Starting in 2013, Professor Jonathan Haidt and co-author Greg Lukianoff took note of disturbing trends among college students. They witnessed tendencies to exaggerate danger, use binary thinking (e.g., right vs. wrong, us vs. them), and amplify emotional responses. These cognitive patterns manifested in:

• A rise in political polarization and cross-party animosity, leading students to retreat into self-confirming bubbles
• Elevated anxiety and depression while fixating on negative feedback, catastrophizing, and experiencing a sense of threat to their well-being
• A belief that challenge of any nature inculcates weakness, not strength
• Loss of risk taking in which there is a possibility of failure
• Excessive parental supervision alongside a growth in campus bureaucracy

These patterns create an environment that Haidt and Lukianoff believe render young adults less able to deal with the world that they’ll enter upon graduation. They present their analysis and remedies in The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. They take aim three great untruths with which this generation has been raised.

Untruth #1: What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker. This distortion imparts a sense of fragility to its adherents. They fail to view challenges as a means to gain strength, competency, and confidence. In the extreme, they consider ideas that do not align with their worldview threatening and render them easily hurt. When this dynamic overtakes a university setting, the authors argue that it fails to teach students the essential skills of critical thinking and civil disagreement.

This untruth flies in the face of human biology. We build strength by challenging our skeletomuscular frame to lift increasingly heavy loads. Our immune systems elevate their ability to stave off disease by responding to viral loads and developing antibodies to address them. We expand our neural networks by learning new things that stretch our capacity to think critically. And we develop emotional intelligence by exercising mastery over our emotions, believing ourselves capable of meeting challenges, and managing relationships effectively. In short, when we shrink from trials and tribulations, we atrophy… and that’s not healthy.

Untruth #2: Always trust your feelings. This belief deems feelings reliable barometers of truth. While compelling, thoughts and feelings can distort reality when deprived of reliable evidence. Common distortions include mind reading, fortune telling, catastrophizing, labeling (prejudging), discounting positives and overemphasizing negatives, overgeneralizing, dichotomous thinking, personalizing, blaming, comparing unfairly, should-ing, etc.

Ancient wisdom tells us that nothing brings misery unless you think it; nothing brings happiness unless you are content with it. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) leverages this tradition by helping patients break the disempowering feedback loop between negative beliefs and negative emotions. It teaches folks to examine their beliefs and focus on contra evidence. It distinguishes between intent and impact, and promotes polite and respectful interactions.

Untruth #3: Life is a battle between good people and evil people. This tenet establishes “us” and “them,” and invites us to ignore, disrespect, and/or dehumanize “them.” It preys upon an innate wiring for tribalism that “binds and blinds.” It draws upon a deep well of fear and protectionism that leads us to believe that our very survival is at stake. It invites us to display some of our worst behaviors and feel righteous about doing them.

This untruth plays out in sharp relief in our daily headlines; it is tearing us apart as a nation. We need to recognize the underpinnings of these sensibilities and the forces that enflame them. We need to resist their influence. The remedy is simple: Lift up our common humanity and shared interests. Engage in civil dialog with an open mind. Learn to be tolerant of different worldviews and find ways to coexist peaceably.

I will leave it to interested readers to explore the full exposé and note the extent to which the collegiate experience resonates with society at large. At the end of the day, I found Haidt and Lukianoff’s core thesis compelling:

“Whatever your identity, background, or political ideology, you will be happier, healthier, stronger, and more likely to succeed in pursuing your goals if you… seek out challenges, free yourself from cognitive distortions, and take a generous view of other people.”

I grew up in a household with zero tolerance for profanity. Dad may have used colorful language away from home, but it wasn’t countenanced within earshot of Mom. Of course, I still managed to add these terms to my vocabulary and have been known to use them from time to time. But I kept a lid on them in my mother’s presence to her dying day.

I just finished reading Dr. Benjamin K. Bergen’s book entitled What the F?: What Swearing Reveals About Our Language, Our Brains, and Ourselves. Dr. Bergen teaches at UC San Diego and serves as the Director of its Language and Cognition Lab. He’s also the nephew of one of my brother’s closest high school friends.

