Currently reading Help! Oliver Burkeman’s wonderfully-engaging book on the self-help and psychology world, based on his regular column in The Guardian. There’s plenty in it, so I doubt this will be my last sampling, yet one recently-read passage has already caused me to nod in agreement: on those “things to see/do before you die” books.
My objection to these books isn’t their content, which is little more than a ranking of places, cities, films, books, hotels etc: vertical guide books, if you like. It’s the notion that we must see and do certain things to have lived the required “good life”. Such lists discourage us from pursuing a good life, defined by our own values and desires and standards. This is shallow in the extreme: life as a “seen that, done this” box-ticking experience that will surely leave us in despair – there being a near-endless supply of boxes to tick in order to prevent feelings of inadequacy.
Burkeman, meanwhile, is surprised by the phrase “before you die” – finding it a strange concept to embrace in a culture “so intent on avoiding thinking about death”. Instead, he recommends the Russ Harris approach. In The Happiness Trap the psychologist sought perspective in the pursuit of the good life by suggesting that we transport ourselves to our 80th birthday and ask ourselves two specific questions.
1) “I spent too much time worrying about….”
2) “I spent too little time doing things such as….”
As an exercise this is not dissimilar to the goal-setting recommendations of many self-help gurus who ask us to imagine our own funeral in order that we can judge whether we took the right path prior to our arrival at this final destination. That said, the guru’s exercises also cause me to react. Again, they subject us to what others think of our life, rather than encouraging us to properly evaluate what we want (our funerals inevitably being judged by the number and quality of attendees and by the speeches given on our behalf). Hence Harris’s questions being a refreshing alternative to both the “before you die” fashionable-life fascism and the “live a good life” (according to others) fashionable-funeral fascism.
This still leaves us with the dilemma of answering Harris’s questions, however. Here’s my go (done in 10 minutes over an early-morning coffee):
1) I spent too much time worrying about....
....trying to become somebody I wasn’t.
....other people’s principles rather than my own.
....being liked by shallow people.
....what I must see before I die.
2) I spent too little time doing things such as....
....following my own path.
....enjoying the moment.
....enjoying my own family.
....telling fashionable thinkers where to get off.
That said, I’m guessing my funeral might not be the event of the century.
Showing posts with label Oliver Burkeman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oliver Burkeman. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Fear of failure and public speaking: the rules
My speech to the School of Life Self-help Summit was over a week ago now, so I’ve had time to reflect. Typical of a High-FF (someone with high fear of failure as described in What’s Stopping You?) I’ve started to focus on the negatives, now the first rush of adrenalin from simply getting through the process has dissipated. I rather fluffed the question on “charlatans”, asked right at the end of the day and directed towards me by the chairman Oliver Burkeman of The Guardian. In fact, I had a neural hijacking, wondering whether Oliver thought me a charlatan – ignoring the fact I’d spent much of my speech criticising the genre for over-promising, hyper-titling, over simplifying complex mental conditions and being generally a bit cheesy (making me the obvious speaker to address the issue).
Yet that’s the key problem with fear of failure – it’s an innate condition. Those reactions are inevitable, making our only hope the ability to generate a better second response. Nonetheless, there I was – a confirmed High-FF making a speech that seemed to go down rather well. At least, I made people laugh, got a round of applause, engendered a good debate and had people saying nice things to me in the break.
Being a High-FF is certainly no barrier to presenting to an audience, although there is no doubt that it is one of those terrifying episodes – a key moment for the monkey on our shoulder to appear and start whispering disabling thoughts into our head along “you can’t do this”, “you’re an idiot and you’re about to be found out” lines. Indeed, my High-FF persona was even capable of scouring the audience for the one person looking less than delighted with my speech and focusing totally on him (who’d probably been chucked by his girlfriend that morning).
So can I offer any advice to the High-FF fearing presentations or speeches (as nearly all will)? These are purely my own thoughts – and purely in retrospect given that it seemed to go OK – but the following seemed to get me through it without the need for beta blockers (which a friend had offered and I’m now glad I refused).
1) Prepare. Powerpoint presentations are actually for the speaker rather than the audience. I used Powerpoint to help me structure the discussion, work out the narrative and order of points, to illustrate what I was saying with images, and to help me remember my lines. In fact the Powerpoint was my beta blocker – just knowing it was there calmed me enormously.
2) Work out the message. I had one point I wanted to make – that self-help cannot cure you of innate conditions but it can help you make progress once you realise no cure is on offer. I thought this a strong message so it ran throughout, repeating it on the last slide to remove any doubt.
