Category Archives: relationships

May 9 2012

How To Encourage People To Change Their Own Minds

How To Encourage People To Change Their Own Minds – http://pulse.me/s/94Jvw

image

42% of Americans Will Be Obese By 2030 BY EYUN MAY 9, 2012 | 12:22PM

Changing people’s minds is hard.

We resist having our attitudes adjusted by others, especially when the message isn’t directly relevant to us and we aren’t paying that much attention.

But what if you could get people to change their own minds? People will listen to themselves and will automatically generate arguments that have personal relevance for them.

It’s not as crazy as it sounds. Actually people are being encouraged to persuade themselves all the time. Here are a few examples:

1. When a parent wants to change a child’s behaviour they might ask them why it is wrong, rather than just telling them it is wrong. 2. When we’re encouraged to take part in role-playing exercises, we might espouse attitudes and values we don’t believe in. 3. When we want to change our behaviour, say, to healthier eating, we might try to convince ourselves we don’t like the forbidden foods as much as we do.

So, there are all kinds of situations in which we are arguing with ourselves, whether it’s because we’ve initiated it ourselves, or because we’ve been subtly encouraged to do so by someone else.

Self-persuasion

But does it work? Does self-persuasion make any real difference?

Janis and King (1954) tested this by having some participants give a talk while two others listened. Then they swapped around and one of the passive listeners gave a talk to the other two on a different topic.

What emerged was that, on average, people were more convinced by the talk when they gave it themselves than when they merely heard it passively. This suggests that we really are persuaded more strongly when we make the argument ourselves, even if it isn’t in line with our own viewpoint.

The same trick works with attitudes to smoking. People are more put off smoking when they deliver an anti-smoking message than when they passively receive it (research described in Brinol et al., 2012).

We see the same effect for self-confidence. When people are told to present themselves in a self-confident way to others, they actually feel more self-confident themselves.

The explanation seems to be that we are very good at convincing ourselves because we know just what sorts of arguments will sway us.

So if you want someone to persuade themselves, you can try asking them to put aside their own attitude for a moment and try getting them to generate their own arguments for the point you want to make.

Whatever the cover story, as long as the person is encouraged to generate their own arguments, it has a chance of changing their mind.

Image credit: Gary Knight

May 5 2012

New Reason to Believe That ‘Everything Happens for a Reason’

New Reason to Believe That ‘Everything Happens for a Reason’ – http://pulse.me/s/8U2jU

Here are six questions about some of the findings that may intrigue you and test your knowledge. The good news? You can’t fail a positivepsychologyquiz! Usethisasa guideto learn more about the developing field.Or,ifyou got them all right, you know how good it is to be kind — so get out there and help someone!

1. True or false? Negative thoughts are more powerful than positive thoughts.

A: True

Barbara Fredrickson’s (2009) work on positivity created a way of measuring internal dynamics by using a Losada ratio, a measure of positive to negative thoughts. She found a ratio of 3 to 1 seems to be a tipping point of sorts for positivity. In other words, we need three positive thoughts to counteract the effect of one negativethought.

This is the equivalent of the discovery that we have good and bad cholesterol, HDL and LDL, and that the ratio between the two determines cardiovascular health. We need more positive than negativethoughtsin thesameway we need more HDL, the good cholesterol, than LDL. You can assess your current ratio at her website.

2. What percentage of our happiness can we actually change?

1. About 40 percent

2. About 50 percent

3. About 10 percent

4. About 60 percent

A: No. 1

Leading researcher Sonya Lyubomirsky has been able to determine that about 40 percent of our capability for happiness is underdeveloped and within our power and ability to change. About10percentcan be attributed to life circumstances and 50 percent of our happiness is set.

Lyubomirsky developed an assessment of personal happiness through a brief 4-item scale called The SubjectiveHappinessScale. It assigns you to an activity that helps to bring a little more joy into your life.

3. True or false? We can accurately predict how happy we will be in the future.

A: False

Daniel Gilbert, the Harvard psychologist and best-selling author of Stumbling on Happiness has wrestled with the problem of defining and predicting happiness and has drawn some interesting and instructive conclusions (Gilbert, 2007). Instead of talking about predicting our future happiness, he says that we make systematicerrors in what he calls “nexting.” In essence, our brains are continuously “nexting.” When we try to determine how stable it will be when we walk on the sand, or what we have to do to catch a ball or a Frisbee, we are constantlynexting into the future to imagine ourselves there.

The problem with nexting is that we are pretty well immersed in the now, and we have a hard time nexting to the future using anything else but the information we have right now. Since we don’t actually know what is coming, we take our best guess based on what is in front of us. This is why we are often surprised and don’t always get it right when it comes to what will make us happy. We are actually not very good at imagining how happy we are going to be because our sense of tomorrow’s happiness can only be based on what makes us happy now.

