticism and excess.” Glenn Geher, an associate professor of psychology at SUNY at New Paltz, who, with Miller, has edited a volume on mating intelligence, comes to the conclusion that women who are skeptical of men’s intentions are almost always better off than women who spend hours deconstructing the first date. For women, Geher suggests, using the rule that “men are always pigs,” will more likely result in finding honest, committed, and long-term-seeking males.
A second blind spot, and one, too, that contributes significantly to the first one described above, is how males and females see the world through their own deeply skewed lenses. This has less to do with minds set in mating mode, than it has to do with everyday perceptions. Role play once again, and you are likely to see the problem. Pretend your date is both powerful and beautiful. Isn’t it likely that along with these features you imbue him or her with personal and intellectual qualities he or she is unlikely to possess? —smart, intuitive, creative, knowledgeable, gifted, and talented? In addition, in such a situation, you overestimate your own abilities [after all, you have attracted a powerful and beautiful date!] and downgrade the importance of any skills that elude you.
There is a third blind spot, too, that results from gender-related characteristics. When I describe it, you will quickly agree, I’m sure, but what this bias does is tend to obscure other possibilities. Men scan potential mates for sexiness and availability while women scavenge for clues to personality and commitment readiness. Men are not looking for intelligence, creativity, curiosity, talent, or sense of humor. If they find any of these characteristics, of course, it is simply icing on the sexy and available cake they desire.
That is precisely why women are likely to be more accurate and realistic when it comes to looking for relationship partners. They look for the things that will secure the foundation of relationships and better predict longevity such as a man’s character, trustworthiness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability. Their judgment of a male’s commitment readiness may be inaccurate [males often lie about this to increase a woman’s sexiness and availability]; however, despite the static, at least females’ antennae are attuned to the proper station.
The fourth blind spot is embellishment. When all goes well early in a relationship, both partners tend to embellish the other. Many call this the “infatuation stage” of dating. The positive experiences the two of you have tends to turn up the volume on the traits you love. Your date becomes the best-looking guy in his family, or the unheralded star of her office. Faby Gagn , a research consultant and visiting scholar at Wellesley College, found that 95 percent of people think their paramour is above average in appearance, intelligence, warmth, and sense of humor. There is a great deal of wisdom reflected in these observations, of course. Not only does this help confirm a mate’s knowledge that he or she has struck romantic gold, but it, too, increases their own self-esteem for having found a mate of this caliber. Gagn discovered that when partners feel their mate has such outstanding qualities they are more satisfied with their relationship and more committed to their mate.
The fifth blind spot, in a sense, justifies (more than some others) the basic premise of Perina’s article, that it sometimes pays to have blind spots. Self-deception is an equal opportunity bias. She says that the kind of positive illusions illustrated in the paragraph above help us marvel at our mates, overlook irritating or noxious behaviors (especially when a relationship split jeopardizes children, finances, or status), and make exceptions for aberrant or unjustified actions, especially when it is likely to bring on the alternative: uncertainty, distrust, and fractured loyalties. Without the fifth blind spot, there is likely to be paranoia, heartache, and paralysis.
Fortunately for most males and females, their goals, in the end, are overlapping. Both want stable relationships in which to raise children. Women, however, tend to want an earlier commitment than men. But when the female-male tracks converge in commitment, the early biases often fade into the background, and males and females begin to share important goals, the most important of which is preserving the relationship.
-----
At the Relationship Saver Blog, there are four wonderful, informative, and provocative essays that treat the blind spots people face in relationships—all written from different perspectives.
The essay located at the Psychology Today website, entitled, “ Marriage Help: Rear and Side View Mirrors,” (January 23, 2009) ends with the paragraph: “Adjusting for your blind spots in emotional interactions has to be intentional, just as you have to intentionally adjust the rear and side view mirrors of your car. If you drive on automatic pilot on the road or in your relationships, your blind spots will lead you to disaster. Putting a little care and effort in your blind spot adjustments will get you where you want to go.”
-----
Copyright November, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
In judging others, we need to be aware of our limitations
Because I taught students how to be effective persuaders, I was often asked, “Why couldn’t someone take the exact persuasive techniques that you teach and use them the way Hitler used them in Germany more than sixty years ago?” The answer is: “They certainly could!” When you teach persuasion, you either teach ethics (what ethical behavior involves) or you assume that those learning the persuasive techniques will use them ethically. Perhaps the key is to screen students first to make certain they know the difference between right and wrong, have the proper value system in place, and that their past standards of behavior are irreproachable.
Everyone reading this knows the impossibility of such a test of principles. But the reason I have proposed such an examination of students’ right-minded conduct is that even if students were to pass such an assessment and the appraisal turned out to be first-rate, and even if you combined such an appraisal with additional corroborating evidence from friends and family, you still could not make an accurate prediction about how these top rated individuals might behave in specific circumstances.
