Books on choice and choosing have been hitting the bookstores and Amazon rankings lately – mostly dealing with the potential consequences of choice. Speak to the rich and they’ll immediately tell you that the key advantage of wealth is choice, making the lack of choice – consequently – one of the worst downsides of poverty.
Yet choice also has its downsides. Untutored, we can become stymied by choice. Scared of making the wrong choice, we wring our hands and hesitate. And while this may seem like a harmonious dilemma – compared to those forced to live their life without choice – their restrictions are little comfort as we become potentially terrorised by our own autonomy. If we can choose anything: our career, class, gender, sexuality, identity – then who do we blame when that future turns out not as we had hoped?
Fear of failure is, of course, the psychological consequence of this. Having total freedom to choose our future – with only ourselves to blame for our failures – is enough to make even the confident hesitate at the threshold of a major decision. This, as Renata Salecl argues in her new book Choice, is the “tyranny of choice”, which – she claims – is founded on a series of lies.
The first lie is the notion (often put about by economists) that our individual choices are rational, when they are mostly irrational – based on our unconscious desires. These are likely to be insatiable, meaning that we will always be dissatisfied – hardly a recipe for greater happiness. Indeed, her second lie is the notion choice creates happiness, when in fact choice-overload causes anxiety. We become concerned that our poor choices will lead to public humiliation (a classic concern of the High-FF as I call those with fear of failure).
Salecl states that society’s response to this “tyranny” is a growth in the self-help industry – aimed at aiding choice for the masses. She cites the popularity of books on Feng Shui, for example – helping us even choose where to place the furniture! Certainly this is a major theme of What’s Stopping You? my book on fear of failure (TBP March 2011 by John Wiley & Sons). Seeking a cure for the incurable (our insecurities) we elect temporary authorities that tell us how to behave and how to decide. In the secular modern world these authorities are the self-help gurus or life coaches, and the cure can be NLP or CBT, perhaps delivered by hypnotism or acupuncture or even, what the heck, Feng Shui – anything that is instant and life-changing.
Ultimately, Salecl argues, self-help books perpetuate these anxieties, rather than alleviate them. Offered the chance to become a better person making better choices, we grab it. Yet our insecurities remain unworked and ultimately return – although now we are more jaded than ever because they are laced with disappointment.
Even at street level we outsource our choices to “gurus”, whether these are for fashion or “style”, or – more fundamentally – role models that sway our career preferences (deciding between a career as a popstar or celebrity chef, perhaps). After all, “queen of shops” Mary Portas defined the mid-noughties UK “followers of fashion” as the “disciples of Beckham” – meaning that they had entirely outsourced their reasoning regarding what was and wasn’t fashionable to a celebrity couple from Essex.
More damaging (at least in my view) is Salecl’s noting that the consumer-choice model has ingrained itself into our view of relationships – our search for love following the same pattern of constant comparison and, therefore, near constant switching as we convince ourselves we are missing “a better deal” elsewhere. We are condemned to imagining parallel lives based on perceived wrong turns – especially with our choice of partner.
This brought in the other recently-published book on choice I’d been studying: The Art of Choosing, by Sheena Iyengar. In one passage she discusses arranged marriages, which for 5,000 years was the compact by which women met their husbands in many societies (including in Europe), without any noticeable detriment to that society’s happiness despite contemporary incomprehension that anyone could allow others to handle such an important decision. Some religions still prescribe many aspects of life for their believers, again without any noticeable heightening of hopelessness or depression: in fact quite the opposite.
“Perhaps the main issue with increasing choice is that it betrays our expectations,” says Iyengar – meaning that upping the choice also raises anticipation of a beneficial outcome, which increases disappointment, leading to heightened levels of dissatisfaction: even in marriage.
Yet something bothered me about both Iyengar’s and Salecl’s thesis. Was there not something a bit, well, patronising about them both? I hasten to add that Iyengar was not endorsing arranged marriage, but nonetheless both writers’ attack on choice reminded me of the witty Stuff White People Like by Christian Lander. “Knowing What’s Best for Poor People” was number 62 in his ironic list, in which he discusses the fact white people (by which he means the educated and liberal middle classes of America) get very excited by the idea of “poor people” (by which he means the less-educated, often over-weight Republican voters of the “flyover” states) being offered better (not more, note) choices: for instance being encouraged to abandon Wal-mart for a new trendy whole food market. Yet he ends with a sardonic warning: “It is essential that you make it clear that poor people do not make decisions based on free will. To suggest anything to the contrary could crush white people and their hope for the future”.
