Just In! 89.8 % of Americans Working!

 (good news) + (bad news) = 360 View

The hard numbers just came in and they are not soft--it seems the unemployment rate is over ten per cent for the first in twenty-six years. This "soft" recovery is not too cushy for many Americans, but it does seem the tide is slowly turning...

However, things could be a great deal worse. The human instinct is to view bad news as "real" news but that is not an accurate world view.

One of our most common thinking errors is discounting the positive. Yes, unemployment is 10.2 per cent. However, employment is 89.8. When viewing the world in a realistic fashion, don't look at a half full glass or a half empty one either--use your mind to see both parts.

And keep plugging along dear friends...that is what we, as humans, do best.

Happy Friday!

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.

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.

What's the Number One Reason People Can't Make Changes Stick?

(change) - (one step) = status quo

'Tis the season to change. People are back from the beach, out of Mai Tai mix and realizing that whatever was wrong pre-tan line is still there post-tan. Regardless of if it is needing a career change, wanting to lose that final 20 pounds or conquering depression, the fall is the time when people reach out to me for help.

Based on my own experience and the experiences of my clients, I have the number one reason short-term change fails to translate into long-term success.

Drum roll please.......

They don't fully engage. I work wtih them to understand their problem and help them design a plan to create significant, and real change in their lives. They are on board for 80 or 90% of it but one key aspect of the plan, many times THE key aspect, keeps them from success.

Let me give you an example. Years ago a client came to me complaining of anxiety, insomnia and of a boyfriend she was "addicted" to. No matter how hard she tried, she could not shake him out of her life. I spent a few weeks learning about friends (very few or none) and family relationships (she had cut them off because they were critical of HIM). She had inherited a significant amount of money from her father's estate so she did not work. It seemed that for the most part she had taken on Rodney (a pseudonym) as her full time job.

She and I created a plan that engaged her in community service with a few key causes she was passionate about. In that way she could begin to build friendships with people who shared her interests. We also implemented a three day a week exercise plan, mostly made up of classes, so she would have a schedule to keep and other opportunities for friendship. The most important part of the plan regarded Rodney--we agreed she would write and tell him they needed a full year apart to see who she was--and who he was too. I was convinced that the year clear of Rodney would allow her to see him for what he was as opposed to the man she imagined him to be.

Almost immediately we began weekly check-ins to see where she was on her three goals. She excelled in her non-profit work and lost seven pounds in her first month working out. She had also weened herself from her anti-anxiety meds, replacing them with the square breathing exercises I had taught her when she felt anxious. Her sleep had also gotten better in that she was physically and mentally active, making her more tired at day's end. Last of all, she had not spoken to Rodney, who she missed greatly.; she realized why the break was important and was committed to sticking to her plan. All tolled, she had a real success on her hands.

However, a few weeks later month two proved to be harder; the anxiety outbreaks began to reappear and her exercise tapered off from three to two days a week. A few sessions later she said something about what Rodney was doing. I asked how she knew and she confessed that she had been texting with him for about three weeks. She claimed she did not think texting "counted," so we discussed the implications of any contact with a man who "did not seem to be good for her" (her words, not mine).

"It is so hard," she said, "we meant so much to each other for so long." I asked her if she thought it was a coincidence that her exercise had gone down and anxiety had risen--threatening her plan. She said no, and told me she would try harder.

Eventually all of her forward motion was derailed by her inability to take a year off from Rodney. Was the goal hard? Yes, I acknowledged that it was. However, I would say, and she agreed, that no matter how hard it was it was not as hard as the life she lived under Rodney's control.

She had asked me to help her create a transition plan and we did, an effective one at least at the start. However, it was her inability to be consistent that kept her from moving forward and making her life a better one.

Do you see any of my former client in you? Creating real change is so very hard. One way to ensure success is accepting the entire plan and trying it out. After all, what do you have to lose?

Lowering Your Anxiety Without Medication

 
(mind) + (body) = mody


We are all a product of our ancestors and since that is true, we inherited a variety of wonderful, and some less than wonderful traits that do not play so well in the 21^st century.  On of those is our response to stress. In ancient times, and in some cases today, our instinctual desire to fight or run away comes in handy (ever cross paths with a grizzly bear?). But most times these responses won’t work at the office or in an airplane on the tarmac. So understanding how you can naturally change the amount of oxygen in your bloodstream is an important tool in managing your anxiety. 

We breathe, on average, twelve to fourteen times per minute; a slight change in respiration, say two additional breaths per minute, can drastically change the oxygen content of your blood. And that increased oxygen send signals to your body that something is wrong. As a result a variety of symptoms may occur—faster heart beat, a feeling of being cool or hot, tingling feelings, Goosebumps or a feeling of dread.