But the future isn’t made up of what we know now. We can’t take into account what circumstances will come into our life to make us feel different in the future. Consider these examples: Christopher Reeve, after becoming a quadriplegic, reported that he was in some ways better off, as did Lance Armstrong after having cancer. In fact, cancer patients in general are more optimistic than those who are healthy.

The functional result of all of this is that we delude ourselves just enough to get by. It would appear that in order to be happy we have to fudge the data a little, just enough so we aren’t overwhelmed by the daily disappointments, unwelcome surprises, and the evening news.

The point of all of this is that mental well-being might be a matter of faking ourselves out to suggest we arehappy enough now, and will likely be happy enough in the future. Ironically, the accuracy of our perception of the now may be one of the biggest obstacles in assessing exactly what may make us happy.

4. Experts say when we do something kind, it causes others to be kind, creating a cascading effect.

A: True

According to researchers Fowler and Christakis, kindness spreads. They have determined there is a mimicryprocessatwork. Watching othersengaged in acts of kindness, or knowing that they have done so, tends to inspire usto be kind.

Here is an inspiring video on how it works that was filmed in Red Bank, N.J., and an article about a not-so-random act of kindness.

5. What are the three top strengths of good teachers?

1. diligence, intellectual curiosity, fairness

2. social intelligence,zest,humor

3. willpower, verbal ability, compassion

4. trust, honesty, bravery

A: No. 2

Research has shown that the students who gained the most on standardized tests rated their teachers’ top strengths as zest, humor and social intelligence. When you think about the teachers that have inspired you the most, wasn’t it the ones who had energy, a sense of humor and sensitivity to others? This research comes from measures of character strengths.

To learn more about what yours are check here.

6. In 2011, which country was ranked happiest?

1. United States

2. Denmark

3. Finland

4. Israel

5. Austria

A: Denmark

While the reasons for this are stillbeing researched, one likely possibility is that the communal / social nature of living in Denmark hascreated a closer connection and less sense of economic disparity among its population. Here is a listing of the top ten.

By the way, the United States did not make the list.

May 5 2012

Are You a Poor Communicator? Stop the Damage and Improve Relationships | Psychology Today

Are You a Poor Communicator? Stop the Damage and Improve Relationships | Psychology Today – http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/communication-success/201205/are-you-poor-communicator-stop-the-damage-and-improve-relationship?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

The Four Characteristics of Ineffective Communication

“Trouble comes from the mouth.”

–Chinese Proverb

1. “You” Language Plus Directives

Ineffective communication is often characterized by the use of certain types of “you” language, such as “you are. . .,” “you should. . .,” “you need to. . .,” “you have to. . .,” “you’d better. . .,” and “you people. . . .” Directives are statements that either pass negative judgment, or order another person around. Some examples of “you” language plus a directive include:

“You are not good enough. . .”

“You should pay attention. . .”

“You need to do this now. . .”

“You have to understand my position. . .”

“You better get it right. . .”

“You people should behave. . .”

Most people don’t like being judged or told what to do, and when we use “you” language plus directives, it’s easy to arouse in others feelings of resentment and defensiveness. This type of communication is also problematic in that it tends to invite a “no” response, resulting in disagreements and conflicts.

It’s important to note that there are “you” statements that are good for communication. For example, “you-positive” statements are simply sentences that begin with the word “you,” followed by a positive comment (“you did a good job on this project”; “you have a wonderful personality”). “You-neutral” statements are sentences that begin with “you,” followed by a factual or informative comment (“you’re the third person to arrive”; “you’ll find more information by reading this article”). In general, there’s nothing wrong with using “you-positive” or “you-neutral” statements. It’s “you-directive” that is ineffective communication.

2. Universal Statements

Universal statements are expressions that generalize a person’s character or behavior in a negative way. The most common types of universal statements involve the use of words such as “always,” “never,” “again,” “so,” “every time,” “such a,” and “everyone.” Universal statements are often used in combination with “you” language. For example:

“You always leave the toilet seat up.”

“You never put the tooth paste cap back on.”

“You’re messing up again!”

“You are so lazy!”

“You forget to do this every time!”

“You’re such a slob!”

“Everyone knows that you’re bad.”

Universal statements are problematic in many ways. First, in the mindset of the speaker, there is no possibility of the listener being any other way. The potential to change is discounted. Second, because universal statements tend to point out “what is wrong,” instead of “how to be better,” such statements actually discourage change. Finally, just as with examples of “you” language earlier, universal statements can easily be disputed. If I say to you, “you never wash the dishes,” all you need to do is to come up with one exception, “that’s not true, Preston, I washed the dishes once last year,” and you have successfully contradicted my statement. The general nature of universal statements makes them very vulnerable to specific counterexamples.

