Years ago, I read The Anatomy of Peace by the Arbinger Institute and absolutely loved it. Since then, I've been interested in reading their other best selling book. I really enjoyed it. At times, it's a little overly campy with the wise sage passing on principals in the format of silly catch phrases and terminology. But I think the principals genuinely are wise and wonderful to ponder again and again.
The most important piece of advice in the book is Question Your Own Virtue. The basic gist of the book is that people will deny an instinct that they have (help a co-worker, friend, neighbor) and when they don't do what they feel is right, they start justifying that behavior to themselves. This is called "being in the box" and usually involves finding flaws/ blame in somebody else and inflating your own virtues. When you do this, you're treating the other person as an object and failing to see them as a person with their own set of wants and needs that are equal to your own. The book suggests that the best way to "get out of the box" is to question your own virtue. Allow yourself to see that you might not be behaving well towards someone. Genuinely question your own motives and whether they are really about improving a situation or more about feeling right. I think this is incredible advice and something I should strive to routinely do.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Thursday, March 13, 2014
The Glass Castle: A Memoir by Jeannette Walls
Jeannette Walls' memoir tells her story of growing up with a charismatic drunk father and an eccentric, neglectful mother. While stories of neglect and poverty are not new, Jeannette brings an analytical eye to what caused the events in her childhood and uses it to deliver many refreshing insights.
When the kids were little, the father seemed quasi-behaved. There was chaos in their lives because the father had a strong personality and would move from job to job and then from town to town, but for the most part he seemed to be working. There was also chaos because their mother had a belief in free-range children that bordered on neglect. But the kids' saw their lives as an adventure and for the most part, the family seemed happy. Things changed when the family decided to move to the father's hometown to receive help from his family. There, the father seemed to give up. He barely worked and became the town drunk. The mother and extended family were no better, and the kids were largely left to feed themselves. While the kids banded together and stayed afloat, they did so with their family as constant obstacles.
While Jeannette never lets her father off the hook for his utter lack of responsibility, she clearly loved him. He seemed to be the type of person who was very good at spinning tales to the point that he could often believe the lies he told himself. I suspect he could always frame the bad things in the now as temporary and pretend that just around the corner there was a brighter future that in some ways felt more "real" to him than reality.
Jeannette seems less understanding of her mother. On the one hand, her mother was often very rational and empathetic. She taught her children to see all others as equals and to try to understand situations from the other person's perspective. But it seems like these skills often stayed in the intellectual realm and didn't cross over in to the more personal, emotional realm- or if they did, they didn't lead to action. Her mother could have seen how much her children were suffering and made choices to change that. But instead, she largely stayed mired in self-pity about how miserable she was herself. She wanted the kids to see her and their father's perspective, but felt less of a need to validate their perspective.
I think both of the parents' flaws are things that I see to some extant in most people, including myself. I think it's easy to see your dreams of the future as having more reality than the negative aspects of your current. I think it's easier to intellectualize empathy in theoretical situations than it is to feel and act on empathy in the emotionally agitating realm of one's own life. I don't think most are in danger of making the choices that Jeannette's parents made, but I could see those flaws leading to poor choices- even if less dire ones. I think her tale serves as a reminder to take the hard path. Sometimes we have to do the things we don't want to in order to avoid things that we want even less.
When the kids were little, the father seemed quasi-behaved. There was chaos in their lives because the father had a strong personality and would move from job to job and then from town to town, but for the most part he seemed to be working. There was also chaos because their mother had a belief in free-range children that bordered on neglect. But the kids' saw their lives as an adventure and for the most part, the family seemed happy. Things changed when the family decided to move to the father's hometown to receive help from his family. There, the father seemed to give up. He barely worked and became the town drunk. The mother and extended family were no better, and the kids were largely left to feed themselves. While the kids banded together and stayed afloat, they did so with their family as constant obstacles.
While Jeannette never lets her father off the hook for his utter lack of responsibility, she clearly loved him. He seemed to be the type of person who was very good at spinning tales to the point that he could often believe the lies he told himself. I suspect he could always frame the bad things in the now as temporary and pretend that just around the corner there was a brighter future that in some ways felt more "real" to him than reality.
Jeannette seems less understanding of her mother. On the one hand, her mother was often very rational and empathetic. She taught her children to see all others as equals and to try to understand situations from the other person's perspective. But it seems like these skills often stayed in the intellectual realm and didn't cross over in to the more personal, emotional realm- or if they did, they didn't lead to action. Her mother could have seen how much her children were suffering and made choices to change that. But instead, she largely stayed mired in self-pity about how miserable she was herself. She wanted the kids to see her and their father's perspective, but felt less of a need to validate their perspective.
