Psychology Archives - More Letters to the Corinthians

Life Coach

Have you ever noticed how schools teach all about the body but never mention the mind? Sure, it’s great to know the workings of body but isn’t mental health just as important? I think so. Let’s ask psychologist Marvin Roth what individuals should understand about well-being.

Rule #1

Having held a long and varied practice that includes a writing a book and teaching university, Dr. Roth insists readers know the difference between a life coach and various mental health professionals. Coaches are similar to personal trainers you find at a gym—they get you in shape. But everyone knows they’re not nurses or doctors. So if you have a real body problem, seek out the help of a professional. Same goes for the mind. If you have a mental health condition, it’s vital to find someone qualified. Advice coming from a friend isn’t always sufficient. That being said, what is it we need to know about mental health in general? Namely, what’s a good exercise for the mind?

Life plan

Much like bodies, minds require alignment to navigate through life. This alignment involves getting organized and periodically adjusting our mental state to ensure a clear direction. For once we have a well-defined plan, executing it becomes easy.

The purpose of a life coach is to get you on track. They explain big picture ideas and assist with exercises until this understanding goes deep inside. Let’s use an example.

Everyone’s first criteria is to spend effort on survival, both physical and emotional. Physical is food, shelter, and safety as per Maslow’s Hierarchy. Emotional includes relationships with family and friends as well as how you see yourself. Once doing well inside, move on to responsibilities you bear as a member of society, also called purpose. Everyone plays a part in keeping this planet alive. So pick up a piece, whether it be occupation or otherwise, and set aside energy for giving.

Lastly, it is equally important to have a good time. Life is for living. Go out and experience the world’s cool stuff. Emotions and friends, animals and good cooking. It’s great to be alive. And when responsibilities align with fun, such as finding fulfillment through athleticism or one’s occupation, the whole experience becomes better.

Philosophy

Underneath everything then lies a philosophy. To serve as a foundation to walk on. And again, this shouldn’t be hard. Maybe it includes a god, perhaps just a creator. Either way, holding a belief system is essential for attaining happiness. And isn’t that what we all want?

Survival has always been the foremost priority for humanity. You can’t change that. For some, the majority of their day revolves around surviving. However, for the rest of us, there is ample time to always do a good job and keep an eye out for others. Then enjoy yourself. Life has a lot to offer.

And there exists a natural overlap between all three. Just like Olympic rings or a Venn diagram, fulfillment is available through survival and purpose, and purpose itself can be derived from survival. With this realization you have the opportunity to live a rich and rewarding life.

They say true fulfillment is pleasure that touches the soul—a deeper pleasure than seeking happiness. It comes from doing something good. Frankl said purpose is responsibility directed toward others and to life itself. This is why we don’t litter a highway or pour battery acid into a lake. And this energy is for the planet, not some god you were taught. He also says true responsibility involves quality. So again, do a good job.

To summarize, if you have a real mental health issue seek out professional help. And if you just want to keep in shape, remember the above.

7s and 8s

Remember the expression, “Hey Joe. What da ya know?” It was considered a great conversation starter back in the day. That’s because tapping into someone’s knowledge was considered more than just entertaining. It’s how we used to learn when people relied upon discussion.

Ever heard the expression, “She’s a ten?” The popular system for rating beauty? We commonly use a scale to describe people’s appearance, and this something-out-of-ten system can be used for all sorts of things. Take for example, intelligence. The smart—those good at learning—are commonly referred to as a 7. And those who know a great deal about a certain area are considered an 8. Unfortunately there’s a problem with 8s, they don’t know everything.

I’m not talking about regular folk. We’re both 7s and 8s. On some topics we know a great deal and on others we don’t. It depends. For example, take day jobs. Once you spend 10,000 hours at an occupation, you pretty much know it. Same goes for hobbies and interests. And most can identify with their areas of expertise. But in our world, doctors don’t proclaim to know carpentry and carpenters don’t profess to be plumbers. We’re quite humble in this regard. The problem is with people on TV.