The book explores the cognitive and social science of swearing. Dr. Bergen tells us that profane word origins have their roots in religion (e.g., taking the Lord’s name in vain), sexual acts, other bodily functions, and insults/curses. Every culture has its own collective of taboo words that are deemed unsuited for polite company. Yet such words typically have synonyms and/or “sound alike” words which we feel free to use without reproach. Our “bad words” change over time. Some become so commonplace that they are no longer considered offensive. Erstwhile innocuous words can be transformed into something taboo. (I’ll forego the concrete examples and assume that you can use your imagination.)

Here are a few “fun facts” about the blue side of language.

Survey data suggests that Americans do not agree on what constitutes acceptable levels of swearing in common discourse, on the airwaves, or in other forms of media. We still regulate language usage via the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). Yet even these bodies do not have well-documented guidelines to govern how ratings get assigned to content.

Arguments for restrictive use of language focus on a supposed link to aggressive or violent behavior. Dr. Bergen discusses attempts at proving this thesis scientifically and notes that a definitive correlation cannot be asserted. Likewise, some argue that we encourage lazy use of language by tolerating profanity in public forums. The evidence does not support that thesis either. In fact, it would appear that masters of profanity have above average language skills across the board.

However much we disagree on the use of profanity, body scans reveal that we all seem to know which words are inbounds versus out-of-bounds. When we swear, our pores tend to open up and increase sweating. We evince an emotional response when we see a swear word. We also use extra brain cycles to self-monitor should we run the risk of blurting out some colorful tidbit when we feel it would be inappropriate. Thank you pre-frontal cortex!

Of course, if you bang your finger with a hammer, stub your toe, or watch yourself careening into another car while sitting behind the wheel, you may experience a lapse in linguistic control. Spontaneous eruptions of 4-letter words frequently occur when we are highly agitated, frustrated, angry, or in pain. Scientists deem such usage healthy in that it relieves tension and facilitates rapid recovery. Brain scans suggest that the limbic system (a.k.a., our “lizard brain”) may be a repository for foul language.

As a correlate to the excited profane utterance, persons who suffer brain damage to the primary language centers of the brain often retain use of swear words. Such words are the most difficult for persons with Tourette’s syndrome to control. And folks who suffer the ravages of Alzheimer’s disease may continue to retain access to excited utterances that are reactive, impulsive, and spontaneous.

Slurs fall into a separate category from other swear words, taking their place atop the offensiveness leaderboard. They aren’t merely crass language forms that could be represented by more genteel ones; they are built to hurt. They are used to dehumanize members of a race, ethnic group, class, gender, or sexual orientation. They’re intended to elevate the “in group” and force the defamed group out. Exposure to slurs carries adverse psychological, social, and financial consequences. They should not be used. Period.

I’ve been party to conversations where acquaintances attempt to defend their use of slurs because: (a) their intentions were honorable, (b) they didn’t realize that a word ruffled feathers, (c) the word never used to be a problem in the past, and/or (d) folks shouldn’t be so sensitive. It’s easy to espouse such claims when speaking from the dominant group. And, yes, language use changes over time, and it takes some effort to stay on top of things. My suggestion: Thank whomever brought it to your attention and update your language filter for next time. Why be defensive when you can choose to be respectful and gracious?

Have you ever heard about the U-shaped curve that predicts your life satisfaction based on your age? If you’re old enough, you’ve likely experienced it. If not, researchers tell us that it exists across all cultures the world over. And apparently, it even affects other primates (though I can’t begin to know how they measure chimpanzee happiness!)

According to Jonathan Rauch in The Happiness Curve: Why Life Gets Better After 50, our twenties start out full of promise, opportunity, and optimism. We’re overly rosy about our prospects for good health, professional success, marital bliss, and longevity. We think bad things happen to “the other guy.” We view our lives as fun, exciting, adventuresome, and full of possibilities.

