Google
Showing posts with label contrarian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label contrarian. Show all posts

Friday, 1 October 2010

The Weakness Of Postive Thinking

As an avowed pragmatist, I've been savouring Barbara Ehrenreich's Smile or Die, about the tyranny of positive thinking.

Barbara traces the rise of 'positive thinking' out of the misery of Calvinist soul-searching amongst people deemed non-productive by that religious movement, through 'christian science' to popular psychology and self-help books, to academic psychology and, finally, to major corporations, banks and other institutions, where critical thinkers tend to be ritually sacrificed as having a "negative attitude". Barbara patiently explains why "positive thinking" will not of itself produce a desired outcome, and how it has proved positively harmful to suppress critical thought and to avoid addressing genuine doubt and 'negative' sentiment. She also helpfully points out that 'positive' does not equate to 'good', and 'negative' does not equate to 'bad'.

All of which will seem trite to anyone who hasn't seen Up in the Air, or been subjected to the ramblings of a 'success coach' or 'motivational speaker', like Tony Robbins, or had a colleague earnestly suggest you read "Who Moved My Cheese".

Of course it's helpful to approach life positively. Committing to a particular goal is certainly enormously helpful - if not critical - to achieving it. But it is not determinative of the outcome. Similarly, to imagine or envisage a successful performance in a given scenario will contribute to your confidence when the time for performance arrives, and that should help you perform better. But that's only one factor that contributes to your performance, not the 'cause' of your success.

Otherwise, the world would be governed by repressive dictatorships that command optimism. And Kim Jong-il really would be able to control the weather with his mood.

Instead, we do our best to figure out and cope with all the variables likely to significantly affect a scenario, including all the 'bad things' that might happen, as well as the fact that the world is random and heavily influenced by surprise events, or "Black Swans". Approaching that process proactively and positively is also clearly going to be helpful but, again, not of itself determinative of success.

Ultimately, Barbara questions the effect of positive thinking on 'happiness', and it's easy to see that adherence to positive thinking does not end well - the inevitable result of suppressing and repressing all 'negative' news, thoughts and emotions. Barbara cites the Lehman Brothers top brass, Dick Fuld and Joe Gregory, who may have made plenty of money eschewing analysis and 'going with their guts', but eventually the blew the bank. Joe Stalin, too, was big on 'optimism' and a little hard on 'defeatist' critics and others who didn't 'get with the programme', and doubtless Kim Jong-il constantly curses the 'naysayers' for the under-performance of his 'optimistic' regime.

And let's not forget, among the long list of victims, all the angry and confused positive-thinkers out there who hot-desked, travelled incessantly, ignored their friends and family, slept with their Blackberries and generally drank the corporate Kool-Aid, only to discover they were surplus to requirements.

I hope they don't get fooled again.

Here's Jon Stewart's interview with Barbara on the Daily Show.

Tuesday, 13 November 2007

Why "Pragmatist"?

A pragmatist is simply someone who acts in an informed way to control his or her personal environment, using a combination of theory and practice. Or as John Dewey put it, "intelligent practice versus uninformed, stupid practice". As a lawyer working on innovative solutions to consumer problems, I see plenty of examples of both types of practice.

A pragmatist does not slavishly follow rules, or political dogma, or "positive thinking" or the herd. To do so would assume a world that is somehow ordered, whereas almost all significant events in history are Black Swans - surprise events that have a huge impact and which we rationalise by hindsight. Rules and dogma can turn out to be badly wrong. The herd is eventually caught out. So it's dangerous to follow. Instead, we must rely on experience and critcial thought to minimise our exposure to the downside of these surprise events, and maximise our exposure to the upside.

The combination of theory and practice that qualifies as "intelligent practice" involves trial and failure. It involves being sceptical and "contrarian". It encompasses the aggressive "tinkering" of entrepreneurs - facilitators - who have helped us wrest control of our own life experiences from the one-size-fits-all experience offered by the established music labels, book publishers, retailers, package holiday operators, banks and political parties. These facilitators make the difference between us 'raging against the machine' in a lone, fragmented way and acting together as individuals in a highly concentrated fashion. And this giant, boundaryless online community of practising individuals and facilitators characterises the "architecture of participation" that lies at the heart of "Web 2.0".

It's perhaps no surprise that the rise of Web 2.0 has coincided with a decline and low levels of trust in our institutions, and findings that "the level of alienation felt towards politicians, the main political parties and the key institutions of the political system is extremely high and widespread [yet...] very large numbers of citizens are engaged in community and charity work outside of politics. There is also clear evidence that involvement in pressure politics – such as signing petitions, supporting consumer boycotts, joining campaign groups – has been growing significantly for many years".

In other words, it may be that institutions are being marginalised by people pragmatically engaging with each other in their own digital communities, not only for retail purposes but also political, environmental, health, and economic reasons.

Big questions arise.

How do the institutions get it so wrong? How do facilitators succeed where institutions fail? How can we bridge the gap between what institutions say is right for us, and what is actually right for us personally? Could today's successful facilitators become tomorrow's institutions? Are today's institutions doomed? Or can they respond, re-organise and align themselves with how "we" individual citizens and consumers behave?

I explore these questions here, and look forward to discussing any thoughts or comments you have along the way.
Related Posts with Thumbnails