Intellectuals

We’re being subjected to authorities in one area commenting on matters in another, and it’s getting ridiculous. You might be a great historian or master in law, but that doesn’t make you an expert on economics. And sure, these people are smart but they speak on non-qualified areas with the same certitude as those involving their expertise. It’s crazy.

You can’t blame them. Imagine the rush of addressing an Oxford audience, answering questions on climate change, international trade, and your analysis of Trump. The ego surge must be irresistible. But the audience needs to know one thing. When people fully understand a subject, they struggle to filter down knowledge, speak slowly, and remain calm. It’s only when you haven’t a clue that one blurts out nonsense with messiah-like ease. And there’s a reason for that.

Simplification bias

Psychologist Daniel Kahneman says, “The human mind suppresses uncertainty. We’re not only convinced we know more than we do but we figure what we don’t know is unimportant.” So it’s not only experts, it’s us too.

The problem is in the brain. Unfortunately, we need to hold an opinion on just about everything to maintain sanity. That’s why we start with observations that are simple. “Liberals are like this, Christians are like that,” until we grow into a sophistication that makes us slow down. Then, and only then, are we ready for the microphone.

Not everyone can dunk

To make matters worse, not every mind is suited for every discipline. For example, it takes 27 trades to build a house. That’s before architecture, sales, and interior design. We’re all specialists. Sure electricians and plumbers are close—they can probably talk—but designers are on a different page. So there’s a natural disposition. Meaning, 7s can’t be an 8 at everything.

This condition is common in politics. Many great lawyers are inept at understanding business. That’s why it takes so many officials to screw in a light bulb. But if you think about it, it’s the same when building a home. In the end, listening to experts is like eating chicken: one must separate meat from the bone. It’s not like experts don’t know anything. But things would be a whole lot better if they’d disclose what they did and were humble about the rest. Because when you’re considered a professional, it’s all about “What da ya know?”

PsD

PsD stands for psychological disposition and it’s the latest thing to rock the opinion world. For generations people believed that reason alone led to mutual understanding. That as we put information together, we naturally came to the same conclusion. But what they forgot is we’re emotional beings with strong associations to our human side.

The old paradigm looked like this, where opinion was simply a combination of what you felt, what you’ve experienced, what you’ve been taught, and what you’ve figured out for yourself (usually by putting pieces together from the first three).

Plato, among others, believed if we just kept talking we’d end up in the same place. That as we better understood each other’s position, we’d eventually all agree. And if you think of it, this is how we interact at work. While on the job, we mostly tune into logic. So when faced with a problem, everyone gets together to add information to the pile until we devise a sensible solution. But later, when you get home, things don’t operate like that because then we enter the world of emotions.

Think of a super-Christian or a militant vegetarian, are they using reason as the basis for their view? How about someone discussing a divorce? Or look at modern politics. Many of us hold strong emotions that cloud our understanding. So much so that some leaders could raise the Titanic with the band still playing and a large percentage of us would never grant credit. Something is going on here.

PsD

Because of emotion, the paradigm now looks like this:

When you add in emotion, a new prong emerges that influences our thoughts. PsD is this fifth element. So it’s not that you don’t understand, it’s that you can’t.

Due to psychological factors underpinning our values, when it comes to certain topics, we just can’t see things the same way. And when it’s impossible to agree, there’s no sense having an argument. Experts now use the term tribalism to define what’s going on but that’s not it. We’re no more tribal today than we were twenty years ago. We’ve just tuned into different sensors.

Caped avengers

Advertisers know all about PsD and have been using it for years. Our emotions are influenced on a daily basis to attract us toward products. Political parties and charities do the same thing. Lots of organizations know how to twist your heart. But most of us can decipher these sorts of messages because we’ve seen them before. What’s disturbing is what we don’t know. For example, how is it that emotion can override reason?