Care is therefore needed when describing the confusion created by choice. Sure, choice creates confusion, but our displeasure at the freedom others have to make what we may perceive as the wrong choice is, in fact, our confusion, not there’s. And choice is only confusing for the uninitiated. Study something – anything – and, soon enough, the choices (even bad ones) start to make sense. This is as true for the shopping preferences of the “lumpenproletariat” as it is with respect to “bourgeois” pursuits such as modern art or French cheese.
And what’s the alternative to choice? Presumably, it’s no choice, which is dangerous territory in my opinion. Don’t we end up in some form of paternalistic utopia of Maoist uniformity? At best this will look like an unreformed NHS. At worst like the Year Zero fanaticism of Pol Pot. And as for those stricter societies with restricted choice: well, ignorance is bliss – as they say – but that doesn’t make ignorance preferable. I’ll take choice over clarity anytime because clarity is usually someone else’s imposition.
Perhaps a society of choice is, therefore, the worst, err, choice, except for all the others (to paraphrase Churchill’s line on democracy). But even that seems trite to me: an intellectual victory for the totalitarians even if they know their dream of benevolent uniformity (chosen by them) is impossible to implement, at least without millions dead. For me choice is an absolute if imperfect good. We just need to learn how to exercise it.
Although a bit New Age for my tastes, The Mind of the Soul by Gary Zukav and Linda Francis tackles what they call “responsible choice”. They accept that choice can create fear, and that fear can destroy – rather than create – opportunities. But by taking responsibility for our choices, their view is that we can dispel the fear of choice.
“Each choice you make creates experiences for you and others…In fact, the way you perceive yourself is a choice,” they state, so we must choose, but wisely. This means that the stakes are high – hence employing gurus to help us. Zukav and Francis, however, think wise choices possible once we begin out career as a “scientist of consciousness” (I did say it was a bit New Age). Here’s their dynamic for achieving this:
• Reflect on your intentions before acting or speaking,
• Reflect on the consequences of each intention,
• Choose the consequences you want,
• Observe the change you experience,
• If you do not experience change, re-examine your intentions.
All this is really saying is that, when exercising choice, we should work out what we want (in the long term), as well as why we want it, and observe whether each choice is a step towards that goal or a step away from it. And if we can’t tell, the chances are the choice is of no consequence, which mean it’s nothing to be afraid of.
Where’s the tyranny in that?
Showing posts with label NLP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NLP. Show all posts
Monday, November 22, 2010
Friday, October 1, 2010
Forgive me sinner, for I have preached
A key theme in my forthcoming book What’s Stopping You? (TBP 2011) is the notion that many people that suffer from insecurities and fears then go on to become what I call “preaching motivational converts” after they have “seen the light” or have been “born again”.
And while I realise writing a book on the subject of fear of failure (as well as other insecurities halting our progress) opens me to the charge of hypocrisy, there is a difference – honest! The core thesis of What’s Stopping You? is that the near-consensus of opinion among psychologists is that our fears are innate and cannot therefore be swapped for a headlong rush in the other direction. If you have fear of failure now, you will always have it, which is the bad news.
The good news is that, once we realise this – and the fact what I call the “monkey on my back” is coming with us – we can make strong progress in our lives. Become aware of our insecurities and the behaviours they drive and progress is possible – dealing with that monkey’s negativity as we go. Deny he is there – perhaps via some quick-fix “cure” that is potentially a deeper form of self-denial – and a terrible reckoning may await, at least in my view.
A core secondary element of this concerns how we focus on others as we make progress. Once enlightened, it is easy to see insecurities and mental failings in the behaviours and speech of everyone we meet. And we may even be tempted to start offering unsolicited advice, even to strangers. I’ve been on the receiving end of such advice on several occasions and it is pretty irritating – hence my view that once we are “recovering” from insecurities such as high fear of failure (and I’m deliberately making the comparison with “recovering” alcoholics who have to face up to their addiction at every meeting no matter how long they have been sober) we should avoid such preaching because it is both annoying and unsustainable.
Why write this now? Because I have sinned in this respect – falling short of my own standards I am afraid. And it was on this blog: the Twitter-virus enforced shutdown of which has given me time to reflect and to consider what I want to reload. Hence my repentance below.
First up were my two posts on NLP. This may seem odd, given that one reading of the above can be seen as an attack on neuro-linguistic programming, or at least the quick-fix excesses on its fringes. But I now realise that I drifted into the very preaching I was arguing against. NLP has helped millions of people gain confidence, so who am I to criticise, simply because the joy and comfort it brings to so many can result in the occasional convert making uncalled-for observations about my, yes absolutely, insecure behaviour?