3) Practice. My wife heard it twice, a colleague in the office also heard it twice. I practiced it twice alone before work each morning prior to the summit and three times on the day. I learnt to smooth out the sticking points and, in fact, pretty much knew it by heart by the time I stood up. Ultimately, knowing the material inside out was what allowed me a confident delivery.
4) Especially know the opening. This is worth knowing verbatim – those first few lines after “good morning ladies and gentlemen”. Make absolutely sure you are happy with these lines – because it is here you win or lose your audience.
5) Remember they are on your side. In nearly all situations in which you are making a speech the crowd are with you. Unless you are a Tory addressing a Labour rally, the audience is willing you to do well and couldn’t care about the odd verbal clumsiness. So don’t alienate them. My guess that the School of Life crowd was likely to be cerebral, sceptical but open minded was correct (I think). I therefore addressed their sceptical side (winning them over) before appealing to their open-mindedness (with positive messages about self-help).
6) Give it pace. This may be just me but that old advice to slow down doesn’t suit the nervous speaker. With the Powerpoint as an aide mémoire, why not give it some welly? Rattle through the slides making fast but clear points that have your audience’s hearts racing. Certainly, it’s a great way to cover up any signs of nervousness.
7) Be funny. Levity is certainly appreciated. Because they are on your side, jokes tend to work, even if not that funny. I used visual gags – showing them the cover of my last book (with “me” standing in Union Jack boxer shorts) and the "surgically-enhanced" grin of Anthony Robbins on the jacket of Awaken the Giant Within to illustrate the cheesy aspects to self-help. They loved it!
8) Never slag the other speakers. Try and repeat their message (as long as you agree with it). This is a collegiate endeavour, after all. In fact, Philippa Perry, the previous speaker, said that psychotherapy could help build new neural pathways (challenging my claim that our insecurities were hard-wired). Actually, we were saying the same thing – differently. Try and find the common ground.
9) Be careful in the Q&A. The “charlatans” question threw me so I ended up just repeating my message about “the afflicted desperate for a cure” (though with much less clarity). In fact, this isn’t a bad strategy – repeat the message. Otherwise anecdotes that support the message may work. A trick I use when presenting at work is to answer the question by repeating the message but then asking the questioner if my answer satisfied. If not, that's fine as, by then, I’ve usually had a chance to think up a strong answer to the actual question.
10) Thank your hosts. And compliment them.
Yet that’s the key problem with fear of failure – it’s an innate condition. Those reactions are inevitable, making our only hope the ability to generate a better second response. Nonetheless, there I was – a confirmed High-FF making a speech that seemed to go down rather well. At least, I made people laugh, got a round of applause, engendered a good debate and had people saying nice things to me in the break.
Being a High-FF is certainly no barrier to presenting to an audience, although there is no doubt that it is one of those terrifying episodes – a key moment for the monkey on our shoulder to appear and start whispering disabling thoughts into our head along “you can’t do this”, “you’re an idiot and you’re about to be found out” lines. Indeed, my High-FF persona was even capable of scouring the audience for the one person looking less than delighted with my speech and focusing totally on him (who’d probably been chucked by his girlfriend that morning).
So can I offer any advice to the High-FF fearing presentations or speeches (as nearly all will)? These are purely my own thoughts – and purely in retrospect given that it seemed to go OK – but the following seemed to get me through it without the need for beta blockers (which a friend had offered and I’m now glad I refused).
1) Prepare. Powerpoint presentations are actually for the speaker rather than the audience. I used Powerpoint to help me structure the discussion, work out the narrative and order of points, to illustrate what I was saying with images, and to help me remember my lines. In fact the Powerpoint was my beta blocker – just knowing it was there calmed me enormously.
2) Work out the message. I had one point I wanted to make – that self-help cannot cure you of innate conditions but it can help you make progress once you realise no cure is on offer. I thought this a strong message so it ran throughout, repeating it on the last slide to remove any doubt.
3) Practice. My wife heard it twice, a colleague in the office also heard it twice. I practiced it twice alone before work each morning prior to the summit and three times on the day. I learnt to smooth out the sticking points and, in fact, pretty much knew it by heart by the time I stood up. Ultimately, knowing the material inside out was what allowed me a confident delivery.
4) Especially know the opening. This is worth knowing verbatim – those first few lines after “good morning ladies and gentlemen”. Make absolutely sure you are happy with these lines – because it is here you win or lose your audience.