Anonymous studies show there are three sources: fear, status, and the need to be an avenger. Fear is common and everyone knows it. They scare us into believing things like Y2K and we run around like chickens without heads. Status is becoming popular since how else can you stand out in a crowd of 2200 Facebook friends. (Answering the question “who am I?” these days isn’t easy. Some take a stab at anything so families have words to write on their tombstones.) But it’s the last one that’s most interesting and also very deep.

In the Viennese school of psychotherapy, Adler, Freud, and Frankl devised three motivations to life: power, pleasure, and purpose. A lot of us identify with purpose. As a result, we’re dying for a cause. Add in something that tracks back thousands of years—the archetype of good and evil—and you see just what.

Those superhero comics didn’t sell like hotcakes simply because they were fun. Humans have a strong association with battling the forces of evil. Ever since childhood, this notion has been pounded into us along with the idea that the noble rise up. Granted mom was just telling a bedtime story but they’re there nonetheless. As a result, whenever we feel the big bad word, people grab for their sword. Based on positions taken due to thoughts placed well inside us, many believe they’re fighting the forces of evil (or serving God) while bellowing out one-sided thoughts.

So the question isn’t whether you have PsD — you do. The question is whichever the source?

Summary

Psychologists today are talking about confirmation bias, where two people watch an interview and only connect with what’s positive about their side. We used to say “you only hear what you want to hear,” but academics prefer fancier words. PsD is different. It says you can’t always think straight because of subconscious layers.

We’re emotional beings. Sometimes emotions are used against us and many times we don’t understand ourselves. But we never act this way at work because that’s a logical place. Only after five do we face issues we know little about. Here is where emotions attack. Naturally, one wishes to simplify and identifying with feelings make this easy. But don’t despair, PsD is totally treatable once you account for it. All it requires is a simple comment like this, “I don’t really know much about the matter but here is my psychological disposition.”

Creative Thinking

Many people are considered good students because they’re adept at learning from others. But do you ever wonder how those people came to their findings? It’s called creative thinking and almost anyone can do it.

Knowledge rests in the basis of opinion. And remember, opinion comes from four sources: intuition, personal experience, what you’ve learned, and what you’ve figured out. Let’s look at them in more detail until we arrive at the metaphysical.

First three

Intuitions are like faces—people are born with them and they’re all different. So when teachers call us little snowflakes, they’re actually right. Personal experience is surely individual, since none of us grow up the same. And the same can be said about what we’ve been taught. We listen and learn uniquely. So in terms of these three criteria everyone has a different perspective, which plays into what we figure out.

Now there are two ways to creatively think: you can either put together pieces by playing Carmen Sandiego or focus deeply until you receive grace.

Figuring things out

Remember the article Carmen Sandiego? It talks about finding golden keys, similar to playing a computer game back in the 90s. Well, the second half involves putting keys together to arrive at a personal conclusion. For example, you’re struck by something you saw, plus a few things you’ve learned and/or intuitively felt. Combine them and you may get a unique understanding that others can relate to. This is the first type of creative thinking.

The second comes when you focus deeply on an issue until the heavens open up and grace comes tumbling down. Just picture an engineer trying to solve a problem. Many times, he or she will subliminally concentrate for hours, maybe days, and then viola—the solution appears. Now there’s definitely a line between grace and regular thinking but don’t kid yourself, something like electricity wasn’t stumbled upon.

Geniuses and dumb people

I don’t believe in genius. I think there are gifted Carmen Sandiego players and those who receive grace—but that’s it. A true genius would be able to exercise their powers at will and none of them can do it. (Plus, they all make mistakes.) I also think grace is present in many parts of life and we should be openly receptive to it. For example, ask any recording artist where songs come from and they’ll tell you, “the sky.”

I also don’t believe in dumb people. Yes, there are those who have difficulty learning and don’t know much but they still have intuition and personal experience to draw from, so don’t count them out. Focus on strengths.

Summary

There you have it—putting together keys, no geniuses, and no dumb people. Every human out there gets equipped with an intuition and gains loads of experience. Then hopefully we learn a few things and play Carmen Sandiego. Once everything melds, you could come up with something brilliant. And if you focus really, really hard, you just might receive grace.

