The Secret and The Lies

Rhonda Byrne has just brought out a new book called The Magic. Her first bestseller was The Secret, and she followed this up with The Power, which said nothing very different. The Magic is perhaps the most honest title, because it says explicitly that there is nothing 'real' about her theories. Why, though, have they attracted such a massive following? Here's The Real Secret to her success.

We bought (and bought into) the The Secret by Rhonda Byrne because we are human, and therefore fallible. We were looking for happiness, or something; at the very least an improvement in our lives. So when we heard about this book called The Secret which has the answer, we thought, maybe what Byrne is saying is true ..maybe there is a secret way of getting everything you ever wanted... I’ll give it a try...what harm is there? Twenty million people can’t all be wrong? Surely?...and anyway I can find out for less than £20, so no great loss if it’s just a scam. 

So lots of us bought the book - just to see what it says  just to make sure we hadn’t missed out on something important that 20 million others seemed to know about.

We bought the book(s), and then we - most of us, surely - knew just how stupid we had been. How embarrassing. I hang my head in shame. But I hang it only once - some of you did it twice. Shame on you twice. Maybe you thought you weren’t doing it properly the first time...that's what she told us. If it didn't work, it was all our fault. I know, I know... it’s not easy. I forgive you.

According to Rhonda Byrne, these experiences are much more than mere coincidences. We apparently bought the book(s) because we were attracted to the message that they held for us. She claims the "Law of Attraction" means that whatever you experience in life is a direct result of what you think about. It really is that simple. If you think about being fat, you will get fatter. If you think about thin people, you will become thin yourself. If you think about your debts, you will get more debts, but if you think about how much you love money instead, you will attract money. Simples!  And very attractive.

You may not have known this but apparently your thoughts and feelings have magnetic properties and “frequencies". They “vibrate” and "resonate" with the “universe,” somehow attracting events that share those frequencies back to their thinker. That will explain cancer then - bad vibrations. And the Tsunami - negative frequencies. Let's not mention all those unfortunate people in Pakistan who drowned in the floods, or those currently inundated in Australia. They must have asked for it by thinking about it. Serves them right. Don’t you agree? No, of course you don’t, because it's obviously nonsense. What if a thousand people started sincerely visualising winning the lottery? They probably do, every week. Strange how only one or two ever win.

The Secret and The Power deliver their wisdom in a tone of voice that evokes The Bible on the one hand, and Albert Einstein on the other. The problem is, the message is neither religion nor  science. So why is this particular pseudo-scientific, quasi-religious and totally illogical concept so persistent and so attractive?

The first trick Byrne uses is what psychologists call “social proof.” People like to do things other people are doing because it seems to prove the value of their own action, and why advice seems more credible if it appears to come from many different people rather than one. The Secret is peppered with quotations from a group of about 20 “teachers” or “avatars,” many of whom are themselves popular self-help gurus  (so that’s why we bought the first book - they know what sells). In The Power, Byrne’s second book, she also quotes sages like Thoreau, Gandhi and St. Augustine. This ploy, an example of a related logical fallacy called the "argument from authority" is likewise very persuasive. After all, we like to take the opinions of those we consider better informed - like plumbers when our pipes leak, or doctors when our health fails (so that’s why we fell for the second book). 

Byrne also exploits our readiness to believe that we have a vast reservoir of untapped abilities just waiting to be released, if we only knew as much about how the brain and the universe works as she claims to. Byrne’s onslaught of pseudo-scientific jargon serves mostly to establish an “illusion of knowledge”. In psychological terms this is the tendency to believe we understand something much better than we really do. When it comes to scientific knowledge, we can safely say that Rhonda Byrne exploits this illusion to the full.

Lets have a look at her evidence. For example, in The Power we hear about one anonymous woman who left a long, abusive relationship and “never talked negatively about her ex-husband but instead gave only positive thoughts and words about a new, perfect, beautiful husband.” Sure enough, we are told, she soon met her “perfect and beautiful” new husband, and they now live happily ever after in Spain — which happens to be in Europe, the very continent the woman had dreamed of visiting. Good grief! Would you believe it? But we are never told the name of the woman or offered any proof that she existed, and most of Byrne's examples centre on her own experience

The intuitive appeal of such stories illustrates the human tendency to see things that happen in sequence — first the positive thinking, then the positive results — as forming a chain of cause and effect. This is even more likely to happen when all the stories we hear fit an expected pattern, a phenomenon psychologists call “illusory correlation”.

The powerful psychology behind these rhetorical tricks can distract readers from the dangers. Lucy has coached people whose self esteem has been severely damaged by their "failure" to manifest their desires. And what about the women with cancer I have watched die because they believed in the "Law of Attraction"? Yes, they died.

I worked as a radiotherapist treating cancer and I have watched women (always women) die because they read - and believed - in the so called Law of Attraction.