5) Remember they are on your side. In nearly all situations in which you are making a speech the crowd are with you. Unless you are a Tory addressing a Labour rally, the audience is willing you to do well and couldn’t care about the odd verbal clumsiness. So don’t alienate them. My guess that the School of Life crowd was likely to be cerebral, sceptical but open minded was correct (I think). I therefore addressed their sceptical side (winning them over) before appealing to their open-mindedness (with positive messages about self-help).
6) Give it pace. This may be just me but that old advice to slow down doesn’t suit the nervous speaker. With the Powerpoint as an aide mémoire, why not give it some welly? Rattle through the slides making fast but clear points that have your audience’s hearts racing. Certainly, it’s a great way to cover up any signs of nervousness.
7) Be funny. Levity is certainly appreciated. Because they are on your side, jokes tend to work, even if not that funny. I used visual gags – showing them the cover of my last book (with “me” standing in Union Jack boxer shorts) and the "surgically-enhanced" grin of Anthony Robbins on the jacket of Awaken the Giant Within to illustrate the cheesy aspects to self-help. They loved it!
8) Never slag the other speakers. Try and repeat their message (as long as you agree with it). This is a collegiate endeavour, after all. In fact, Philippa Perry, the previous speaker, said that psychotherapy could help build new neural pathways (challenging my claim that our insecurities were hard-wired). Actually, we were saying the same thing – differently. Try and find the common ground.
9) Be careful in the Q&A. The “charlatans” question threw me so I ended up just repeating my message about “the afflicted desperate for a cure” (though with much less clarity). In fact, this isn’t a bad strategy – repeat the message. Otherwise anecdotes that support the message may work. A trick I use when presenting at work is to answer the question by repeating the message but then asking the questioner if my answer satisfied. If not, that's fine as, by then, I’ve usually had a chance to think up a strong answer to the actual question.
10) Thank your hosts. And compliment them.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
On “nudge” – is it OK to agree with both sides?
Buoyed from my contribution to the School of Life’s Self-help Summit I had intended writing a blog about overcoming nerves when presenting to an audience. I may yet, but something happened at the event that created a more urgent need for me to articulate my thoughts: a major clash between two of the participants.
With my piece said and the Q&A navigated (in fact I was probably a bit full of myself by then and the chairman – Oliver Burkeman of The Guardian – had trouble wrestling back the microphone) I sat back to listen to Frank Furedi: a professor of sociology at the University of Kent. His big thing is scaremongering, and how competing groups in the modern world have fostered a culture of fear and paranoia.
Of course, the self-help industry is a small part of this but, for Furedi, the worst offender is government. Nearly all governments of whatever stripe indulge in behavioural management to try and manipulate their citizens, he said (going as far as to use the word “brainwashing”). Governments have assumed the role of suggesting what is and isn’t appropriate for the rest of us with respect to acceptable behaviour and have even shaped policy accordingly (witness this week’s minimum alcohol price imposition in England). Yet, according to Furedi, this has become so ingrained, he feels we are heading towards a form of “soft totalitarianism”.
Furedi was immediately followed by Nic Marks – who walked down to the speaking area loudly berating Furedi for his criticisms of what Marks called the “well-being agenda”. Indeed, Marks is founder of the Centre for Well-Being, part of the New Economics Foundation, although his ire appeared to have been particularly tweaked by the criticisms of the current government’s “nudge” initiative.
For Furedi, Downing Street’s “nudge unit” is the government “elbowing into our private lives”. It is “telling citizens how to think”. Meanwhile, for Marks, not only does he support the idea of government taking up the cause of well-being amongst the citizenry (a stated aim of the nudge unit), he saw it as a vital factor in community cohesion and even sustainability. In fact, Marks’s main problem wasn’t government intervention into the private realm but the fact the well-being initiative was being championed by the Tory-led coalition (giving rise to such verbal contortions such as “libertarian paternalism”).
For me, the clash was a coincidence because I’d been reading the book behind the controversy (and the inspiration for the creation of the nudge unit within Downing Street) – Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein.
So what is “nudge”?
“A nudge...is any aspect of choice architecture that alters people’s behaviour in a predictable way without forbidding options or significantly changing their economic incentives,” write Thaler and Sunstein.
The book states that every choice presentation is weighted and shaped by the way it is presented. So we can frame choices consciously and ethically in order to “help” people make better decisions regarding their lives. Of course, they remain free but have been nudged in the right direction.