SORRY.
Those two posts generated some pretty heated reaction from people who have obviously benefited from NLP. And they are right – to start lecturing people for lecturing people is wrong, so I’ll lecture myself instead. Lecturing others is an annoying trait whoever delivers it, and no matter what it is about. The point of “recovery” is to focus on our own behaviour – no one else’s. And that means even holding our tongue when being told of our insecurities by someone that has clearly “seen the light” via NLP or any other form of self improvement. What’s Stopping You? is NOT condemning NLP – in fact it borrows a lot from it. And I shouldn’t have lapsed into the very trait I was criticising.
Second (of three) concerns a post on an unidentified woman at a party – with, again, me stating that our less-than-satisfactory exchange was based on both her insecurities and mine. Yet how could I possibly know? I was simply interpreting her behaviour. I was not inside her mind. Sure, I knew what I was thinking – my insecurities had been triggered. But how could I possibly know what was driving her speech and behaviour? Of course, I was simply offering an opinion, not stating facts. But it was an opinion based on prejudice – that I had some predetermined idea of what was driving her behaviour. I didn’t.
SORRY.
Indeed, my reaction to that episode is a majorly significant moment in my recovery as a High-FF (what I call those with a high fear of failure). Her responses to me triggered a negative response from me based on my insecurities. Previously, that negative response would have been anger, followed by depression, followed by remorse, or potentially withdrawal, followed by depression, followed by anger. The more “enlightened” me, however, responds by looking for the insecurities in her. Yet this supposedly better response is the more dishonest – I haven’t dealt with my insecurities, just reflected them back to her, no matter how wide of the mark that may be. And while we could say, who cares, at least my insecurities have been dealt with, such deep self-denial is a long way from recovery or any attempt at recovery, in my opinion.
The final charge concerns my thoughts on “snake oil salesmen” in the motivational industry. In fact I was merely chiming along with an article in The Economist on this subject, as well as my own rationalism and scepticism regarding such practices as hypnotism and acupuncture. In reality, the key for the recovering High-FF is self-awareness regarding the appalling and self-destructive way we have judged the world around us up until now. For each of us there is a “wake up” moment that is tremendously enlightening. It is the moment we realise that our confusion and fears regarding the world is not some unique personal hell, but a mental condition that most probably started in early-childhood based on traumas (big and small) and our reactions to them. Perhaps without us realising it, these fears have grown into major phobias in adulthood that have stopped our progress, or at least hampered it.
My own “wake up” moment came from a casual reading of Anthony Robbins – a cheesy American motivational guru that is heavily influenced by NLP and also uses hypnotism and other methods that I now feel inappropriate for my own recovery. Yet Robbins started me on a journey that has – from good experiences and bad as well as from deep research with psychologists and self-help gurus – led me to a better place. But that journey was unique to me.
As I state in the introduction to the book, High-FFs need a map in order to chart their progress, but that only they can draw that map – it is a personal journey with its own rivers to cross and jungles to penetrate. What’s on that map, and where that map takes them, is 100 percent up to them. Robbins was an early landmark on mine and he remains an important source for the book, being quoted throughout. If others have hypnotism or some other methodology that wasn’t right for me but has worked for them, good. While I maintain my view on quick-fix solutions, seeking a solution – any solution – is probably the most important step anyone can take.
As Stephen Covey (another American motivational guru, although less cheesy than Robbins) states, “without pro-activity we are lost”. With it we’ll eventually find our way. The journey’s the point – not the mode of transport, the route or the stopping points on the way. So stop preaching.
SORRY.
And while I realise writing a book on the subject of fear of failure (as well as other insecurities halting our progress) opens me to the charge of hypocrisy, there is a difference – honest! The core thesis of What’s Stopping You? is that the near-consensus of opinion among psychologists is that our fears are innate and cannot therefore be swapped for a headlong rush in the other direction. If you have fear of failure now, you will always have it, which is the bad news.
The good news is that, once we realise this – and the fact what I call the “monkey on my back” is coming with us – we can make strong progress in our lives. Become aware of our insecurities and the behaviours they drive and progress is possible – dealing with that monkey’s negativity as we go. Deny he is there – perhaps via some quick-fix “cure” that is potentially a deeper form of self-denial – and a terrible reckoning may await, at least in my view.