I’ve cried my eyes out in frustration and anger, but it’s useless to argue with books like The Secret and The Power. They demonstrate an exquisite grasp of the reality and falibility of human nature. After all, the only other force that could explain how Rhonda Byrne put two books on top of the best-seller list is the "Law of Attraction" itself.

There you have it - The Secret and The Lies     

Post by Annabel  

The Real Secret - what to do when the universe hasn't delivered everything you ever wanted is available in paperback and kindle on Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk

HOW TO GET RID OF BAD HABITS - THE ONLY WAY

"The chains of habit are too weak to be felt until they are too strong to be broken"

Samuel Johnson

Whilst the strategy of trying to distract yourself - by taking your mind off what you are trying not to do - appears to work fairly well when dealing with temptations, it appears that the same strategy is not effective when dealing with slowly learned, deeply ingrained habits.

Temptations are easy - just walk on by, or think of something else, or run away as fast as you can or just close your eyes when you see the temptation.This apparently works a treat. I say apparently. But not so for habits - they are a completely different order of difficult. Changing habits is very, very difficult. You can't run away from habits - habits are what you do, and who you are. Habits, unlike temptations, happen automatically, in many cases without our awareness.

So are we stuck hopelessly repeating our bad habits? Recent research by Quinn et al., (2010)* suggests not. They title their paper ‘Can’t Control Yourself? Monitor those Bad Habits’. Apparently, when it comes to deep seated habits what we need to do is focus on stopping the behaviour before it starts with what the researchers call ‘vigilant monitoring’. You need to keep an eye on yourself at all times. Monitor, monitor, monitor - the very opposite of distraction.

So that’s good news. The bad news is that even then it’s difficult. For long term success you’ll need to replace the old bad habit with a new good habit. Over time, the new habit might become sufficiently strong to be performed without requiring constant monitoring of the old habit. For example, a dieter’s self monitoring of unhealthy eating habits may promote long-term behavior change only insofar as it creates an opportunity in which to establish new healthy eating patterns. The problem - and dieters know this all too well - is that recurrence is one feature of habits that makes them difficult to change once formed. They keep coming back. Nonetheless, the monitoring strategy identified by Quinn et al., provides an initial handle on how to break unwanted habits.


*J.Quinn, A.Pascoe, W.Wood, & D.Neal (2010) Can't control yourself? Monitor those bad habits. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 499-511

Posted by Annabel

Why habits are so hard to break

In a previous post I wrote about how long it takes to form a habit. You can read it here if you haven’t already. In short, habits take time and repetition to form - sometimes a lot longer than the oft cited 21 to 28 day rule. So be warned if you think that habits are easy to break in less than a month, because they aren’t. For a very good reason.

Changing habits is hard because they serve a purpose. For example, you may drink too much alcohol not just because you have a habit for drinking alcohol every day (there goes the repetition) but because alcohol relaxes you, or perhaps makes you feel less anxious in company. There’s the good reason.

Habits are habitual responses to needs, and until those needs are recognised and addressed the habit will remain. What is required is a better way to feel relaxed and less anxious in company; a way that doesn’t ruin your liver or make you feel rubbish in the morning. Only when you can identify why it is that you have adopted this habit can you begin the task of changing the habit of drinking too much, or eating too much, or even smoking, which hitherto has been seen as a physiological addiction, but really isn’t (I’ll bore you with the science if you want - just post me a comment for details).

If you want to change bad habits, then you really need to look at what that habit is masking. If you can do that, then the challenge becomes a whole lot easier. Well, more than just easier - it becomes do-able. There really is no point in trying to break a bad habit without being aware, at the very least, of what that habit has been working so hard at doing for you.

So please, lets give habits a break; they deserve a better press. After all, the habit of brushing our teeth is a good habit. The habit of saying thank-you and please is also very good. The habit of smoking or drinking too much alcohol is not so good, but they’re only there because we couldn’t think of any better solution. It's not the habit's fault.

So what about good habits? Well, good habits become habits through repetition (again and again and again and again - every day for at least 18 days, an average of 66 right up to 254). Think of it as a prescription.

posted by Annabel

IF YOU WANT TO GO FAST, GO ALONE. IF YOU WANT TO GO FAR, GO TOGETHER

When it comes to intelligence, the whole can indeed be greater than the sum of its parts.  A new study documents the existence of collective intelligence among groups of people who cooperate well, showing that such intelligence extends beyond the cognitive abilities of the groups' individual members, and that the tendency to cooperate effectively is linked to the number of women in a group. So that when it comes to intelligence, the best of all groups is a group that includes a woman. You can read the details here.
It’s a great piece of research and very welcome because we need to be reminded of what we have always known, expressed in the Zulu proverb which heads this post. With the important proviso - that to get anywhere (worth getting), you need women as well as men. I knew that.

Annabel

Take note of that last para, Andy Gray, Richard Keys and Katie Hopkins.

Lucy
                 

Stay Happy, Live Longer

The idea that feeling good may be good for your health is not new. Three decades ago, Lazarus et al (1980), suggested that under intensely stressful conditions positive emotions might be protective. Whilst helping to sustain coping efforts, positive emotions also appeared to replenish vital resources that had been depleted by stress.

