The How of Gratitude

The first "secret of happiness" recommended by this book is so easy that it feels like cheating!  It involves thinking grateful thoughts.  This can mean a constant sense of appreciation and gratitude, but it can also be as ridiculously easy as writing down 5 good things that happened to you once per week for 10 weeks in a row!  That would take, what, 30 seconds per week?  And yet that study found a measurable increase in happiness relative to the control group, more time spent exercising, and fewer physical symptoms such as headaches or coughing.  Other studies found similar results with similar tiny investments of time and effort by the subjects of the study.

Why does a small amount of practice thinking grateful thoughts provide a measurable boost to the average person's happiness?  According to the author, the number one reason grateful thoughts make such a difference is that they help you appreciate the good things that happen to you for a much longer time.  The author refers to something psychologists call "hedonistic adaptation".  This is a fancy way to say that most of us quickly get used to the changes in our lives, whether these changes are good or bad.  We feel happier or sadder for a while, but then return to our usual typical level of happiness.

Grateful people, on the other hand, continue to express how glad they are about their marriage, their promotion at work, their favorite television shows, their health, and their best friends.  They get more of a happiness boost from these things, and they sustain that boost much longer.

So how does one become more grateful?  The author's studies, and similar studies by other researchers, actually found that people who wrote in a gratitude journal just once per week gained more of a boost than people who wrote daily.  She speculates that subjects who wrote more often probably became more bored with their gratitude journals.

What do I want to do with this information?  We want to start weekly family meetings again sometime soon.  If we make each person in the family describe 5 things that they are grateful for, the studies suggest this alone will help us all become more grateful in general and happier.  But I do consider this a minimum.  I also want to continue other practices that I've been doing based on other books that are likely to further reinforce a sense of gratitude in my family and friends.  For instance The 10 Greatest Gifts I Give My Children: Parenting from the Heart recommends steering ordinary conversations, whenever they arrive, away from the negative and toward the positive.  When the kids are complaining about things, address these issues as needed but don't dwell on them.  Redirect them to the good things that happened during the day, the people they like, the stuff that's going well.  This works for kids, friends, people at work, and strangers.  It's a great way to spread a sense of gratitude to everyone you interact with.

The Happiness Pie

I just started reading The How of Happiness: A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want.  Sometimes my kids think that your happiness is mainly due to circumstances and luck, versus accepting the idea that their own habitual attitudes and thought patterns could play a role.  Does happiness just "happen" to them, or can they boost it by developing habits such as counting their blessings, imagining themselves reaching their goals, meditating, or practicing random acts of kindness?  In keeping with other books I've been reading, I don't want to just nag them into doing these things.  I want them to read solid, persuasive research that motivates them to cultivate these habits.

The first part of the book discusses the Happiness Pie.  The image on the cover shows the pie.  According to the author, studies have shown that, if you consider large groups of people, about 50% of the variation in their levels of happiness can be explained by heredity, 10% by temporary changes in their circumstances, and 40% by habits that anyone can easily develop.   (These are averages, of course.  If you have terminal cancer, this might become 80% of your individual pie).

These estimates are based on numerous studies of happiness by psychologists in the last couple of decades.  Studies of identical twins raised in different homes and families, in particular, have helped researchers estimate the distinct contribution of genetics to a person's typical level of happiness.

The easiest opportunities to boost your happiness lie in the 40% of the happiness pie generated by easily acquired habits.  This 40% is the tempting slice of the pie you see in the image on the cover.  You might be born with genes that predispose you to be relatively happy or relatively unhappy.  That's 50% of the pie.  You have no control over this.  Your current circumstances account for, on average, 10% of the pie.  You have some control of this part of your happiness.  But then you've got another 40% you can easily influence through your mental and behavioral habits.  This is the easy opportunity to boost your happiness that the author encourages readers to pursue.

How confident am I that the authors have these percentages right?  How solid is the research?  How precise can they really be?  I don't know, but does it really matter?  The numbers may not be exactly 50% genetic, 10% circumstance, and 40% mental habits, but my gut says that these percentages are plausible.  I see people who seem naturally happy or sad.  This fits with the 50% genetic idea.  It feels to me as if most people eventually return to about the same level of happiness even when their circumstances change (illness, jobs, family, etc.).  This fits with the idea that circumstances only account for 10%.  And then I've seen people permanently shift their happiness when they've changed their habitual attitudes and thoughts.  This fits with the 40% estimate.

The author spends most of the rest of the book discussing the habits anyone can learn which unleash the 40% of your potential happiness.  She describes 12 habits in all, and provides supporting research and practical recommendations for each of them.  I'll be writing about these habits in my next few blogs.

Enlightenment--Human Waterfalls

If I manage to see you as you really are, I see that nothing in you stays the same from moment to moment.  Every moment you are reborn.  This keeps you fresh and interesting, as engaging to tune into as a stream or waterfall.

If I see you as you really are, I see that you are not your name.  You are much more than any name, any words can describe.  Any names or words are just simplified "models" to help me interact with you.  But when I see you as you really are, I see that you are infinitely more complex.