I think both of the parents' flaws are things that I see to some extant in most people, including myself. I think it's easy to see your dreams of the future as having more reality than the negative aspects of your current. I think it's easier to intellectualize empathy in theoretical situations than it is to feel and act on empathy in the emotionally agitating realm of one's own life. I don't think most are in danger of making the choices that Jeannette's parents made, but I could see those flaws leading to poor choices- even if less dire ones. I think her tale serves as a reminder to take the hard path. Sometimes we have to do the things we don't want to in order to avoid things that we want even less.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer
I found this book extremely impactful. It is the story of a kid who abandoned everything he knew in search of adventure. Immediately after graduating college, Chris gave away all of his money and set out to travel across the US, experience the natural beauty, and see what life threw at him. Along the way he met many people that he made a deep impression on. Then he wanted to have a final adventure living off the land in Alaska for a few months. Unfortunately, that adventure killed him. The book goes through interviews with people he met trying to piece together his journey and motivations.
One of the things that struck me about this book was the effect Chris had on others that he met on the journey. The book made him out to be a quiet guy who didn't seem particularly extroverted. Yet one elderly man completely abandoned his old lifestyle and took to the road at Chris' prompting. Chris was an idealist who was willing to do whatever it took to live by his ideals. I think that is extremely rare and extremely potent. I think it mostly exists in the young because they haven't yet had to make choices that might compromise those ideals. The most finite resource we have is time, and there's just not enough of it to do everything we can imagine. So people prioritize and pick some dreams over others. They might pick a steady paycheck to support the family they've always wanted over their desire to live day to day, travelling the world. Or they might make other compromises that while they understand, they can't help but admire and feel drawn to somebody who makes no compromises.
This book also left me with the question of what makes a life meaningful? Chris absolutely led the life of his dreams. But he died at the age of 24 with so much potential for life left. He knew that what he wanted to do was risky and gladly took those risks. But he didn't fully consider the impact they would have on others. He was angry with his parents and utterly unconcerned about their feelings. He was not angry with his sister but also seemed unconcerned about how his actions would affect her. I don't know what I think. I can't decide if his choices amounted to childishness and an unnecessary death or if his death was merely an unfortunate event that came from the very worthy pursuit of living life to the absolute fullest.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book and highly recommend to any who find the above questions worthy of exploration.
One of the things that struck me about this book was the effect Chris had on others that he met on the journey. The book made him out to be a quiet guy who didn't seem particularly extroverted. Yet one elderly man completely abandoned his old lifestyle and took to the road at Chris' prompting. Chris was an idealist who was willing to do whatever it took to live by his ideals. I think that is extremely rare and extremely potent. I think it mostly exists in the young because they haven't yet had to make choices that might compromise those ideals. The most finite resource we have is time, and there's just not enough of it to do everything we can imagine. So people prioritize and pick some dreams over others. They might pick a steady paycheck to support the family they've always wanted over their desire to live day to day, travelling the world. Or they might make other compromises that while they understand, they can't help but admire and feel drawn to somebody who makes no compromises.
This book also left me with the question of what makes a life meaningful? Chris absolutely led the life of his dreams. But he died at the age of 24 with so much potential for life left. He knew that what he wanted to do was risky and gladly took those risks. But he didn't fully consider the impact they would have on others. He was angry with his parents and utterly unconcerned about their feelings. He was not angry with his sister but also seemed unconcerned about how his actions would affect her. I don't know what I think. I can't decide if his choices amounted to childishness and an unnecessary death or if his death was merely an unfortunate event that came from the very worthy pursuit of living life to the absolute fullest.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book and highly recommend to any who find the above questions worthy of exploration.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
The Honest Truth About Dishonesty by Dan Ariely
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Behavioral economist Dan Ariely makes the assertion that almost all people want to see themselves as honest, good people, but we're also all willing to lie and cheat just enough that we can rationalize it away as "not really" lying or cheating.
One of the studies he did involved having participants take a very hard math quiz with 20 questions. The control group was asked to turn in the paper and it was graded- with the average number of correct answers being 4. The experimental group was asked to shred their papers and then report how many they got right- and amazingly this group had 6 right on average! This group was cheating- but only by a tiny bit. As I think of this, I can remember a time or two I've taken a hard quiz in a magazine or done a test prep and felt that I was really close on several that I missed and thus that I probably "really" did a bit better than my actual performance. Which is of course completely irrational and self-deceiving, but it appears to be extremely common.
Ariely expanded the study in a wide variety of ways. One that I found particularly interesting was that he made rewards dependent on how many answers were correct. Participant groups were offered either $0.25, $0.50, $1, $2, $5, or $10. If people were lying purely out of a selfish self-interest, you would expect for cheating to increase as the reward increased. However, they found cheating was the same (2 questions) for all groups and slightly decreased for the $10 group. Because at $10 per question, reporting the wrong number was harder for participants to rationalize and it felt more deceitful.
