When you´re attending a seminar on coaching, training, positive psychology, or ‘self-help’ in general, there´s this 90% likelihood that at a certain point, the facilitator will talk about learning. In order to ‘open up’ the minds of the participants, most workshop hosts will use the (in-)famous ‘baby analogy’. They will give a talk on how babies learn to walk: by getting up, falling down, getting up again, falling down again, getting up again, …., you get the picture.
The message is: babies are not afraid to fail. The ‘just do it’. Thing is: I´ve had at least 2.500 hours of different courses in the abovementioned areas over the last years – so I tend to get a little tired of hearing the same story all over again. But:
Now I kind of received this live demonstration. Below you´ll find a video* of the Little Guru that my wife sent to me while I was at work. It (presumably) shows the first time ever that the Little Guru has managed to sit up all by himself. He tries once, falls down, tries again – and then he succeeds. Even more important: Little Guru not only shows persistence. He also takes his time to savor the victory…
This is a fast-paced life. We rush from task to task, meeting to meeting, job to job. Most of the time, there´s a lot of things that will go well along the way. Do we really take enough time to cherish what went well?
In a lot of self-help books (of the shallow kind…), you’ll get to read the sentence “If you can dream it, you can do it” – which supposedly has been coined by Walt Disney. I acknowledge that this saying is well-intentioned – yet well intentioned and well done are oftentimes light years apart. There are simply a lot of things which sometimes all of us, and often most of us, cannot do – no matter how strong we believe. However how hard you exercise, you will never run as fast as Usain Bolt. No matter how hard you study, you will never be as smart as Steven Hawking. No matter how hard you work, you´ll never create the next Apple, Google, or Microsoft. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule. There is a Usain Bolt, there is a Stephen Hawking, and there are Jobs, Brin/Page, and Gates – but they are “singularities”. And no matter how many books sporting titles such as “The 10 Secrets to being like Steve Jobs” you´ll read – there´s a 99.999% likelihood of failure.
But I do not want to be a messenger of pessimism here. In fact, I do believe in the power of belief. It´s just that we have to turn things around in order to make it work. If you´d like to have science on your side, the saying should go like this:
If you can´t dream it, you can´t do it!
No man in this world can run a mile (1,609m) in less than four minutes. This has been an unwritten law during the first half of the 20th century. Innumerable athletes had tried to conquer the so-called miracle mile; some came close, but no one was able to beat that time. There even were physicians who claimed the human body per se is not capable of performing that feat.
However, impossibility did not know that somebody didn´t give a sh.t about impossibility: Roger Bannister, a young British athlete, just didn´t believe in the widespread doctrine. In a series of preparatory runs, he came closer and closer to reaching the impossible. Finally, at Oxford’s Iffley Road arena, on 6th May 1954, under rather bad external conditions, he finished the mile in 3:59.4 minutes – new world record.* You can watch a race between Bannister and his closest rival at that time, John Landy, a couple of weeks later here.
While this is very impressive in itself, it is not the point of the matter. The really fascinating fact is: Suddenly, by the end of 1954, a total of 36 athletes worldwide were able to beat that time. Now what has happened here? Was there a sudden advance in the training methods? Or the doping substances? I don´t believe that. Rather, I believe Roger Bannister has overthrown a collectiveself-fulfilling prophecy. He broke “the spell”, he crushed the mental blockade that had bedeviled his generation of fellow athletes.
Bannister had what psychologist like to call high self-efficacy, the specific belief in one’s ability to succeed in specific situations. High self-efficacy is associated with a wide array of positive outcomes, while a lack of self-efficacy is a good predictor for failure – irrespective of actual capabilities. Low self-efficacy is the psychological equivalent of “If you can´t dream it, you can´t do it”.
But no amount of self-efficacy will help us do what´s not doable.
* The current world record is held by Hicham El Guerrouj (3:43.13).
Just in case you want to know: Studying at Penn feels a little bit like attending Hogwarts. Of course, there are modern buildings, too – but a lot of the facilities are just adorable. This picture shows Cohen Hall where parts of the MAPP program are hosted.
I came home to Germany from the third MAPP onsite this morning. In the afternoon, I went for a walk with my wife and the Little Guru. This is what I found in a local shop window. Wonder, for how long it has been there…
There´s a rumor in the forest: The bear has written a death list. Buzz spreads like a wildfire. Some of the animals who hear about it decide to go ask the bear about the list to soothe their uncertainty.
So, the fox goes to the bear and asks him about the list: ‘Hey bear, is it true that you have a death list?’
`Yeah.’ says the bear.
`Well… is my name on it?’
`Yeah, you’re on the list.’
The fox runs off terrified. A week later, he´s found dead next to a tree.
A few days pass. Finally, the stag plucks up some courage, comes by and asks the bear about the list.
`Hey bear, is it true that you wrote a death list?’ asks the stag.
`Yeah.’ says the bear.
‘And was the fox on that list?’
`Yes, he was.’
`Okay… so is my name on it?’
`Let me check… yeah, afraid so.’
And so the stag takes to his heels in horror. A few days later, he´s found dead by a river.
Another couple of days pass and the rabbit comes by and asks the bear about the list.
`Hey bear, is it true that you have a death list?’ asks the rabbit.
