According
to Covey, almost all the literature in the first 150 years are so focused on
what could be called the Character Ethicas
the foundation of success - things like integrity, humility, fidelity,
temperance, courage, justice, patience, industry, simplicity, modesty and the
Golden Rule. The Character Ethic taught
that there are basic principles of effective living, and that people can only
experience true success and enduring happiness as they learn and integrate
these principles into their basic character.
But shortly after World War I, the basic view of success shifted from
the Character Ethic to what we might call the Personality Ethic. Success
became more a function of personality, or public image, of attitudes and
behaviors, skills and techniques, that lubricate the processes of human
interaction. This Personality Ethic
essentially took two paths; one was human and public relations techniques (or PR), and the other was positive mental attitude (PMA). Some of this philosophy was expressed in
inspiring and sometimes-valid maxims such as "Your attitude determines
your altitude," "Smiling wins more friends than frowning," and
"Whatever the mind can conceive and believe, it can achieve."
Other
parts of the personality approach were clearly manipulative, even deceptive,
encouraging people to use techniques to get other people to like them, or to
face interest in the hobbies of others to get out of them what they wanted, or
to use the "power look," or intimidate their way through life.
Some of
this literature acknowledged character as an ingredient of success, but tended
to compartmentalize it rather than recognize it as foundational and
catalytic. Reference to Character Ethic
became mostly lip service; the basic thrust was quick-fix influence techniques,
power strategies, communication skills, and positive attitude.[1] Thus, these practices overshadowed a lot of
professionals who overlooked the importance of character over personality. It is mainly because of these too many quick
fixes that men who almost always choose to look at the positive side of life,
without knowing it, are made weaker by refusing to acknowledge the other side
of the coin. It is through this premise
that this short research work is borne.
It aims to give insight at how the two paths of Personality Ethic -
public relations and positive psychology, while helpful at times, may be
detrimental some other times. And it is
my hope to expose us to some of the cognitive biases that hamper our growth and
to discuss the way our minds work in relation to these biases.
Cognitive Dissonance and Self-Deception
Neuro-Linguistic
Programming or NLP is one of the proponents of positive mental attitude or PMA
and positive communication (whether internally or externally). It presupposes that to let go of negative
feelings, we have to alter the way we look at a situation and focus on its
bright side. Some NLP books even suggest
that where another person's response or behavior surprises you, or irritates
you, or leaves you puzzled, you can (1) count all the blessings in your life;
(2) put on your most generous hat; (3) consider the other person's point of
view. This process, according to some NLP
books, can help you become happier, and become more accepting of people and
their idiosyncrasies with greater ease.
Propositions such as, "there is no failure, only feedback",
"having a choice is better than not having a choice" are often used
to help some people deal with their own anxiety. This positive psychology often suggests even
the use of positive words as much as possible to attract positivity. It also presupposes that the unconscious mind
can't process negatives (Don't think of an elephant!). It therefore directs the use of more active
and engaging words as a developing habit in daily communication. This practice has been helpful to many people
around the world and undeniably has become one of the most common tools in
counseling and personality development.
It is
not within the purview of this paper to talk about the advantages and the
disadvantages of NLP. However, on the
other hand, this paper aims to expose how the overuse of such practice can
serve to the disadvantage of one's being.
Failure to at least acknowledge the existence of a negative feeling or
to try to deal with anxiety can also harm our mental health. Some people with low tolerance for anxiety
and negativity may, unaware, use positivism to deceive themselves or even
others. This unawareness can lead to the
habit of self-deception. According to
Feldman in his book, The Liar in Your
Life, specifically, it (self-deception) helped validate a psychological
theory that has remained essential for over fifty years: cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance is one of the key elements to understanding the
mechanics of self-deception.
"Cognitive
dissonance" is the term psychologists use for the tension that arises from
holding two contradictory ideas in the mind simultaneously. For example, a man with high cholesterol
might know "I need to avoid red meat" but at the same time be faced
with the contradictory fact "I am eating a T-bone steak." The conflict between these two ideas, or
cognitions, as pychologists refer to them, creates the mental discomfort
labeled dissonance.
According
to cognitive dissonance theory, in order to resolve the dissonance the mind,
consciously or unconsciously, alters one of the two competing ideas. The man with high cholesterol eating the
stake might decide that he eats so little red meat that the steak shouldn't
count; or he might conclude that the evidence linking red meat to high
cholesterol really isn't so convincing; or he might add a new idea that helps
ease the tension, such as "After this meal, I will never eat red meat
again." These are the kinds of
rationalizations and conditions we all employ when we're doing something we
know we probably shouldn't be.[2]This same rationalization
may be used when we are trying to make something positive out of a negative
situation. Only in this case, a person
with low tolerance with a negative situation may convince himself or herself by
little positive delusions of grandeur to suppress anxiety. For instance, if you are a student who is
failing your subject, your mind may automatically convince you that all that's
needed to be done is to look positively at the areas of your grades with better
standing. This self-deceptive optimism can lead you to believe that you will pass
your subject. Instead of leading you to
verifying the aspects of your grades that need improvement, your mind
automatically justifies your situation because it may not be ready to find out
the truth about your failing grade. Your
mind helps you to suppress the anxiety that you may not be ready to deal
with. This kind of positivism is a form
of self-justification that allows you to retain such positive self-image. According to Feldman, psychologists and
researchers have found this need to protect one's self-image to be an extremely
powerful force in shaping our perceptions of the world. Only, the danger is when positivism clouds
reality. When positivism clouds reality,
we have what we call self-deceptive optimism.
It is when we give less attention to criticism than to praise. Feldman asserted that psychologists call this
phenomenon selective exposure. He added that we seek to minimize our
exposure to, and even avoid altogether, information that contradicts what we
think - particularly what we think about ourselves and we avoid information
that challenges us and embrace that which reinforces us.[3]
Unfortunately,
the habit of self-deception is practiced by all of us - knowingly or
unknowingly. Feldman also narrated the
memoirs of Scott McClellan who worked as the press secretary in the George W.
Bush White House for close to three years.
In 2008, McClellan published a memoir recounting his work for Bush. Titled, What
Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, the
book was less than flattering. In it,
McClellan asserts that President Bush was a victim (or practitioner, depending
on one's perspective) of self-deception.
McClellan writes, "As I worked closely with President Bush, I would
come to believe that sometimes he convinces himself to believe what suits his
needs at the moment." McClellan
describes how the president's tendency to bend the truth in his own mind had
costs for his policy toward Iraq and for the administration generally. For powerful leaders, Feldman added, the
necessity of maintaining an aura of strength and competence can make it
difficult to accept policy failure and mistakes. It goes back to the issue of cognitive
dissonance. Powerful people can have
difficulty reconciling their faith in their abilities with the fact of their
errors and evidence of failure is viewed as an anomaly in a larger picture of
success (or positivism); disagreement is regarded not as reasonable but as
mulish partisan resistance.[4]
(To be
continued...)