Optimism wanes as we reach our forties and fifties. We take stock of our circumstances and become resigned to what we will (and will not) achieve and who we will (and will not) become. We may feel that we have peaked professionally and personally. We dwell on the past and feel regret for the mistakes we’ve made and the chances that we’ve missed. Our disappointment may be inflamed by comparisons with peers who seem to have made so much more of their lives. And we may be sandwiched between responsibilities to our children and our aging parents.

Our youth-oriented society may have predisposed us to thinking that our elder years would be less joyful. Paradoxically, they’re not. We get happier as we get older!

Stress declines after age 50 just as our capacity to regulate our emotions improves. We feel far less regret, accepting what we can’t control and being grateful for the lessons that life has taught us. We focus on the here and now and direct our attention toward the positive aspects of life. We take criticism to heart intellectually but not emotionally. We know who we are and what we are capable of doing. A bump in the road is not a referendum of our worth.

In our senior years, we don’t narrate accomplishment in the language of achievement, competition, and keeping score. We’re far more oriented toward connection and community, investing our time and energy on issues and relationships that really matter to us. As Andrew Sullivan states: “The worldly ambition that I might have had I increasingly see as distractions from the life I really want to live.”

So, what do you do if you are in those dreaded middle years? Here’s Jonathan Rauch’s advice:

Recognize that you are not alone. We all experience a dip in life satisfaction during our middle years. It’s a natural and healthy transition from our youth to our elder years. Expect a measure of regret and disappointment. Feel what you feel without beating yourself over the head about it.

Interrupt the inner critics whether they’re taking you to task for your thoughts/behaviors or making you feel “less than” someone else. They’ll only drag you down at a time when you need to be lifted up.

Train yourself to live in the moment without judgment. Try meditation, tai chi, yoga, qigong, or the like to help quiet the mind and focus on the here and now.

Find a support group with whom you can enjoy fellowship and share your experience. Folks generally feel better when they have nonjudgmental, fact-based conversations about their midlife malaise. If you aren’t ready to take the plunge with friends, consider a trusted adviser or counselor. Avoid isolation!

Consider small steps to relieve your pressure points and let a little sunshine in. It turns out that we’re generally not good at understanding what makes us happy, and we’re rather bad at determining what’s making us unhappy. Move incrementally, logically, constructively to reduce the odds of impulsive mistakes. Change should be integrative, respecting your values, accumulated life experiences, and opportunities.

Be patient. Let time be on your side. Know that it will get better.

Finally, remember that the truest form of wealth is social, not material. Invest in life-affirming, support relationships and communities.

I happened upon notes today from Ronald W. Richardson’s Creating a Healthier Church: Family Systems Theory, Leadership, and Congregational Life. While I’m no longer involved in church leadership, the book provided some reflections on differentiation that merit discussion.

Each one of us experiences two primal forces: the need for togetherness and the need for individuality. We’re biologically wired to live in community. We need one another for fellowship, to survive physically and emotionally, and to ensure the perpetuation of our species. But we also relish our ability to act and think for ourselves. (Many view “rugged individualism” as a defining American trait!) So how do we balance these forces in our own thoughts and actions? And how do we navigate difference within community while still maintaining harmonious coexistence?

Individuals promote the balance of forces by striving for a state of healthy differentiation. Internally, they have the capacity to distinguish objective facts from subjective interpretations and emotions. This clarity gives them the ability to:

• Perceive accurately what’s happening in any given situation; they don’t make mountains out of mole hills or create threats that aren’t there
• Think clearly and wisely about available courses of action and the consequences of each
• Identify and express their opinions and beliefs without the need for acceptance, understanding, affirmation, praise, or agreement to feel OK
• Act flexibility in evolving situations, taking into account their own reactivity and the actions of others
• Live their values and commitments in integrity

Differentiation empowers them to be in charge of themselves in the moment even when their history, emotions, and/or compatriots might otherwise motivate behaviors that are misaligned with who they really are. They know what they stand for and how they want to act in the world. They have clarity around their emotional junk and take responsibility for it. And they’re clear on the emotional baggage that lands outside their purview.

Why is differentiation so important? Because sometimes the togetherness force can be expressed as a call for everyone in a group to think, feel, and behave in the same way. The community may have difficulty tolerating and working through difference. It may view dissension as disloyal. It may put pressure on everyone to fill expected roles. In unhealthy systems, closeness gets conflated with sameness.