The point is simply that it is not easy to assess the character of a person. Here is a close, personal example, although the names have been changed. Jason came from a Christian family. His parents were missionaries abroad, and Leesa knew Jason throughout junior and senior high school. He was the school’s athletic star (outstanding in every sport), and she was captain of the cheerleaders. Even Leesa’s parents, who knew the family and Jason for many years would have given Jason a strong, positive reference. Leesa and Jason married; Jason physically abused Leesa; they were soon divorced.
In another instance, Emily was an outstanding high school student and voted head of student council. Jacob was a star basketball player. Jacob, like Jason, came from a religious family. Both his parents were teachers; the father was a basketball coach at the local high school. Emily and Jacob were introduced through friends, dated, and, finally, married. Jacob, as it turned out, was a frequent user of pornography, a thief, a child abuser, and a chronic liar. Because of these traits and a deceptive lifestyle, Emily and Jacob divorced.
There is a third similar example as well. Ethan and Ashley were both members of the high-school band. They had gotten to know each other because they went to the same church. Everyone knew both Ethan’s and Ashley’s parents as respectable, upstanding members of the community. Ethan played drums in the high school pep band, and Ashley, an outstanding athlete, always saw Ethan at her sporting events. Some interest was sparked between the two as they would hang out together after games. Interest led to dating, dating led to marriage, and the marriage ended in divorce. Why? Ethan abused Ashley emotionally, preferred being single to being married, was too closely tied to his parents, and never seriously considered the importance of either a family or spiritual life.
We often make decisions about people in real life based on insufficient evidence. For example, talk to people about whom they voted for and why. Often, they choose to vote for someone because they like how they look, they hear an insignificant comment made to them about the person by a friend, or they listen to their candidate respond to a reporter’s question in a way that pleases them. The point of the three examples in the paragraphs above is that even when you think you know someone and even when you think you have sufficient evidence to judge their character, you don’t.
In most cases in life, we decide who we like or dislike for no good reason. It is truly an unfair decision based on little or no evidence. But, if we waited until we knew everything about someone before we made up our mind, we would spend much of our time with no commitments to anyone—in relationship limbo. Not only do we not have access to the kind of information we need to make up our minds, but even when we think we have gathered sufficient evidence to confirm a decision, the person behaves in such a way as to counter our judgment—totally repudiating not just our evidence but our ability to root out the essential information we need.
In a class I once taught I had a female student, I’ll call her Samantha, who was talkative, aggressive, and dominating. When I entered the classroom, Samantha was always talking, showing off, and grandstanding. When I asked for volunteers, her hand was always the first to be raised, and I had to be careful to give other students a chance to answer questions, or she would have answered them all. Samantha’s classmates did not particularly like her, but they tolerated her because, it seemed to them, it was better to stay on her good side than offend her in any way. After the first examination in the course, I realized that Samantha could be the smartest student in class. Other quizzes and examinations confirmed the first one, and her final paper for the course was one of the best I had ever read. For all of her “negative” characteristics, Samantha loved the class, thought my approach to it was outstanding, and was the top scholastic student.
We are all faced with this same dilemma about character. For all of Samantha’s aggression and dominance, she was the brightest and most capable student in the class. In another instance, I had what appeared to me to be a bright, capable, charming student who often came up after lecture to discuss something I said, a controversial issue, or a point of view he wanted to share. It was precisely this student who a graduate teaching assistant discovered submitting the paper of a previous student in class as his own, proving that affability does not relate to one’s moral standards. It’s the old aphorism that, “You can’t judge a book by its cover.” My contention is that you can’t even necessarily judge a book by the book itself—the book doesn’t always contain enough information or the right information. Even if it is the “right” information, it may not even hold true in all circumstances. After all, presidents Thomas Jefferson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy had secrets which would not have increased their popularity if the facts had been made public.
Perhaps the issue comes down to the judgments we make of others. Maybe the best idea is to judge them only on the one, single area of their life that we are able to see or hear, and make certain that our communication of that judgment reflects our limitations. We can’t judge people based on the sum totals of their personality because not only do we not have those totals, but we will never have them.
-----
At the website The Well, the very brief (five paragraph) essay, “On the foolishness of judging others,” puts everything in perspective—quickly!
At The Splintered Mind website, there is an essay by guest blogger, Hagop Sarkissian , entitled “Judging others: When it’s bad, it’s worse than you think,” that will really make you think. The comments that follow the essay are, too, profound, interesting, and even challenging.