Universal statements are essentially over-generalized, negative judgments. It is especially important to avoid using universals when communicating with children, as such statements can adversely affect their self-esteem.

For tips on relationship success, see my articles Five Keys to Enhancing Your Emotional Intelligence,Seven Ways to Say “No” and Keep Good Relations,and Eight Keys to Life Hardiness and Resiliency.

3. Tough on the Person, Soft on the Issue

In every communication situation involving another person, there are two elements present: the person you are relating to, and the issue or behavior you are addressing. Effective communicators know how to separate the issue or the behavior from the person, and be soft on the person and tough on the issue. Ineffective communicators will do the opposite. They literally “get personal” by being tough on the person, while minimizing or ignoring the issue or the behavior.

For example:

Ineffective communication: “You are so stupid!” Effective communication: “You’re a smart person, and what you did this morning was not very smart.”

Ineffective communication: “You never clean up. You’re a slob!” Effective communication: “I noticed that you didn’t wash the dishes this week.”

Ineffective communication: “You are a poor student.” Effective communication: “You can do well in this class, and I noticed that you got a “C” on your last exam.”

You may have noticed the use of “and” instead of “but” in two of the examples above. “But” is a negator which can discount the significance of what is said before and puts the real meaning of the sentence on what comes after. (I like you as a friend, but. . . .) “Yes, but. . .” often times means “no.” So if you don’t mean to negate the first part of your sentence, use “and” instead of “but.” “And” is a connector which places equal emphasis on both what is said before and after.

Being tough on the person and soft on the issue can easily arouse negative reactions from people, who are likely to take what you’re saying more personally, and as a result feel angry, resentful, hurt or resistant. Note that tough on the person and soft on the issue also involves the frequent use of “you” statements and universals.

4. Invalidate Feelings

Invalidation of feelings occurs when we recognize emotions, positive or negative, coming out of a person, and either discount, belittle, minimize, ignore or negatively judge these feelings.

For example:

“Your concerns are meaningless to me!”

“Your complaints are totally unfounded.”

“You’re blowing things way out of proportion.”

“Who cares if you’re angry? Stop over-reacting!”

“So what if you got a B in math? I used to get A’s all the time.”

“Don’t feel so happy—your improvement really means very little.”

When a person’s positive feeling is invalidated, her or his positive feeling will likely diminish or disappear. As positive feelings decrease, so does desirable behavior, and the strength of the relationship. When a person’s negative feeling is invalidated, her or his negative feeling will likely intensify and linger. As negative feelings increase, so does undesirable behavior, and barrier in the relationship.

Apr 10 2012

Attention: Approval Seeking Overachievers!

Attention: Approval Seeking Overachievers! – http://pulse.me/s/7YUvt

Attention: Approval Seeking Overachievers!

Posted by Robin Fisher Roffer

Related Posts:

SHARETHIS ADD COMMENT

Posted by Robin Fisher Roffer on April 9, 2012 in Inspiration

Post a comment Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

Name: (required)

Email Address: (Not displayed with comment) (required)

Website:

Comments:

Subscribe to Whole Living Magazine

Get free access to our digital magazine for iPad when you subscribe!

Subscribe

Search Whole Living Daily

Sign Up for Our Newsletters

Get weekly email updates on healthy eating, wellness, stress relief, and more.

Whole Living News Natural Pantry Recipes & Menus

New on Whole Living

Get our newest healthy recipes, fitness routines, and beauty tips.

50 Ways to Conserve Water 200+ Breakfast Recipes

Latest Posts

Lunch Bunch: Whole-Wheat Pasta, Sweet-Potato Slaw, and Chia-Seed Pudding

Send Us A Photo of Your Outdoor Space and Win Amazing Prizes!

Meatless Monday: Spinach Pesto Quinoa

Attention: Approval Seeking Overachievers!

G-Free Friday: Citrus Cake with Lemon Strawberry Glaze

Coffee!!! Part III of III: Yoga Off the Mat

Most Read Posts

Most Commented Posts

Follow Whole Living on Twitter

Proud of your outdoor space?Enter our contest w/@AptTherapy 4 the chance 2 win a @WilliamsSonoma gardening prize worth over $500! #contests

RT @CertifiedSteak: #Shrimp and Vegetable Fried Rice http://t.co/S3EIXyzN @wholeliving

Lunch Bunch: Whole-Wheat Pasta, Sweet-Potato Slaw, and Chia-Seed Pudding http://t.co/Q8u6JN6g

Send Us A Photo of Your Outdoor Space and Win Amazing Prizes! http://t.co/csGzbY1R

RT @zobha: Extend #springcleaning to your body with these #detox stretches in @WholeLiving. http://t.co/oGeNpwEa #fitness

Visit marthastewart.com

Enter a search term

COMMUNITY HOME PHOTOS GROUPS DISCUSSION BOARDS MEMBER BLOGS WHOLE LIVING DAILY BLOG ACTION PLAN

There’s really no substitute for healthy self-esteem, but many of us try to find it outside of ourselves. Instead of doing good work for our own satisfaction, we do it for the approval of others.