Much of the concern here is focused on the lower orders – helping people choose work rather than benefits-dependence, for instance, or contraception over unprotected sex, or social responsibility over unsociable behaviour.
Yet it can extend to moral concerns further up the social scale. One example is organ donation. Currently, most jurisdictions require “explicit consent” from donors but if a democratic society decided organ donations are a social positive they could switch to “presumed consent”, or perhaps “mandated choice” in which, say, driving licence holders must specify a preference. Such a change – from an “opt in” to an “opt out” – maintains freedom of choice but makes the commonly-perceived social benefit clear and nudges society forward.
The environment provides other examples. For instance, with recycling, simply labelling litter bins “for landfill” and “for recycling” allows people to make an informed choice while being encouraged towards the socially beneficial action – or at least informed of the true consequences of taking a certain path.
So what could be wrong with this? Plenty, according to Furedi. He stated four clear objections:
1) The devaluation of moral independence – basically the notion that others not only know what is or isn’t in our interest, but morally engineer us towards their will.
2) Nudge and other such initiatives erode our capacity to develop a capacity for judgement, he states. We end up simply outsourcing our judgement to the government.
3) It also erodes the separation between the public and private sphere, and devalues the private sphere while doing so.
4) Having the government dictate our well-being will disorient us and even increase our anxieties.
The trouble is I agree with Furedi on every point – yet I still support the “nudge” initiative. Apart from being morally and intellectually confused, can I explain myself? Well, yes. Furedi is morally and intellectually right – his four objections are all valid in my view. Yet this isn’t about morals and intellect, despite being presented that way. In reality – given the stresses and strains on the tiny piece of real estate called the UK – “nudge” is a very practical way of trying to rub along without having to get too authoritarian about it.
Here’s my take on a very practical defence:
1) Given the growing population and growing competition for resources (especially in crowded cities such as London) waiting for others to develop judgement – and meanwhile suffering the consequences of their behaviour – is unfair on those with judgement. Most people agree that personal freedom only extends to the point it impacts others. Yet increasingly, (and with respect to noise, light, rubbish, parking, resources, education and just about anything else you can think of) someone else’s behaviour has an impact sooner rather than later.
2) It is ridiculous to assume there is no such thing as a vulnerable person. Judgement, like intelligence, is not a given – it varies wildly. Just as some people need help with their reading, others will make poor decisions without guidance. Especially given the decline of the nuclear family, someone has to offer (unforced) guidance – if not a government agency, who would you suggest?
3) Indeed, who should be the arbiter of our behaviour? The loudest, the greediest, the most aggressive – even the richest? Seems like a democratically-elected government is the best potential arbiter, although it should perhaps work within a framework of limitations (such as a Bill of Rights).
4) Sure “nudge” can be patronising, but – in many ways (such as the bin-labelling mentioned above) – it is encouraging the liberation of judgement. For instance, who now is against food labelling? Yet left to itself, I think it unlikely the food industry would have willingly adopted a practice that so liberated the judgement of the consumer.
5) Sure, government intervention can increase dependencies, even moral dependencies – if that’s the result you are after – but they can also encourage autonomy. For instance, if people are made aware of the consequences of their behaviour (such as the wayward youth impregnating unemployed teenage women and generating a £1m plus benefits liability) then we have at least sorted the arrogant from the ignorant – and can therefore take a view on how we deal with both.
With my piece said and the Q&A navigated (in fact I was probably a bit full of myself by then and the chairman – Oliver Burkeman of The Guardian – had trouble wrestling back the microphone) I sat back to listen to Frank Furedi: a professor of sociology at the University of Kent. His big thing is scaremongering, and how competing groups in the modern world have fostered a culture of fear and paranoia.
Of course, the self-help industry is a small part of this but, for Furedi, the worst offender is government. Nearly all governments of whatever stripe indulge in behavioural management to try and manipulate their citizens, he said (going as far as to use the word “brainwashing”). Governments have assumed the role of suggesting what is and isn’t appropriate for the rest of us with respect to acceptable behaviour and have even shaped policy accordingly (witness this week’s minimum alcohol price imposition in England). Yet, according to Furedi, this has become so ingrained, he feels we are heading towards a form of “soft totalitarianism”.
Furedi was immediately followed by Nic Marks – who walked down to the speaking area loudly berating Furedi for his criticisms of what Marks called the “well-being agenda”. Indeed, Marks is founder of the Centre for Well-Being, part of the New Economics Foundation, although his ire appeared to have been particularly tweaked by the criticisms of the current government’s “nudge” initiative.