Deep Thinking

Ever wonder why politicians and activists say the things they do? And if it has anything to do with psychology and how our brains work? The answer is yes, and yes. People are playing with our minds on a daily basis.

Brains have only two modes: autopilot and deep thinking. Most of our time is spent on autopilot, acting out pre-programmed responses to everyday events. Deep thinking is only activated when something new has to be assessed. Nature’s idea was to operate minds like a computer with cache memory—keep all the commonly used stuff readily available and only go to disk for hard calculations. But there’s a catch. Deep thinking takes loads of mental energy and not everyone can do it.

Nature’s theory was to use autopilot to store the results from deep thinking. For example, if you spend months analyzing something like nutrition, your findings get loaded into autopilot for daily use (e.g., what to have for breakfast). But because we’re naturally lazy (averse to mental efforts), everything in our autopilots isn’t always well thought out. And that’s how they make us do and say some pretty dumb stuff. Here is one example.

Abortion

They tell us abortion is a women’s issue. Is it? If you attend a pro-choice or pro-life rally, you’ll find equal numbers of men and women on either side. But if this were a gender issue, wouldn’t you expect mostly women at the pro-choice and predominantly men at the pro-life? You don’t because this isn’t something between women and men, it’s about religion.

In the olden days, abortion was deemed socially unacceptable because it was against church practice. Catholics, for example, still don’t allow birth control because of what they believe is the sanctity of life. As a result, old time abortions took place under unsafe, non-hospital conditions. Then a movement appeared for abortion to be treated as a regular medical procedure. Many Christians, both women and men, took to the opposition quoting scripture and their doctrine. Without getting into a discussion on ethics, the point is this: the right to safe medical abortion isn’t an issue between men and women. It’s mostly a fight over religion.

The only component that could be seen as gender-based is when the father wants to keep the baby and the mother does not. If in these situations, courts favoured men simply because they were guys, that would be discrimination. But these conditions were quickly resolved to favour the lady (and nobody had a problem with it).

And if you think further, since the pro-life argument centers on divinity being placed right inside of us, why is capital punishment still practiced in many religious countries and 27 US states? Isn’t that hypocritical?

Summary

Deep thinking involves intense effort by using forces like focus and concentration. Because of this, most of us do it sparingly—preferring the simplicity of autopilot. Social manipulators know all about nature and prey on it. As a result, much of our information doesn’t come from pure sources. Many speakers have a hidden agenda they try to sneak into our heads.

If you haven’t put sufficient energy into deriving a well thought out opinion, they’ll provide you one—exactly to their liking. But once you go deep on a few occasions, you’ll come to see speakers in a different light. Bottom line: don’t put much faith in things you haven’t thought through.

Note: the example above is not intended to make a statement. It was used because of its political implications. The American Left ties abortion to women’s rights. As in, “if you care about feminism, you must support abortion,” when in fact these are separate issues. The American Right then supports pro-life while insisting on capital punishment.

Carmen Sandiego

Ever wonder why people come to different conclusions after reading the same book? Or why we draw different impressions from the same movies, people, and life experiences? Maybe it’s because we’re all playing Carmen Sandiego.

Carmen Sandiego was a popular computer game back in the 1990s. It involved solving multiple mysteries along the way to finding a final destination. Solving each mystery yielded a golden key, which helped with the end pursuit. Perhaps, this is comparable to everyday life. And if so, it explains why so many of us have varying opinions.

For example, I read the book, The Road Less Traveled, and it taught me three things:

Life is difficult
The concept of delayed gratification
Competence is love

The Buddhist tenet that life is suffering has been reported in many places but this was my first time seeing it. For me, it was a key. Same goes for delayed gratification. I was a procrastinator famous for bringing home piles of work on Fridays only to cart it back on Mondays, totally undone. But when slapped with the principle of “do your work first, then have a good time,” I had an epiphany the likes of seeing my first stripper. Instantly, I stopped lying to myself and got down to the business of getting my work done. For me, this was a big deal (and I taught it to my kids).

