How About Changing Veterans Day to No War Day?

(attempts) – (failures) = success

While exercising Sunday I caught Andy Rooney on the venerable 60 Minutes, someone who I have not seen on the air in years. He looks slightly different, sounds the same and  apparently still makes pretty convincing arguments.

His pitch this week was about Veterans Day. Rooney, a vet from World War II, had eight friends from his school class pass away in the last of the world wars and over sixty years later it seems he still feels pain at their death. His proposal was a simple one--change the 11th to No War Day.

I am results oriented and that is why I embrace science as a tool to determine what really works. As a scientist, and a historian, I can guarantee that war absolutely does not. No war in history has ever resolved anything without creating consequences that make more wars happen. Pain is transmitted and inherited via assaults and attacks. And while it may take generations or centuries to arise, retaliation in one form or another most certainly will.

One thing more. Mr. Rooney was roundly criticized on the CBS website for this  piece and I want to come to his defense. Many criticized him for dishonoring the memory of the dead. All I can think is if those men and women who did die for some patch of land in some war could speak for themselves, most would feel the same way. The eleventh can be a tribute to those who died and also a plea to make it a day we eventually will not have to celebrate ever again.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Why Doesn't Supernanny Spank Those Rotten Kids?

(structure) + (love) + (praise) + (consistency) + (communication) = happy families

Over the years, either via Hulu or during a late-night workout,  I have seen ABC's program, Supernanny, on several occasions. It is a little one-note for me, with the same premise week after week but the ratings blockbuster keeps on rolling along (like so many others...).

For those of you who have not seen it, here is the outline of most, if not every, episode:

Jo, the titular character, is invited into some poor schmo's house that is overrun with awful kids. The children are everything adults dread--loud, ill-mannered, disrespectful, indolent. Jo observes, has a few meetings with the parents on a new behavioral method and then that method is applied. The kids raise hell, the parents almost waffle and then, in the end, Jo's method works! Another family saved.

Supernanny is a money machine with an apparently endless supply of bad families who need some nannizing. And Americans seem to love it as they watch those snotty unappreciative brats get their comeuppance from Ms. Jo.

So a question; why doesn't the nanny, a guru to millions of child beating Americans, ever spank those brats? After all, doesn't spanking work?

Could it be that she is a foreigner with snooty ways? Possibly but probably not. Is it because she is a socialist? No, but nice try.

The reason is that spanking does not work. Hitting a child to produce good behavior has never worked and it never will. I know, you were spanked. That is called anecdotal evidence and does not prove anything. Striking a child does nothing but make them sneakier and a bit afraid of the person who is, ironically, supposed to be protecting them.

Next time you watch Supernanny, look at the method she applies. She creates systems with incentives and focuses on praising and rewarding good behavior. And week after week after misbehaving week, her approach works.

Catch your kids doing something good. It will go a great deal farther and eventually create a better relationship between the two of you as well.

Can Being an Individual Put You at Incresed Risk for Depression?

 (culture) + (biology) = (depression)?

I just read a fascinating article about the complicated role a person's culture plays in their likelihood to be depressed.

I can tell you as one who lives as an iconoclast that such a life comes at great expense. There is a great cost for not conforming to group rules, and it makes sense that when a person is ostracized that she would be more likely to be depressed, anxious, or both.

Take a look at the article and tell me what you think. 

Happy Wednesday!

Does Money Really Equal Happiness?

(work) + (love) = happiness

I just read a post that made me think.

In the post, the author (the piece is unsigned, which is a tad troubling) claimed that there is not a direct correlation between doing what you love and making more money.

That may be true. However, I do not think that is the issue. 

I find that belief is based on a faulty, and very American, assumption that a grande paycheck translates into mucho happiness. I can testify, at least at the anecdotal level (my own and my clients), that that is simply not true. I think job happiness equals life happiness--and if riches appear, that is gravy.

Behavioral psychology tell us people do what they want to do. Knowing this is true, that means that having a job that you like or love means you are more likely to work harder and succeed.

Which challenges the concept that money equals happiness. I think it can give one security, but it does not ensure happiness in any way. A person can have a job they hate, make a ton of cash, and be miserable every day all day long. Meanwhile that same person can barely get by, love their work and work long hours, and I am willing to bet they would rate themselves as being far more satisfied with their life. Based on scientific facts, I think the second scenario is much more likely to create a happy life.

So career-changers beware. Believing that BIG PAY = SMILES is a dangerous philosophy that my work tells me is simply not true.

Read the original post here.