If I see you as you really are, I see that you are not separate from me.  Your thoughts influence my thoughts, and mine influence yours.  Your feelings are contagious, and you "catch" my emotions as well.  We are intertwined.

If I see you as you really are, I can truly listen to you.

Enlightenment--how language fools us

Many authors, Buddhist and otherwise, blame language for cutting us off from reality.  In almost any language, people speak in terms of subject and object:  "I went for a walk"; "I ran a mile"; "I talked to my friend".  By implication, "I" am separate and independent from the things and people I'm interacting with.  And I speak this way hundreds of times a day, every day, starting at the age of 3.  It's no wonder I start to take for granted the myth that I'm in my own world, that it's me and the rest of reality, and that I'm separate and independent.

Similarly, our language uses words to "stand for" things and people.  The words are always simpler than the things they represent.  But we confuse the word for the thing itself.  As the founder of General Semantics, Alfred Korzybski famously said, we forget that "the map is not the territory" and "the word is not the thing".  We see the world through the filter of our words.  Korzybski, like Buddha, urged people to cultivate their awareness of this fact, awareness that what we see around us is largely our ideas about our reality, rather than reality itself.

Enlightenment is this:  to use words but to recognize their limitations.  To use words because they are convenient, but to recognize that "I" am not separate from the rest of reality, and that nothing is as simple as the word or name I use to describe it.  Use the words, but don't be fooled by them.  And, when time permits, quiet the mind, stop the words in meditation, and see reality as it is.

Enlightenment--an Engineer's Perspective

Many scholars agree that Buddha taught that we become "enlightened" when we realize that this world is not full of separate, unchanging beings who are interacting.  Belief in separate beings is a convenient, practical illusion.  It is helpful to think of "you" and "I" and "them" separately as we make plans and take action.  But an "enlightened" person recognizes that, in reality, there are no separate beings or things.  Reality is all connected.  Everything that seems separate is separate only to a degree.  Everything that seems unchanging is unchanging only to a degree.  Those who occasionally sense this reality in their day to day living are on the path to enlightenment.  Scholars say that those who constantly, clearly see this reality in it's fullness at all times--even if they are sick, the boss is yelling, or their dog dies--these people have reached Buddhahood.

In my 20 years of Buddhist practice, I've been trying to glimpse, as often as I can, the reality that everything is connected, that there are no separate, unchanging beings or things.  I never expect to consistently see this reality, don't even know if this consistency is possible, and I don't really care.  But I definitely feel benefits--peace, happiness, serenity--from each glimpse of connected reality that I'm able to achieve or in thinking about the connectedness of all things.

I'm an engineer.  One thing that has helped me see the connected nature of things more often is to explain this idea to myself in engineering terms.  Scientific terms.

A scientist or engineer trying to describe anything in the physical world always defines a "model".  This model is a simplified representation of what is really there.  Scientists humbly acknowledge that they can't possibly represent everything about something as simple as the water spilling out of a faucet.  So they make choices, creating a model that is simpler than reality.  In their model, the flowrate remains steady, the water flows without friction, the water can't be compressed under any pressure.  None of these assumptions are perfectly accurate, but without them, the flow of water is too hard to describe.  Also, they define a "control volume", a space they are studying, a shape.  But the boundaries of this space don't really exist, they are just needed so that the scientists can analyze the water.

This is what I do in life.  I create models in my head for "you" and for "me" that are oversimplified.  I erect boundaries between us in my head that are much more rigid that what is really out there.  In that you change you change my thoughts and I change yours, the reality is that we aren't fully distinct.  Also, like the scientist oversimplifying water, I oversimplify who you are and who I am so that I can interact in the world.  This is fine as long as I remember whenever possible that, in reality, "you" and "I" are interconnected and far more complex than my models for "you" and "me" can ever describe.

Wordless affirmations

I'm trying to cultivate several important new habits:  a better diet, better nutrition, teaching by asking questions, steering conversations toward positive topics, and negotiating more often to get my needs met.  These things don't come naturally for me.  How do I remind myself to behave in these new ways?

Lots of people like to use affirmations.  They regularly review positive statements such as, "I am eating well to promote my health."  These don't work for me.  They feel lame.  They remind me of comedian Al Franken's spoof in which he says, "I'm good enough.  I'm smart enough. And Gosh darn it, people like me!"

I'm getting more out of pinning pictures to my cubicle wall, just to the left of my monitor.  The pictures remind me of the things I'm working on.  An image of 2 people negotiating reminds me of my commitment to engage more instead of complaining passively about the decisions others make that hamper my work.  An image of Socrates reminds me to teach and lead by asking questions versus telling people what I think needs to be done.  The smiley face reminds me to focus on the positive during conversations, to change the subject gently when people are focusing on what's wrong and who they don't like and instead move to what's working well and who they do like.