`Yeah.’ says the bear.
And was the fox on that list?’
`Yep.’
And was the stag on that list, too?’
‘Indeed, he was.’
`OK… so is my name on it?’
`Yeah, afraid so, you’re on there, too.’
So the rabbit ask:
`OK… couldn’t you… …you know… like… erase my name or something?’
And the bear says: `Sure, why not?’
I´m at the third onsite of the 2013/14 MAPP program. This onsite is special because it´s the MAPP Summit: were being joined by some 60 MAPP alumni from the first eight editions of the program. Also, we´re welcoming some very interesting guest speakers. We will be joined by Art Carey from the Philadelphia Enquirer, Charlie Scudamore, who is Vice Principal at Geelong Grammar School, Ellen Langer from Harvard – and John Ratey, also from Harvard.
Are you happy? That´s a rather easy question to answer, don´t you think? Well, turns out it´s not that easy. Because it really makes a difference what you are thinking about while trying to answer this question. What are the standards you use while evaluating your ‘human condition’?
In Positive Psychology, there are (at least) three different perspectives on this issue and they center on the timeframe that is used for evaluating one´s happiness. It is literally possible to be (un-)happy in the past, present, and future – and there´s considerable evidence that these perspectives are separate from each other (albeit closely related).
When talking about ‘happiness in the past’, we usually refer to the construct of satisfaction with life which is a global cognitive evaluation of one´s life (so far). To date, it is the most widely used measure of psychological well-being.*
When talking about ‘happiness in the present’, we usually refer to what you do when actually ask somebody “How do you feel (right now)?” How much positive or negative affect do you feel in this moment? In terms of measurement, the most widely used instrument is the so-called PANAS (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule).
And finally, there´s ‘happiness in the future’ which is concerned with our optimism. How happy do you expect to be at time X in the future?
Now the interesting thing is: all three aspects will to a certain extent determine how happy you are today. And they can be tackled and improved separately (but that´s not today´s story…)
For today: if you would like to find out how you´re doing in the past, present, and future, you can take tests at Martin Seligman´s homepage. They can be found (among others) in the menu questionnaires.
Those of you that have followed Mappalicious so far might have realized already that MAPP is a fulltime program – yet it consists of a mixture of onsite learning periods at Penn (3 days per month on average) and distance learning periods in between. That way, people from different walks of life and otherwise busy schedules can participate in the program without having to interrupt their careers.
Just now, I feel so grateful for having this opportunity. I´m sitting in the ‘least worst’ café of my sleepy hometown in Germany listening to word-class researchers via an online learning platform. Right now, it´s statistics which clearly is not my favorite subject – but that secondary.
Isn’t this awesome?! There´s a lot of ranting about globalization and the dark sides of internet use – but once again: Isn’t this awesome?!
The silence on Mappalicious is officially over. I´ve been travelling over the last 14 days and obviously have been too busy actually living my life in order to write about it in addition. And while doing this, I´ve made an interesting discovery: you can spend your days in New York (arguably the most exciting place on Earth) with a bunch of really nice people and a great program (Broadway musical, boat tour on the Hudson, party at one of the best rooftop bars in town etc.) – and still end up crying your eyes out in the hotel room. Just because you miss baby boy so much. True story…
Which raises a question on the nature of Positive Psychology:
Is Positive Psychology about leading a happy, pleasurable life? Or is it about leading a virtuous, meaningful life?
The answer is: both aspects are important – but if you would ask Marty Seligman, he´d say the emphasis clearly should be on cultivating strengths, virtues, and meaning. While experiencing lots of positive emotion definitley is a goal in Positive Psychology (because it just feels good to feel good; but more important: because positive emotions produce lots of beneficial ‘side effects’) they are only one element (P) of PERMA, Seligman’s theory of human flourishing.
On the overarching level, it is possible to distinguish between the quest for hedonic (pleasurable) and eudaimonic (virtuous) experiences. Both clearly are important for leading a ‘full’ life, but Eudaimonia may just be a little more sustainable in the long run. When creating a 2×2 matrix with Eudaimonia on the one axis and Hedonia on the other, it will look like this:
When a human being experiences high levels of positive emotion and the presence of meaning, worthwhile goals, connection to other human beings etc., this can be characterized as ‘the full life’ or ‘Flourishing’ in the official diction.
The absence of both dimensions is called ‘the empty Life’ or ‘Languishing’ – a condition that is closely tied with depression.
If someone is high on the hedonic dimension but relatively low on Eudaimonia, I like to call it ‘the sweet life’ (‘Settling’ in the official lingo). By way of example, imagine the prototypical billionaire heir that squanders his family´s money on the French Riviera. It´ll surely be pleasurable but may also seem somewhat shallow.
On the other hand, when there´s a considerable lack of Hedonia, this condition can be termed ‘the sour life’ or ‘Striving’ in official Positive Psychology speak. You might want to imagine the epitome of an old unmarried lady that spends all of her time and money on ‘good causes’ but forgets herself on the way. It is admirable but may also seem a little ‘anemic’.
If you´d like to learn more: I´ve written an article in a coaching magazine on that topic about a year ago. It´s in German unfortunately – but I know that many German-speaking people are reading this blog, too…
Mappalicious 