By contrast, healthy communities tolerate difference and conflict, treating them as normal and expected parts of being human. High differentiation in a group setting inhibits behavior acted out of the anxiety or tension of the moment. It slows things down. It allows time for reflection and dialog. It enables people to be more available and attuned to one another.

Differentiation helps people develop a sense of connection, intimacy, and mutual understanding without loss of self. Togetherness becomes a state of attraction and genuine interest rather than an attempt to satiate neediness. They can enjoy forthright communication, openness to ideas when facing challenges, and a higher level of cooperation in effecting resolution. And each takes responsibility for his or her own participation in the process.

Richardson asserts that differentiation is THE basic requirement for effective leadership. It calls leaders to define an emotionally separate self within relationship while still being deeply connected to others. It proceeds in love with full respect for the others’ individuality and desire to live in communion.

We’re accustomed to leaders being “take charge” individuals. But Richardson argues that one of their main jobs is to be a less anxious presence in emotionally charged circumstances. To do so, they must be:

• Aware of their own levels of reactivity
• Able to contain their own emotional reactions
• Separate feelings and interpretations from facts
• Act on the basis of their principled beliefs for the benefit of all
• Stay calm and focused without getting caught up in others’ reactivity

An effective leader helps the group become more objective and rational. He or she creates the space for the group’s accumulated wisdom and experience to rise to the challenge and discern a way forward.

Effective leadership tactics: Be calm and soft-spoken. Ask questions and show interest to foster curiously. Listen attentively, restating others’ perspectives to ensure you’ve understood them. Be open to (and respectful of) differences of opinion. Look for common ground on which to build. Don’t let discomfort force a rush to judgment or quick solution.

In my last post, I chronicled various ways in which our decision-making strays from pure logic. In The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less, Dr. Barry Schwartz looks at how our personalities impact the decision making process. He contrasts two opposing styles: maximizing and satisficing.

Maximizers are driven to make THE best possible decision and secure THE best deal. They spend a lot of time shopping. They unearth a broad range of possibilities, perform detailed comparisons, and deliberate at length until they’ve arrived at their decisions. Yet having made that grand investment, they are vulnerable to buyer’s remorse and may ruminate on “hypotheticals” that might have landed them in more favorable positions. And if their decisions prove to have been unwise, they take a long time in recovery. Objectively speaking, they make better decisions than other types of buyers. However, they tend to be less happy, less satisfied, and less optimistic than their peers.

By contrast, satisficers seek options that are “good enough.” With an appropriate air of superiority, maximizers label satisficers’ choices “mediocre.” Yet satisficers may be quite discriminating and expend a good deal of energy in the decision process. But they are good to go with choices that get the job done and don’t waste time and effort worrying about the “absolute best” option that might have slipped their notice. Decision made. Move on.

Of course, we’re not all pure maximizers or pure satisficers. In fact, we’re likely to be maximizers in some areas, and satisficers in others. However, we all tend to be nudged toward maximizing behaviors when concerned about status or fearful that our choices are somehow unalterable or life-changing. And we are also increasingly nudged in that direction by a proliferation of options.

In today’s world, we are overrun with choices. The average supermarket has tens of thousands of products. Cable television has hundreds of channels and competes with a dizzying array of entertainment on the Internet. A simple phone is no longer a simple phone nor are all the service options that go with it. And on and on. It’s a nightmare for maximizers and a powerful magnet for even the most stalwart satisficer. The net result: Americans lead the citizens of the world in time spent shopping, and we’re increasingly less gratified by the fruits of our labors.

Dr. Schwartz reminds us that time spent shopping and ruminating about our choices is time taken away from being a good partner, family member, friend, congregant, team player, etc. It’s also time taken away from being joyful!