If you grew up performing to get positive attention or the love you craved, more than likely you have cast yourself in that role as an adult. The good news is, your desire to please may actually be working for you on many levels. Overachieving, perfectionism, and enabling can play well in the workplace. Eighty-hour workweeks can often lead to bigger titles and more money. On the flip side, working that hard can also produce stress-related illnesses, divorce, and alcoholism.

If you’ve been looking for validation from your boss, coworkers, or clients, it’s time to look inside yourself instead.

In his book, “Healing the Shame that Binds You,” John Bradshaw talks about high achievers who seek approval from a place of shame. For those of us who played the family hero, we can end up becoming “human doings” instead of human beings–performing to overcompensate for bad feelings about ourselves.

That’s codependent.

Codependency is defined as “a loss of personal identity in a process of painful external validation.” Below are different types of workplace scenarios charged with codependency:

Your Boss = Your Parent

During my first ten years in business, I would put my bosses in parental roles–looking for their approval and special handouts. If their reaction wasn’t what I expected, I’d feel unhappy and unfulfilled.

Validation by Client

Many of us in the service business are people pleasers without boundaries looking for recognition and praise. By focusing on meeting our client’s needs we are secreatly looking to meet our own.

Work Husband or Wife

It can be a positive thing to find a coworker of the opposite sex that will ride the corporate ladder with you. But often this is a one up-one down relationship where resentments can form easily.

Mom and Pop Business Owners

Not only have I worked with my husband, but I have also consulted with many husband and wife teams in a struggle for control and power. There’s often difficulty recognizing individual needs and wants while each spouse tries to convince the other of what they should think or feel.

If you’re in the habit of throwing out a life preserver to those that need to be rescued, I’m guessing that you’re exhausted! That’s because codependency doesn’t work in the long run. You’ll eventually hit a wall. To find out if you already have, answer these four questions honestly:

Do I control others to relieve my fears?

Do I let others control me for fear of their abuse or neglect?

Do I adapt or change behavior for others?

Do I validate my value and worth as a person through others?

If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, start to become aware of the underlying feelings you have when you are controlling, caretaking, fixing, rescuing, people pleasing, or playing the victim or martyr. You’ll begin to realize that you may not be acting out these behaviors from a loving place, but a lonely place.

Lao-Tzu, the founder of Taoism once said, “If I keep from imposing on people, they become themselves.” It took me a long time to see the truth in this, and when I did, it set me free–and everyone else in my life.

Robin Fisher Roffer is a leading brand strategist and reinvention specialist. Founder and CEO of Big Fish Marketing, she is the author of Make A Name For Yourself: 8 Steps Every Woman Needs To Create A Personal Brand Strategy For Success, The Fearless Fish Out Of Water: How To Succeed When You’re The Only One Like You, and Reinventing Yourself: 10 Steps To Shifting Your Career Into High Gear. Learn about her Reinvent Yourself! Workshops at http://relevanceinstitute.com/

Apr 5 2012

Relationships in Business: 3 Rules | Inc.com

Relationships in Business: 3 Rules | Inc.com.

 

Here are three ways to improve the way you nurture your network to get the most out of your professional relationships.

1)      Focus on the value that you can provide to your network and not necessarily on what the person can provide for you. If you can provide value to someone in your network with limited time and resource investment, do it! Aside from the fact that it is a nice gesture, you can be sure you’ll be top of mind next time this person or someone in their network has a need that fits your area of expertise.

2)      Being a relationship “broker” can offer significant benefits to your personal and professional brand. While you should always be sensitive to busy people’s time, simply making an introduction between two people in your network who share a common interest or challenge can do wonders for each of these individual relationships.

3)      Don’t let personal fears get in the way of forming new relationships. It is far easier to talk to people you already know than it is to form new relationships. Explore the boundaries of your comfort zone to put yourself in a position to form new, productive relationships whenever an opportunity arises.  It is never an easy task, but proactively expanding your network can pay off in dividends for your personal and professional development.

It’s generally preferable to have fewer high-quality relationships than hundreds of low-quality relationships. By following these simple steps, you can begin to improve the quality of your professional relationships – a skill that is admired by many but mastered by few.