The key to how much we lie/ cheat seems to be related to how much we deceive ourselves in to believing our lie. Ariely provided a different quiz to participants and this time the control group averaged about 50% correct. The experimental group received the same quiz but with an answer key at the bottom. Suddenly, this group reported having 70% correct. The group was then asked to rate how well they thought they would do an equivalent test with no answer key at the bottom and their payment depended on how accurate their predicted score was. If people acknowledged that they were genuinely cheating by using the answer code, they would say less than 70%. But people did not acknowledge it, and felt confident that they could get 70%! While this is clearly foolish, I can remember taking practice tests and after doing each problem, looking at the answer key "just for that one" but maybe glancing another answer out of the corner of my eye and then finding that problem much easier to answer. I can see how easy it would be to rationalize that I'd genuinely gotten them all right.
The book expounds upon topics such as our inability to overcome conflicts of interest, how we are more willing to cheat when it benefits others, how much we cheat when we feel wronged, and so many more- all of which are incredibly interesting. While it's somewhat upsetting just how willing we all are to lie to ourselves, it also rings true to my experience of people. What areas and ranges people feel comfortable in fudging the truth may vary, but most people seem willing to fudge just a bit. The book does offer hope. Simple things like a statement in front of quizzes stating "I will not cheat" that ask for a signature dramatically reduced cheating. Even asking people to remember the 10 commandments reduced cheating. I think the positive part of Ariely's message is that almost all of us DESIRE to be good. It seems like most people aren't going to go out of their way to lie and cheat. They only do it when it's so easy that they can deny to themselves that they're even doing it. I also think helping people be aware of areas where us human are most susceptible to self-deceit goes a long way towards helping us overcome those pitfalls and try to design systems that remove the temptation to cheat as much as possible. While all of the little cheats add up to a tremendous amount of cumulative dishonesty, I think people's inclination towards goodness is incredibly powerful and is what allows our society to be the fairly safe and functioning place that is.
One of the studies he did involved having participants take a very hard math quiz with 20 questions. The control group was asked to turn in the paper and it was graded- with the average number of correct answers being 4. The experimental group was asked to shred their papers and then report how many they got right- and amazingly this group had 6 right on average! This group was cheating- but only by a tiny bit. As I think of this, I can remember a time or two I've taken a hard quiz in a magazine or done a test prep and felt that I was really close on several that I missed and thus that I probably "really" did a bit better than my actual performance. Which is of course completely irrational and self-deceiving, but it appears to be extremely common.
Ariely expanded the study in a wide variety of ways. One that I found particularly interesting was that he made rewards dependent on how many answers were correct. Participant groups were offered either $0.25, $0.50, $1, $2, $5, or $10. If people were lying purely out of a selfish self-interest, you would expect for cheating to increase as the reward increased. However, they found cheating was the same (2 questions) for all groups and slightly decreased for the $10 group. Because at $10 per question, reporting the wrong number was harder for participants to rationalize and it felt more deceitful.
The key to how much we lie/ cheat seems to be related to how much we deceive ourselves in to believing our lie. Ariely provided a different quiz to participants and this time the control group averaged about 50% correct. The experimental group received the same quiz but with an answer key at the bottom. Suddenly, this group reported having 70% correct. The group was then asked to rate how well they thought they would do an equivalent test with no answer key at the bottom and their payment depended on how accurate their predicted score was. If people acknowledged that they were genuinely cheating by using the answer code, they would say less than 70%. But people did not acknowledge it, and felt confident that they could get 70%! While this is clearly foolish, I can remember taking practice tests and after doing each problem, looking at the answer key "just for that one" but maybe glancing another answer out of the corner of my eye and then finding that problem much easier to answer. I can see how easy it would be to rationalize that I'd genuinely gotten them all right.
The book expounds upon topics such as our inability to overcome conflicts of interest, how we are more willing to cheat when it benefits others, how much we cheat when we feel wronged, and so many more- all of which are incredibly interesting. While it's somewhat upsetting just how willing we all are to lie to ourselves, it also rings true to my experience of people. What areas and ranges people feel comfortable in fudging the truth may vary, but most people seem willing to fudge just a bit. The book does offer hope. Simple things like a statement in front of quizzes stating "I will not cheat" that ask for a signature dramatically reduced cheating. Even asking people to remember the 10 commandments reduced cheating. I think the positive part of Ariely's message is that almost all of us DESIRE to be good. It seems like most people aren't going to go out of their way to lie and cheat. They only do it when it's so easy that they can deny to themselves that they're even doing it. I also think helping people be aware of areas where us human are most susceptible to self-deceit goes a long way towards helping us overcome those pitfalls and try to design systems that remove the temptation to cheat as much as possible. While all of the little cheats add up to a tremendous amount of cumulative dishonesty, I think people's inclination towards goodness is incredibly powerful and is what allows our society to be the fairly safe and functioning place that is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)