Lastly, when discussing love, M. Scott Peck says that by doing a good job you’re in fact loving. This affected me deeply and later led to my own concept of give love. So for me, this book held three keys (and I’m forever grateful) but my luck doesn’t mean you’ll experience the same. If you go online, you’ll see a number of reviews that are negative. So is this book special or not? For me it was. For you, I don’t know.

Oprah called them “aha!” moments and they come in many forms. It might be words you read, a scene from a film, or something you were taught, overheard, or witnessed out in nature. And not everyone is looking for the same stuff, which is why we don’t all cherish the same things. In the end, life is a mystery. One where we never know why. But maybe while you’re here, it’s good to pick up a few keys.

Power, Pleasure, Purpose

There are three popular schools of thought pertaining to what motivates people and drives our personalities (called the three Viennese schools of psychotherapy). They are the beliefs of Alfred Adler, Sigmund Freud, and Viktor Frankl. Adler believed we’re driven by power, Freud said we’re driven by pleasure, and Frankl believed we’re all driven towards some type of purpose. So let’s talk about them.

Adler

Adler (1870-1937) was an Austrian medical doctor who founded his own school of psychology. He broke away from Freud’s theories to ascertain that personalities are driven by our feelings of inferiority and that we spend much of our time combating (and trying to surmount) these feelings.

His most famous concept is the inferiority complex, which speaks to the problem of self-esteem and its negative effects on human health. He believed such complexes led to becoming egocentric, power-hungry, and aggressive (or worse). He also thought such complexes sometimes produced a paradoxical superiority striving. Adler was concerned with overcoming this superiority/inferiority dynamic and was one of the first psychotherapists to discard the analytic couch in favour of two chairs. He also believed in preventing future inferiority issues in children through democratic family structures and no corporal punishment (like, hard spankings).

Freud

Freud (1856-1939) was a neurologist who created a method of dealing with mental disorders through a dialog between doctor and patient. He’s also known for defining and introducing the unconscious mind, and inventing words like ego and id.

His pleasure principle was first discovered while watching Italian guys messing with chicks at a beach. And the man was spot on. Now Sigmund said and did many great things, but for the purpose of this article he said the mind has a strong tendency to seek pleasure and avoid pain.

Frankl

Viktor Frankl (1905-1997) was a holocaust survivor who wrote Man’s Search for Meaning. This book is divided into two sections. The first describes his life inside a World War II concentration camp, the second presents his views on what motivates people. The summary of his beliefs is that we’re all driven to achieve some kind of purpose.

Frankl compares his analysis to the other two schools as follows: The striving to find a meaning in one’s life is the primary motivational force in man. That’s why I speak of a will to meaning in contrast to the “pleasure principle” (or will to pleasure) of Freud, or the will of power stressed by Adler.

Who are you?

Much of psychology was formulated during this time. And it’s now becoming apparent that, when it comes to describing the human mind, one size does not fit all. Today, we accept multiple theories to describe multiple types of people.

When you think of it, there are probably all three motivations living inside us. Don’t we all seek pleasure? Doesn’t everyone have a bit of an inferiority complex? Don’t we all search for meaning? And if you think even further, we could probably identify with one as being dominant. Most people could say something like, “I’m 70% pleasure, 20% purpose, and 10% power.” So who are you?

Status

I once came up with a theory on life but my friend, Tim, invented one that’s even better. My version says life is an exercise in survival and we survive both physically and emotionally. Status is a big part of surviving emotionally. But my friend, Tim Maslow, says there are five stages—all in a hierarchy. The first two involve physical. Stage 1 is the need for food, shelter, and clothing; stage 2 adds physical safety. The next two address emotions. Stage 3 says we need a peer group; stage 4 says that, once attained, we need to stand out within that group.

Stage 3 is interesting because it explains the preoccupation we all have with “keeping up with the Joneses” and why some kids will stab a complete stranger in order to join a street gang. Nature dictates that everyone needs a peer group and we’ll use our most innate skills to obtain one. It’s part of being human.