To counteract these symptoms, we have to take control of something we normally do not—the rhythm of our breath. One method is placing a paper sack over one’s mouth. In doing so, we breathe in our own carbon dioxide and lessen the oxygen we take in.

However, the bag may not be handy or may be a tad obvious during a job interview or having dinner at the in-laws. And that is where square breathing comes in handy.

It is called square breathing because it is four sided and each side is the length of the other three.

1.   Breathe in to a count of four;

2.   Hold that breath for a four count;

3.   Exhale for the same count;

4.   Then hold off from breathing for one more count of four.

Do this over and over. It may be difficult at first but in a few moments you will begin to feel the benefit. The oxygen will level off and the symptoms, as well as the feelings will subside as a result. Over time, as you get more proficient, extend the count to six or seven, just as long as it feels comfortable for you.

Who would have thought being square would be so cool?

The Clarity of Distance

(difficult relations) + (long distances)  = better relations

In speaking with a friend about my relationship with a relative I don’t like, my words prompted her to breathe a sigh of relief. “That makes me feel so much better about how I feel about Cindy,” she replied. Cindy, a relative of hers, is not her favorite person. But because of cultural conventions, she felt the need to pretend her feelings are bad and tell herself that she should be ashamed for feeling how she does about blood kin.

That is not too surprising--most cultures, if not all, tell their people they have to love their parents, brothers, sisters and any other blood relations, at all costs. That is not true. It would be nice if was and many times it happily is. But many times it 's not. And that falsehood, that we have to love someone because of DNA, leads to thoughts of "should" and "ought," which in turn ferment into guilt and a sense of failure.

I don’t believe this myth of familial love is natural—and there does not seem to be any evidence to indicate it is. I think the concept arose out of necessity. Like many taboos, this one has a function, not unlike the rules against incest. We have, for hundreds of thousands of years, lived in small clans and within those groups clear understandings of family insured cohesiveness. In that situation everyone you live with is a relation—figuratively your brother or sister. Having a level of investment in each member is more likely to insure you will have the other's back when a saber toothed tiger shows up for a meal. In that system disharmony equaled death.

One of the side effects of modern society is that the need to give undying support to your family is, in many cases, less important than it was at any other time. In the modern world people can, and often do, leave the place they were born, something that has never occurred outside of a few glaring exceptions (think The Crusades or marching with Alexander the Great). One of my best friends lives over 3,000 miles from our place of birth and according to Google maps, I am over 900 miles away as well. I have a client who is in the exact opposite place on the globe from where he was born—how much farther can one get?

The ability to leave has the potential to do many things One of them is to give us clarity about relationships, by blood or otherwise, that need to be better understood. When everyone is clumped together, there is a high incentive to play nice and get along, or at least pretend you do. Distance allows us to see, not unlike the far-sighted person reading a book at arms length. In being removed from circumstances we are allowed to see our loved ones, and not so loved ones, for who they are. Consequently we may be able to recognize heroes we never noticed and sometimes recognize bullies who seemed to be dear friends.

This scary concept flies in the face of conventional logic. But many times ideas that are challenging seem that way because they have, at least to some degree, an element of truth. If you get along with all your family members, count thyself lucky. If you don’t, you are not alone.

Cognitive Behavioral Principle: Discounting the Positive

 (good news) + (bad news) = 360 View


Discounting the Positive is one of the most common problems humans face. In short, it is when a person fails to acknowledge successes and only looks at what she has not done.

For instance, I have a client (let's call her Mary) who, from all accounts would be considered a success. She is in a highly regarded field, one that many would love to be in. She works hard, gets raises, promotions, bonuses. On top of that Mary has an active dating life and many friends. And during the week she teaches an exercise class as she decided to become certified in her spare time. That is what I see.

What does Mary see? A failure. Because she has the desire to be a mother and she is not, she thinks she is a complete loser. All the accomplishments above don't matter to her--she only sees what she does not have.

Mary considers herself to be a realist and that is why she bashes herself over the head about motherhood. I see her as someone who is struggling with accepting reality. Reality is a mix of accomplishments, things tried and things left to do. Her reality is all about what she does not have.

So I am helping her to understand what discounting the positive does to her. And slowly, slowly she is beginning to see all 360 degrees as opposed to five or six.

Examine your life--what do you discount? Once you recognize what it is, ask yourself how that practice, the practice of ignoring the good aspects of your life keep you from changing what you want to change.

Want to ask David a question about Discounting the Positive?