Every time I notice these images, I instantly remember the habit I'm trying to develop, without having to say to myself, over and over, "I'm focusing on the positive", or "I'm teaching with questions", or other affirmations that feel forced and unnatural to me.

The Deal that No One Tries to Make

When I focus on interests instead of positions, as described in Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, I find I'm more likely to TRY to make a deal with the other person.  I'm more likely to engage.  I feel as if I know how to start the conversation and where to take it.

The old saying that, "you miss 100% of the shots you never take" applies to negotiating.  Often, someone will take a position that is going to make my job much harder.  A plant manager may decide to reassign the person who was helping me on my project.  Someone else might decide to cut funding for my project.  I may think they are making the wrong decision, that they are hurting me and hurting themselves.  But, in the past, especially if the other person had a temper or was otherwise difficult to work with, I usually just complained to peers and did nothing to change the situation.

Now I'm much more likely to engage.  I have a strategy I can rely on to approach the other person.  I can ask them about the needs or desires they have that lie behind the position they are taking.  "Why are you pulling your person off the project team?  Are you under some staffing pressures?"  As long as I'm sincerely inquiring into their needs, with no sarcasm or anger, they almost always start talking.  The ice is broken.  Soon I can tell them my needs.  "I really need to have someone from your plant represented on the team."  If I've listened to them, they will usually reciprocate and listen to me describe my interests.  Then we can start to find a solution that meets all our needs.  "Maybe we can cut down the scope of the role so that you can staff it part-time."

It will take a while to make this a habit, but I'm excited about it and can see some results already.  In hindsight, I'm shocked at how often I have failed to address people whose decisions were hurting my projects.  I see a future in which I get a reputation for effectively resolving differences.

Focus on interests, not positions

In this book and others by William Ury, a good negotiator does much more than just trying to get the best possible deal for himself, possibly at the expense of others.  Instead, negotiation is a "win-win" process.  All sides identify their interests, and then creatively and jointly develop solutions.  The best solutions balance the competing interests of the negotiators.  And they also satisfy SHARED interests.  When negotiating is defined this way, it is one of the most constructive, rewarding things we can do in life.

I've gotten a lot out of this book, but I think the best thing is the idea of focusing on interests, rather than positions.  The other party says, "This is what I insist on.  I demand it!  I won't accept anything else!"  That is their position.  The natural temptation is to counter with my position, "NO!  This is what I think we must do!"  The author suggests that, instead, we sidestep the other's position and instead probe into their interests.  What is their need or desire that fuels their position?  Their position itself often is something you can't accept without sacrificing your own needs.  But if you clarify their interests--the real needs they are trying to address--and clarify your own interests, you may find a solution that meets everybody's most important needs.

A few months ago, I had an opportunity to put this idea into practice.  I ran into an upper level manager during a project.  He told me, in essence, "I don't like your approach on this project.  Do it my way or I'll tell my people not to work with you!"  I was shaken up because I had not realized that he felt this way and would take such a firm position.  I suggested we talk about it.  He said we could talk as long as we wanted, but he wasn't going to change his mind.

I was not hopeful, but I scheduled the meeting.  I prepared for it like no other meeting in my life.  It went as well as I could expect.  I didn't completely sell him, but I was tentatively allowed to continue using my approach.  What made the difference?  I addressed the need that was fueling his position.

What I learned was that he was upset with the complexity of certain computer reports.  If we switched to the approach he was recommending--his position--these reports would be simplified.  He had a legitimate complaint.  The reports were so complex they were useless!  But I did not agree with his position.  I thought his solution would simplify the reports but would create far more important new problems.  So I developed another way to simplify the reports.  I showed up at his office with a copy of these simplified reports.  I explained how we could meet his legitimate need for simplification while continuing with the approach I had been using on the project.

He was still skeptical, but was willing to let me proceed.  I think the only reason I "got out of his office alive" is that I decided not to debate whether his position or my position was better.  Instead, I focused on giving him the thing he wanted that was causing him to take a firm stance.

Sarcastic Socrates?

Socrates taught others by asking someone question after question.  Eventually, the other person figures out the truth without being told directly.  As I described in my last blog, Steven Vannoy, in his book The 10 Greatest Gifts I Give My Children: Parenting from the Heart, recommends we teach our children the same way.  Ask, "Why do you think this is important ?", or "How do you think that makes him feel?", until the child figures out the best way to act

When my kids do something wrong, it can get tempting to use sarcasm when I ask them these questions.  "How do you think mom felt when you do THAT?"  But I doubt Socrates asked his questions with an angry or sarcastic tone.  If he had done that, the other person might answer briefly or not at all.  His teaching method would have failed.  Similarly, my kids will shut down if I ask them questions with anger or sarcasm.  I need to project patience and genuine interest in their response.

So far this seems to be working.  The other thing I've noticed is that sometimes, for the sake of time, I have to say, "Just do this now because I said so!"  Or, "Stop it, right now!"  That's OK as long as I follow up later with questions.  "Why do you think I had to make you stop?  What might have gone wrong if you had kept going?"