Here’s his prescription for maximizing happiness in a world rife with choice:

1. Choose when to choose. Invest time and energy on things that really matter; shorten or eliminate deliberation on unimportant things.
2. Minimize your maximizing tendencies. As much as possible, opt for being a satisficer.
3. Stop thinking about the attractiveness of the choices you didn’t make.
4. Make decisions non-reversible. Pour your energy into valuing what you have.
5. Practice gratitude.
6. Regret less. And remember: A different choice may not have turned out any better!
7. Expect the natural loss of enthusiasm about purchases down the road. Nothing is quite as exciting once you’ve gotten used to it.
8. Control expectations.
9. Curtail social comparisons.
10. Set sensible constraints and stick with them. By following self-imposed guidelines, you can liberate yourself from having to re-hash the same (minor) decisions over and over again.

I like to think of myself as a rational decision maker. I define the scope of a given problem and the desired outcomes. I examine the available options and delineate the pros and cons. I weigh the options and then make the optimal choice. But I had my eyes opened years ago when my husband and I attended a seminar entitled The Emotional Side of Decision Making by the Stanford Business School’s Baba Shiv.

At the time, the prevailing wisdom on decision-making accounted for two factors: the hard data (e.g., size, style, price, performance) and “soft” factors (e.g., personal preferences, perceived status, one’s emotional state at the time). But Dr. Shiv’s research revealed that emotions are a separate – and crucial – element in decision making. In particular, at some point in the decision-making process, folks make emotional commitments to their choices. Thereafter, all further input runs through filters that support these subconsciously rendered “emotional decisions.” And this mechanism holds true for men and women.

While eye-opening, this phenomenon makes sense when we consider that the brain is fundamentally wired for keeping us alive. If we’re being chased by a wild beast intent on making us its dinner, we don’t want to spend a lot of time deliberating on the optimal path when arriving at a fork in the road. We want to commit and fully invest in the chosen direction.

Dr. Shiv also demonstrated that we make these “emotional decisions” relatively quickly. As a case in point, researchers took a close look at student evaluations of college-level courses. Such evaluations are routinely administered at the conclusion of the semester. But researchers decided to take a preliminary read on student satisfaction after one lecture, after 10 minutes of one lecture, and after a 10-minute video in which the volume was muted. It turned out that there was a very high correlation between all of these readings. In other words, professors have a really short amount of time to make a good impression!

In The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less, Dr. Barry Schwartz offers some other surprising insights about decision-making:

• We tend to give higher weight to a vivid personal story about a company’s offering than an independent analysis based on thousands and thousands of readers (a la Consumer Reports).
• We judge the value of an item in relation to “anchor” items. An $800 suit will seem like a bargain in relation to $1500 suits, but overpriced when surrounded by $500 suits. Ergo, companies often create a high-priced model for which they may get few takers so that their lesser priced items will seem all the more attractive.
• We love discounts and hate surcharges. Ergo, if we’re planning to spend $100 cash for an item, we’re happier being told that we’d get a $10 discount for cash from the regular $110 price than to find out that purchasers on credit will be assessed a $10 premium over the regular $100 price. Yet we’re still forking over the same $100!
• We tend to be risk-averse with respect to potential gains and loss-averse with respect to potential losses. Apparently, we don’t get all that much incremental satisfaction from maximizing a potential payout. But if we stand to lose something, we’re much more likely to engage in risky behavior to avoid taking the hit.
• In a similar vein, we don’t handle “sunk costs” very well. If we’ve paid money for something and it turns out to be a losing proposition, we’ll stick with it even if it causes us grief. This insight made me chuckle. It reminded me of a time when my husband and I went to a movie that we absolutely hated. I wanted to leave after the first hour; he wanted to get his money’s worth and stay to the end!
• Once something has been given to us, we are disinclined to give it back or trade it for something else. It becomes “ours.” That’s why companies don’t worry so much about offering money-back guarantees; they know that few people will take advantage of them!

All of the foregoing suggests that we aren’t as rational in decision-making as we might think we are. My take-aways: I’m going to be a little more aware of how companies market their wares to me. I’m going to pay a bit more attention to the inner workings of my mind and challenge myself with the cold, hard facts of a given situation. If I’m especially insightful, I may just notice what my gut is telling me… and why. And if I’m not happy with a decision, I’ll encourage myself to move on!