-----
Copyright November, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
Everyone reading this knows the impossibility of such a test of principles. But the reason I have proposed such an examination of students’ right-minded conduct is that even if students were to pass such an assessment and the appraisal turned out to be first-rate, and even if you combined such an appraisal with additional corroborating evidence from friends and family, you still could not make an accurate prediction about how these top rated individuals might behave in specific circumstances.
The point is simply that it is not easy to assess the character of a person. Here is a close, personal example, although the names have been changed. Jason came from a Christian family. His parents were missionaries abroad, and Leesa knew Jason throughout junior and senior high school. He was the school’s athletic star (outstanding in every sport), and she was captain of the cheerleaders. Even Leesa’s parents, who knew the family and Jason for many years would have given Jason a strong, positive reference. Leesa and Jason married; Jason physically abused Leesa; they were soon divorced.
In another instance, Emily was an outstanding high school student and voted head of student council. Jacob was a star basketball player. Jacob, like Jason, came from a religious family. Both his parents were teachers; the father was a basketball coach at the local high school. Emily and Jacob were introduced through friends, dated, and, finally, married. Jacob, as it turned out, was a frequent user of pornography, a thief, a child abuser, and a chronic liar. Because of these traits and a deceptive lifestyle, Emily and Jacob divorced.
There is a third similar example as well. Ethan and Ashley were both members of the high-school band. They had gotten to know each other because they went to the same church. Everyone knew both Ethan’s and Ashley’s parents as respectable, upstanding members of the community. Ethan played drums in the high school pep band, and Ashley, an outstanding athlete, always saw Ethan at her sporting events. Some interest was sparked between the two as they would hang out together after games. Interest led to dating, dating led to marriage, and the marriage ended in divorce. Why? Ethan abused Ashley emotionally, preferred being single to being married, was too closely tied to his parents, and never seriously considered the importance of either a family or spiritual life.
We often make decisions about people in real life based on insufficient evidence. For example, talk to people about whom they voted for and why. Often, they choose to vote for someone because they like how they look, they hear an insignificant comment made to them about the person by a friend, or they listen to their candidate respond to a reporter’s question in a way that pleases them. The point of the three examples in the paragraphs above is that even when you think you know someone and even when you think you have sufficient evidence to judge their character, you don’t.
In most cases in life, we decide who we like or dislike for no good reason. It is truly an unfair decision based on little or no evidence. But, if we waited until we knew everything about someone before we made up our mind, we would spend much of our time with no commitments to anyone—in relationship limbo. Not only do we not have access to the kind of information we need to make up our minds, but even when we think we have gathered sufficient evidence to confirm a decision, the person behaves in such a way as to counter our judgment—totally repudiating not just our evidence but our ability to root out the essential information we need.
In a class I once taught I had a female student, I’ll call her Samantha, who was talkative, aggressive, and dominating. When I entered the classroom, Samantha was always talking, showing off, and grandstanding. When I asked for volunteers, her hand was always the first to be raised, and I had to be careful to give other students a chance to answer questions, or she would have answered them all. Samantha’s classmates did not particularly like her, but they tolerated her because, it seemed to them, it was better to stay on her good side than offend her in any way. After the first examination in the course, I realized that Samantha could be the smartest student in class. Other quizzes and examinations confirmed the first one, and her final paper for the course was one of the best I had ever read. For all of her “negative” characteristics, Samantha loved the class, thought my approach to it was outstanding, and was the top scholastic student.
We are all faced with this same dilemma about character. For all of Samantha’s aggression and dominance, she was the brightest and most capable student in the class. In another instance, I had what appeared to me to be a bright, capable, charming student who often came up after lecture to discuss something I said, a controversial issue, or a point of view he wanted to share. It was precisely this student who a graduate teaching assistant discovered submitting the paper of a previous student in class as his own, proving that affability does not relate to one’s moral standards. It’s the old aphorism that, “You can’t judge a book by its cover.” My contention is that you can’t even necessarily judge a book by the book itself—the book doesn’t always contain enough information or the right information. Even if it is the “right” information, it may not even hold true in all circumstances. After all, presidents Thomas Jefferson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy had secrets which would not have increased their popularity if the facts had been made public.
Perhaps the issue comes down to the judgments we make of others. Maybe the best idea is to judge them only on the one, single area of their life that we are able to see or hear, and make certain that our communication of that judgment reflects our limitations. We can’t judge people based on the sum totals of their personality because not only do we not have those totals, but we will never have them.
-----
At the website The Well, the very brief (five paragraph) essay, “On the foolishness of judging others,” puts everything in perspective—quickly!
At The Splintered Mind website, there is an essay by guest blogger, Hagop Sarkissian , entitled “Judging others: When it’s bad, it’s worse than you think,” that will really make you think. The comments that follow the essay are, too, profound, interesting, and even challenging.
-----
Copyright November, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