Stage 4 says that once you get into a group, you somehow need to distinguish yourself within it. We have to stand out so people don’t forget about us. Mike the Italian guy, big Bill, Mary with the red car. Everyone needs to be identified in some unique way. A good example can be seen inside a men’s locker room. There’s always the rich guy, the smart guy, the funny guy, the one who’s best looking, the best athlete, etc.

Now some people cruise through life always in possession of status—for once you’ve competed in the Olympics, it stays with you. But most of us have to continually earn it. For example, when you meet parents at a school group or start a new job, you must be first accepted into the group and then will naturally wish to establish yourself within it. They say kids are constantly seeking status while older folk can’t help but reinforce their own. It’s like status is a condition we don’t seem to recognize and outgrow. Its quest is always at the center of social interaction, especially when meeting new people. Try this. Go for lunch with friends and do nothing to evoke your own status. Just yield to theirs. You’ll be amazed by what you find. You’ll see status is everywhere in conversation. It’s like we’re slaves to it.

Status is also productively used by advertisers. Our search for identity has now led us into being a BMW man or an Apple guy. In one sense it can be viewed as sad and in another it’s just life. Either way, it’s important to identify with people’s desired status and sometimes nourish it. You may also need to analyze what it is you wish from your own, and why.

By the way, Stage 5 in Maslow’s Hierarchy is when you outgrow the need for social status and self-actualize (but nobody ever does it).

Opinions

Do you ever wonder where opinions come from? And why so many of us see things in different ways? The answer lies in understanding how people’s thoughts and opinions are derived. Your opinions come from four primary sources:

Instinct
Personal experience
What you’ve learned (or been taught)
What you’ve figured out for yourself

You feel (or think) the way you do because of what your tummy tells you, what you’ve seen, what you’ve learned (through reading, listening, or watching things on TV), and what you’ve sat down to figure out.

The strength of your opinion should always correlate to its quality. If you feel strongly about something, I hope you’ve either seen a lot in this area or have researched it completely. But often times we haven’t. Most of us have no idea about the effort that goes into holding a qualified position. Add to this the need many feel to attain intellectual status and you see why we’re constantly being subjected to air bags spewing nonsense.

Let’s dive deeper into the four components. There are some interesting points to make.

Instinct and experience

All tummies don’t work the same way. Just because your instincts make you see things one way doesn’t mean others agree. The value of everyone’s instinct is equal—no one’s is any more valid. For example, do you instinctively feel this person is trustworthy or qualified? I’m not saying logically feel (where you present an argument). I mean, using only your natural instincts, what’s your tummy telling you?

The same goes for personal experience—we haven’t all seen the same things.

What you’ve learned

If you wish to hold a strong position, you must evaluate whether you know enough about the topic. If you want a big opinion on something like politics, you’ll need to do some reading. And not just from one book about one side. You’ll need a wealth of information from all kinds of sources, including high quality lectures from experts (not just left or right-wing newspapers).

There is no substitute for quality knowledge, especially on topics that have been well documented. Ask around for good material and get yourself started. (P.S. It’s always good to look into a subject’s history.)

What you’ve figure out

There is no stronger opinion than one you’ve figured out. Instead of always following the teachings of others, consider the thoughts of many and incorporate them into your own. Try putting things together your own way, instead of always repeating somebody else’s words (that you probably don’t fully understand).

Burn a few brain cells until smoke begins to appear. It’s good to focus and concentrate. Then keep thinking until you experience a little epiphany—a sensation that’s truly remarkable.

Summary

Our society spends too much time arguing and not enough time learning and understanding. It’s like we’re more interested in shoving our views down somebody’s throat than using that somebody to make our opinions better.

How do they instinctively feel? What have they seen? Where is their knowledge coming from? All great questions to pose an adversary. Their responses become fodder for your thoughts. And if they grant you the same courtesy, you’ll be engaging in an intellectual discussion instead of an unfriendly fight.