William Glasser's Choice Theory

Aimee Bee Brooks

I read Infinite Jest earlier this year on a 6 day train ride across Russia, Mongolia and China.  On day two, I reached a passage filled with truisms on life, ranging from humorous to profound:

"That trying to dance sober is a whole different kettle of fish... That 'acceptance' is usually more a matter of fatigue than anything else... That different people have radically different ideas of basic personal hygiene...That, perversely, it is often more fun to want something to have it.... That having sex with someone you do not care for feels lonelier than not having sex in the first place, afterward."

 He then states:

"That everybody is identical in their secret unspoken belief that way deep down they are different from everyone else.  That this isn't necessarily perverse."

Isn't that the truth?  Maybe it's something engrained in our psyche after learning that we're "all unique snowflakes' in kindergarten.

In reality, we are all a lot more similar than that unspoken, deep down belief.

How do I love me. Let me count the ways.

Photo Pin

As previously mentioned, I've been taking a Social Psychology class on Coursera.  It's fascinating, especially how much we love ourselves.

In fact, we exhibit a thing called "implicit egotism," which means we like what we associate with ourselves.  And, it's more than just liking people that went to the same college or are from the same home town...

Here's some crazy examples of implicit egotism:

• We are more likely to marry someone with the same initials or similar sounding names
• Men named "Jack" are 2.2x more likely to live in Jacksonville
• Men named "Phillip" are 10.4x more likely to live in Philadelphia
• Dentists are 2x more likely to be named Dennis & 2.5x more likely to be named Denise
• When shown 2 self-portraits (the actual picture & the mirror version), most prefer the mirror version.  For other women, we prefer the actual picture.

Isn't that wild?

Relationship Secret: 5 to 1 Ratio

PhotoPin

I've managed to get myself into a lot of existential conversations over the last decade.

And, not surprisingly, sometimes the topic turn to love...

What is love?
Can love between two people last indefinitely?
How well can you know another person?
Is marriage a ruse?
How do people find each other in this vast universe?

Blah, blah, blah.  Drunken girl (and guy) chat in their mid-twenties can lead to these questions.

Well, Dr. Gottman has some answers around marital success.

He can predict with 90% accuracy if a couple will get divorced.

How?

It's the 5:1 ratio.

For every 1 negative interaction with a spouse, you need 5 positive interactions.

If a couple does not meet this ratio, they are likely to get divorced.

I think the same goes for any type of relationship -- whether it be with colleagues, friends or parents.

So, next time you say something hurtful, make sure you have 5 nice things ready.

A Machiavelli Streak in Management

You've likely heard of Machiavellianism.  It's seldom used positively.

It originated from the book, The Prince, written in 1532 about the rise of a new leader; it's considered the first example of modern political philosophy.  The book explores the philosophy that the ends (glory and survival) may justify immoral means (corruption and killing) for rulers.

Since then, the term Machiavellianism has been used by psychologists to describe a person's tendency to be unemotional, and therefore able to detach him or herself from conventional morality. By doing so, one can deceive and manipulate others for their own gain without feeling guilty for their actions.

In the experiment illustrated above, psychologists separated participants into 2 groups.

• Group 1 was made to feel like they "were in a high power position" 
• Group 2 was made to feel like they "were in a low power position"  

They were then asked to draw "Es" on their foreheads.

Participants in high-power Group 1 were 3x as likely to draw the E on their forehead so it was forwards for themselves but backwards for others, suggesting they are less likely to consider other people's views (more here).

In order to obtain power, people usually need a high level of social intelligence.  They also exhibit dynamic and engaging personalities.  It's once they achieve power that things change...

Studies show that once people assume positions of power, they tend to act more selfish, impulsive and aggressive (Source: Dacher Keltner, The Power Paradox) and have a harder time viewing the world "empathetically" (i.e., a more "Machiavellian mindset," drawing Es on their foreheads that look like 3s to everyone else).

What you see is a paradox of power:
The skills used to obtain power and lead effectively (i.e., high EQ) tend to evaporate once someone actually achieves power.

Luckily, people usually revolt against or leave this type of leader... it's only a matter of time.

Instead, it might be better to follow Lao-Tzu's advice:
"To lead the people, walk behind them."

Self-help is not the way to happiness

Self-help in America is big business -- an $11B business a year, in fact.  It's the same size as Nordstroms, Whole Foods or Black & Decker.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working.  According to the 2013 Happiness Index, the United States is ranked #17.  Not bad.  But, our less wealthy neighbors, Canada and Mexico, appear to be happier.

Why has America gone "gangbusters" over self-help?  

Well, I think it comes from our emphasis on the individual and democracy.  We've developed legends around the "self-made rags to riches" hero, which coincidentally shames those who have not achieved success in our "equal society" (see more here & here).

This status anxiety has led to two popular types of self-help:

1. How to be rich and powerful just like me (not me, Tamara... me, the hypothetical author)

2. Oh, you're not rich and powerful and loved?  You must have low self-esteem.  I can help.

Rather than see a professional, Americans typically prefer to try to solve their problems on their own or find a "silver bullet."  In fact, 10% of Americans are on anti-depressants, but most do not see a therapist.  Rather than taking time to develop happiness-inducing habits, we prefer to believe the snake oil of Joel Osteen, Suze Orman or Anthony Robbins

Like Alain de Botton says, "People are so proud to go the gym; so ashamed to go to the therapist."

Based on my Coursera class, Social Psychology by Scott Plous, there seems to be a few proven ways to improve happiness.

Who killed Davey Moore? + the Milgram Experiment

I think Bob Dylan was a social psychologist in hiding.  Last week, I used "With God on Our Side" to explain attentional bias.  This week, I'm moving on... I'm now using "Who Killed Davey Moore?" to explain the results of The Milgram Experiment.

So, who is this Davey Moore?

Davey Moore was an American boxer that died at age 29 due to severe injuries during a match against Sugar Ramos.  The fight lasted 10 rounds in the Dodgers stadium where Sugar finished Davey with successive blows to his head until he fell against the bottom rope and injured his brain stem.  In the dressing room, he went into a coma and died 75 hours later.

Where does Bob Dylan come in?

He wrote a song about this "human cock fight" where all parties denied responsibility for Davey's death.

Attentional Bias & Prayer

Source: Photo Pin

At painting class today, I listened to *a lot of* Bob Dylan.

In his famous song, "With God on our Side," he reflects on juxtaposition of religion and wars.

The First World War, boys
It came and it went
The reason for fighting
I never did get
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.

When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And then we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too

Have God on their side.  

I'm not writing tonight to debate religion.  

Instead, I'd like to describe "attention bias" (the father of "cognitive biases") through the example of a religious person.

All it takes is 1%

Here's a riddle for you.

A father and a son get in a car accident.  The father dies, but the son is sent to the hospital with serious injuries, needing emergency surgery.

The doctor comes in and says, "I can't operate.  It's my son."

How is this possible?