For Furedi, Downing Street’s “nudge unit” is the government “elbowing into our private lives”. It is “telling citizens how to think”. Meanwhile, for Marks, not only does he support the idea of government taking up the cause of well-being amongst the citizenry (a stated aim of the nudge unit), he saw it as a vital factor in community cohesion and even sustainability. In fact, Marks’s main problem wasn’t government intervention into the private realm but the fact the well-being initiative was being championed by the Tory-led coalition (giving rise to such verbal contortions such as “libertarian paternalism”).
For me, the clash was a coincidence because I’d been reading the book behind the controversy (and the inspiration for the creation of the nudge unit within Downing Street) – Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein.
So what is “nudge”?
“A nudge...is any aspect of choice architecture that alters people’s behaviour in a predictable way without forbidding options or significantly changing their economic incentives,” write Thaler and Sunstein.
The book states that every choice presentation is weighted and shaped by the way it is presented. So we can frame choices consciously and ethically in order to “help” people make better decisions regarding their lives. Of course, they remain free but have been nudged in the right direction.
Much of the concern here is focused on the lower orders – helping people choose work rather than benefits-dependence, for instance, or contraception over unprotected sex, or social responsibility over unsociable behaviour.
Yet it can extend to moral concerns further up the social scale. One example is organ donation. Currently, most jurisdictions require “explicit consent” from donors but if a democratic society decided organ donations are a social positive they could switch to “presumed consent”, or perhaps “mandated choice” in which, say, driving licence holders must specify a preference. Such a change – from an “opt in” to an “opt out” – maintains freedom of choice but makes the commonly-perceived social benefit clear and nudges society forward.
The environment provides other examples. For instance, with recycling, simply labelling litter bins “for landfill” and “for recycling” allows people to make an informed choice while being encouraged towards the socially beneficial action – or at least informed of the true consequences of taking a certain path.
So what could be wrong with this? Plenty, according to Furedi. He stated four clear objections:
1) The devaluation of moral independence – basically the notion that others not only know what is or isn’t in our interest, but morally engineer us towards their will.
2) Nudge and other such initiatives erode our capacity to develop a capacity for judgement, he states. We end up simply outsourcing our judgement to the government.
3) It also erodes the separation between the public and private sphere, and devalues the private sphere while doing so.
4) Having the government dictate our well-being will disorient us and even increase our anxieties.
The trouble is I agree with Furedi on every point – yet I still support the “nudge” initiative. Apart from being morally and intellectually confused, can I explain myself? Well, yes. Furedi is morally and intellectually right – his four objections are all valid in my view. Yet this isn’t about morals and intellect, despite being presented that way. In reality – given the stresses and strains on the tiny piece of real estate called the UK – “nudge” is a very practical way of trying to rub along without having to get too authoritarian about it.
Here’s my take on a very practical defence:
1) Given the growing population and growing competition for resources (especially in crowded cities such as London) waiting for others to develop judgement – and meanwhile suffering the consequences of their behaviour – is unfair on those with judgement. Most people agree that personal freedom only extends to the point it impacts others. Yet increasingly, (and with respect to noise, light, rubbish, parking, resources, education and just about anything else you can think of) someone else’s behaviour has an impact sooner rather than later.
2) It is ridiculous to assume there is no such thing as a vulnerable person. Judgement, like intelligence, is not a given – it varies wildly. Just as some people need help with their reading, others will make poor decisions without guidance. Especially given the decline of the nuclear family, someone has to offer (unforced) guidance – if not a government agency, who would you suggest?
3) Indeed, who should be the arbiter of our behaviour? The loudest, the greediest, the most aggressive – even the richest? Seems like a democratically-elected government is the best potential arbiter, although it should perhaps work within a framework of limitations (such as a Bill of Rights).
4) Sure “nudge” can be patronising, but – in many ways (such as the bin-labelling mentioned above) – it is encouraging the liberation of judgement. For instance, who now is against food labelling? Yet left to itself, I think it unlikely the food industry would have willingly adopted a practice that so liberated the judgement of the consumer.
5) Sure, government intervention can increase dependencies, even moral dependencies – if that’s the result you are after – but they can also encourage autonomy. For instance, if people are made aware of the consequences of their behaviour (such as the wayward youth impregnating unemployed teenage women and generating a £1m plus benefits liability) then we have at least sorted the arrogant from the ignorant – and can therefore take a view on how we deal with both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)