I served as a chaplain years ago at Rex Healthcare in Cary, North Carolina while completing several units of clinical pastoral care curriculum. A major focus of study was a discipline referred to as family systems. Its basic premise is that nothing happens in isolation within a family. Should one member undergo a major shock or change, there is a ripple effect across the entire system. It’s a bit like a mobile – touch one element and the entire structure wiggles and wobbles until it reaches a new equilibrium.

We used Dr. Ronald Richardson’s Family Ties That Bind as a reference text. It’s well worth a read even if you never plan to provide pastoral care. It creates a framework through which you can better understand yourself and your relationship to folks in close orbit.

Richardson reminds us that every family and every relationship has rules – whether spoken or unspoken. When members play by the rules, the family experiences harmony and balance. (The “mobile” is steady.)

Young children learn the rules overtly or through punishment for transgression, the most effective of which is withdrawal of affection. Because children are so dependent on their parents, they’ll suppress the objectionable parts of themselves rather than risk alienation. Home-grown family members tend to assimilate the rules readily. Members by marriage may face significant challenges!

Of course, no two people can share an intimate relationship without unearthing substantive differences between them. Difference evokes anxiety to a greater or lesser degree; sameness feels comfortable and validating. So, it’s not uncommon to put forth subtle (or not so subtle) cues to try and get our partners to be more like us. Unfortunately, our partners’ responses may not be forwarding:

• Compliant ones respond to the pressure by going along to get along. They stuff their personal predilections and behave as though there is no difference. While this approach creates the illusion of closeness, the parties never get the opportunity to know themselves or one another.
• Rebels fear conformity yet lack the security to move forward independently. They remain stuck in conflict with the party or parties against whom they’re trying to take a stand. The gap between the parties widens. And while fighting against the “other,” rebels never set their own goals and pursue their own paths.
• Isolationists withdraw – either physically or emotionally – because they cannot be close without experiencing a great deal of anxiety. They may feel powerless to change the dynamic and simply deny their need for connection.

As tensions escalate between a pair, one may attempt to establish a triangle with a third party, a group, or an issue. It allows for the formation of a coalition that brings further pressure on the “other.” It provides additional support and strength to the party who is feeling weak. Common family triangles include Father-Mother-Child (to control the child) and Grandparent-Child-Parent (to control the parent). The appropriate response to tension in relationship calls for doing the hard work of resolving outstanding issues one-on-one without bringing in third parties, outside issues, or so-called “experts.”

True intimacy challenges us to become well-differentiated, emotionally mature individuals. It means that we:

• Gain clarity on our own beliefs and needs without being defensive about them
• Maintain a sense of self when close to others and self-sufficiency when distant
• Appreciate and enjoy difference between ourselves and others
• Live by rules for relationship that make sense for us
• Use facts and feelings to communicate effectively
• Listen attentively and ask for clarification on others’ wants and intentions
• Negotiate resolution to differences without creating “triangles”
• Openly accept responsibility for our mistakes and make amends
• Refuse to play the roles of persecutor, victim, or rescuer
• Own our own upsets, distress, needs, etc. rather than blame others or circumstances for them
• Develop healthy ways to cope with anxiety

In Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, Dr. Carol Dweck makes a powerful argument that the views we adopt for ourselves profoundly affect how we live our lives. In particular, her research demonstrates a positive and substantial advantage to those who live with a growth mindset versus a fixed mindset.

Here’s how she characterizes the two:

Dr. Dweck develops these concepts in the context of achievement in school, sports, business, and relationships. For example:

• Great teachers believe in the growth of intellect and talent. They set high standards and teach a love of learning all the while nurturing achievement through purposeful effort.
• Great athletes with a growth mindset: (i) find success in doing their best while learning and improving; (ii) use set-backs as “wake up” calls to redouble their efforts; and, (iii) take charge of the process that brings – and sustains – success.
• Business leaders with a growth mindset constantly ask questions and confront the hard truths. They can look failure in the face while still maintaining faith in their organization’s ability to succeed.
• People with a growth mindset can understand, forgive, and move on when confronted by disappointment in relationship. Their fixed mindset counterparts feel the sting of rejection/judgment and may seek revenge to even the score.