A core secondary element of this concerns how we focus on others as we make progress. Once enlightened, it is easy to see insecurities and mental failings in the behaviours and speech of everyone we meet. And we may even be tempted to start offering unsolicited advice, even to strangers. I’ve been on the receiving end of such advice on several occasions and it is pretty irritating – hence my view that once we are “recovering” from insecurities such as high fear of failure (and I’m deliberately making the comparison with “recovering” alcoholics who have to face up to their addiction at every meeting no matter how long they have been sober) we should avoid such preaching because it is both annoying and unsustainable.
Why write this now? Because I have sinned in this respect – falling short of my own standards I am afraid. And it was on this blog: the Twitter-virus enforced shutdown of which has given me time to reflect and to consider what I want to reload. Hence my repentance below.
First up were my two posts on NLP. This may seem odd, given that one reading of the above can be seen as an attack on neuro-linguistic programming, or at least the quick-fix excesses on its fringes. But I now realise that I drifted into the very preaching I was arguing against. NLP has helped millions of people gain confidence, so who am I to criticise, simply because the joy and comfort it brings to so many can result in the occasional convert making uncalled-for observations about my, yes absolutely, insecure behaviour?
SORRY.
Those two posts generated some pretty heated reaction from people who have obviously benefited from NLP. And they are right – to start lecturing people for lecturing people is wrong, so I’ll lecture myself instead. Lecturing others is an annoying trait whoever delivers it, and no matter what it is about. The point of “recovery” is to focus on our own behaviour – no one else’s. And that means even holding our tongue when being told of our insecurities by someone that has clearly “seen the light” via NLP or any other form of self improvement. What’s Stopping You? is NOT condemning NLP – in fact it borrows a lot from it. And I shouldn’t have lapsed into the very trait I was criticising.
Second (of three) concerns a post on an unidentified woman at a party – with, again, me stating that our less-than-satisfactory exchange was based on both her insecurities and mine. Yet how could I possibly know? I was simply interpreting her behaviour. I was not inside her mind. Sure, I knew what I was thinking – my insecurities had been triggered. But how could I possibly know what was driving her speech and behaviour? Of course, I was simply offering an opinion, not stating facts. But it was an opinion based on prejudice – that I had some predetermined idea of what was driving her behaviour. I didn’t.
SORRY.
Indeed, my reaction to that episode is a majorly significant moment in my recovery as a High-FF (what I call those with a high fear of failure). Her responses to me triggered a negative response from me based on my insecurities. Previously, that negative response would have been anger, followed by depression, followed by remorse, or potentially withdrawal, followed by depression, followed by anger. The more “enlightened” me, however, responds by looking for the insecurities in her. Yet this supposedly better response is the more dishonest – I haven’t dealt with my insecurities, just reflected them back to her, no matter how wide of the mark that may be. And while we could say, who cares, at least my insecurities have been dealt with, such deep self-denial is a long way from recovery or any attempt at recovery, in my opinion.
The final charge concerns my thoughts on “snake oil salesmen” in the motivational industry. In fact I was merely chiming along with an article in The Economist on this subject, as well as my own rationalism and scepticism regarding such practices as hypnotism and acupuncture. In reality, the key for the recovering High-FF is self-awareness regarding the appalling and self-destructive way we have judged the world around us up until now. For each of us there is a “wake up” moment that is tremendously enlightening. It is the moment we realise that our confusion and fears regarding the world is not some unique personal hell, but a mental condition that most probably started in early-childhood based on traumas (big and small) and our reactions to them. Perhaps without us realising it, these fears have grown into major phobias in adulthood that have stopped our progress, or at least hampered it.
My own “wake up” moment came from a casual reading of Anthony Robbins – a cheesy American motivational guru that is heavily influenced by NLP and also uses hypnotism and other methods that I now feel inappropriate for my own recovery. Yet Robbins started me on a journey that has – from good experiences and bad as well as from deep research with psychologists and self-help gurus – led me to a better place. But that journey was unique to me.
As I state in the introduction to the book, High-FFs need a map in order to chart their progress, but that only they can draw that map – it is a personal journey with its own rivers to cross and jungles to penetrate. What’s on that map, and where that map takes them, is 100 percent up to them. Robbins was an early landmark on mine and he remains an important source for the book, being quoted throughout. If others have hypnotism or some other methodology that wasn’t right for me but has worked for them, good. While I maintain my view on quick-fix solutions, seeking a solution – any solution – is probably the most important step anyone can take.
As Stephen Covey (another American motivational guru, although less cheesy than Robbins) states, “without pro-activity we are lost”. With it we’ll eventually find our way. The journey’s the point – not the mode of transport, the route or the stopping points on the way. So stop preaching.
SORRY.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)