At the end of the day, mindsets are just beliefs. Just because some people can do things better than others with relatively little effort does not mean that others cannot acquire those skills. Even artistic skills can be cultivated, as amply demonstrated by self-portraits drawn by inexperienced artists before and after a mere 5 days of training. We simply need to develop practices that open our minds and give ourselves the requisite time for our potential to flower… with effort and coaching, of course.

One final note: While we may have a growth mindset in one area of our lives, we may fall into the trap of a fixed mindset in others! We need to recognize the qualities that help us success in one area and apply them elsewhere.

The start of the new year feels like a clean slate on which I can architect a new me. And like ~40% of my fellow Americans, I’m drawn to the idea of making resolutions. Yet for all my good intentions, the data suggest that only 40% of resolutions last for 2 months, and a dismal 19% for 2 years.

I’ve written previously on the psychology of change, the science of habit formation, and the ADKAR system of change management. These posts are all worth a second look when contemplating lifestyle adjustments. I’m also a fan of Dr. BJ Fogg, a Behavior Scientist at Stanford University.

Fogg lists the Top 10 mistakes folks make when launching self-improvement initiatives:

1. Relying on willpower for long term change.
   From other research, I’ve learned that willpower is like a muscle that can get fatigued by excess use. Reserves get depleted by too much stress, too little sleep, too much temptation, and the like. For long term success, you need to conserve this precious resource and consider ways in which to support it.
2. Attempting big leaps instead of baby steps.
   Big changes require much higher motivation and a great deal more attention to behavioral triggers. While it can be done, it’s much easier to break big changes down to baby steps and build success upon success.
3. Ignoring how environment shapes behavior.
   When leading the same old life with all the same old triggers, it’s likely that the same old behaviors will emerge. To change your life, you need to change the context in which you live.
4. Trying to stop old behaviors instead of creating new ones.
   It’s hard to break free of entrenched habits. In fact, when the voice inside our heads says “don’t do X,” all we can think about is X! It’s much easier to groove a new pattern and think about doing it.
5. Blaming failure on lack of motivation.
   There are a whole lot of reasons why we have trouble sustaining change. The secret to success lies in making new behaviors easier to do.
6. Underestimating the power of triggers.
   Neuroscience tells us that triggers play a BIG role in the things we do. If we want to break bad habits – or forge new ones – we need to be attentive to triggers that set us in motion.
7. Believing that information leads to action.
   The psychology of change tells us that information supports individuals when they are coming to awareness of the need for change or contemplating making a change. Thereafter, it doesn’t provide much of a behavioral boost.
8. Focusing on abstract goals rather than concrete behaviors.
   Successful change starts with getting specific about the behaviors that will lead to desired outcomes. For example, it’s not enough to say, “I want to lose 10 pounds.” The plan needs to address how that weight loss will come about – e.g., cutting X number of calories out of daily consumption and/or increasing baseline metabolism by exercising vigorously Y number of minutes per week.
9. Seeking to change behavior forever, not for a short time.
   “Forever” is a daunting word. It seems like an insurmountable goal that brooks little tolerance for slip-ups. Alcoholics Anonymous understands this concept. The organization has helped thousands of individuals loosen the grip of addiction by practicing sobriety “one day at a time.”
10. Assuming that behavioral change is difficult.
    Fogg assures us that behavioral change isn’t hard when supported by the right process.

So how does BJ Fogg look at change?

In simple terms, Fogg tells us that we must Trigger the desired behavior when we are Motivated and Able to do it. All three factors must be factored into process design. He illustrates with a story.

Suppose you wanted to lose a bit of weight and improve fitness. Unfortunately, this New Year’s resolution combined with a gym membership have never gotten it done. So instead of the big lofty goal, try a simple behavioral pattern: Every time you go to the bathroom, do 20 abdominal crunches. “Get-Fit-Lose Weight” provides the motivation, the trip to the restroom provides the trigger, and the 20 sit-ups requires a bit of floor space. Groove that into a pattern for a while, then bump the reps…

What tiny steps might put you on the path to change?