In a more recent review of the literature, Anthony Ong* of Cornell University looked at how positive emotions can influence health outcomes in later adulthood.

"We all age. It is how we age, however, that determines the quality of our lives," he says. The data he reviewed suggests that positive emotions may be a powerful antidote to stress, pain, and illness. Studies found that people with stronger positive emotions have lower levels of chemicals associated with inflammation related to stress.

Ong became interested in the study of positive emotion when he learned about what researchers call the paradox of ageing: despite the notable loss of physical function throughout the body, a person's emotional capacity seemed to stay consistent with age. Ong speculated that if positive emotions are indeed good for our health then, "one direct, measurable consequence of this should be the extended years of quality living." And that is what he found.

So there you have it - stay happy, live longer.

*Anthony D. Ong (2010). Pathways Linking Positive Emotion and Health in Later Life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, December 2010; vol. 19, 6: pp. 358-362.

Annabel

Saving Us From Ourselves - The Psychological Immune System

The thing I have always found most surprising about myself is my resilience. I suffer a rejection and a few hours later I’m OK about it. I go to bed upset and wake up the next morning feeling fine. I seem to have this default to equilibrium - I can’t keep feelings of rejection up for very long. I don’t seem able to hold a grudge. I’ve tried. I’ve even written post-it notes to remind me. DON’T FORGET YOU’RE NOT TALKING TO...

I’m not a happy clappy forgiving kind of person (just because I can’t hold a grudge doesn’t mean I can forgive easily). So can’t explain it that way. And no-one who knows me would ever accuse me of positive thinking. As a general rule I take the dim view. Nor do I seem to take it personally.  I could of course be a self serving, don’t give a toss what you think of me type of person. Only I’m not. What people think about me really matters to me. Perhaps that’s the explanation. But it’s not that either. I don’t think that highly of other people, least of all those who reject me. So how come I get over rejection so readily?

The puzzle is over. It’s taken awhile but I now know what lies behind my ability to get up when knocked down - psychologically, that is.

One of the most incredible things about the human mind is its resilience. We have a psychological immune system. When we experience events that have the power to knock us sideways, such as rejection, it kicks in to try and protect us from the worst of it. Interestingly, unlike the physical immune system, we seem not to notice it. There it is working away on our behalf and we didn’t even know.

Daniel Gilbert of Harvard University and colleagues explored this surprising phenomenon in a series of classic social psychology studies (Gilbert et al., 1998). They set up a situation almost all of us would be familiar with: going for a job interview and getting rejected.

First they led participants to believe they were going for a job interview but, beforehand, amongst other misleading questions, they asked them how they would feel if they didn't get it. Of course there was no job to get and they were duly told they didn't get it, then asked, again subtly, how they felt now.

What the researchers were interested in was the difference between how people predicted they'd feel and how they actually did feel. In other words: do people understand they have a psychological immune system and that it will be working to shield them from the downsides of rejection?

There was also another interesting slant to the study: half the participants were told they were being evaluated for the job by one person and the other half that they were being evaluated by three people. This meant that for the half that were evaluated by one person it was easier to rationalise a rejection since when there's only one person deciding it's easier to imagine the decision had more to do with that person's individual preferences. Being rejected by three people, though, feels like a more considered judgement.

Results showed that participants predicted that if they were rejected they would feel about 2 points worse on a scale of 1 to 10 compared with their mood when they started the experiment. Immediately after rejection those for whom the rejection was easy to rationalise only felt 0.4 of a point worse on the scale, not 2 points worse. And after 10 minutes they felt just as happy as when they started the experiment. The immune system had done its work and people's predictions were way off.

The news wasn't quite so good for the participants in the difficult to rationalise condition, but it still wasn't as bad as they expected. Instead of a 2 point drop on the scale of 1 to 10, they experienced a 0.68 drop immediately and 1.25  point drop after 10 minutes, once the rejection had really sunk in. The strain was much greater for the psychological immune system in this condition and it didn't do so well.

All the same, neither group felt as bad as they thought they would. And this pattern is repeated again and again across other studies. When we're knocked sideways by negative events such as rejection, the psychological immune system starts its work, rationalising what has happened and, over time, stopping it hurting as much as we expected.

In the same paper, Gilbert and colleagues report studies on people getting ditched by their partners, told their personalities were not up to scratch and academics failing to get tenure. The pattern repeats: people think it's going to feel bad, but generally it's not as bad as they expect, and people recover quicker than they predict.

The fact that we don't seem to notice our psychological immune system is probably the only reason it works. After all, in order to feel better we have to conveniently forget some important facts, such as how much we wanted the job we didn't get or loved the partner who walked out.

So it looks as if my ability to bounce back from rejection is just the sign of a healthy psychological immune system. I’m taking down the post it notes in case they remind me that I ought really to be feeling rejected and therefore miserable.

Posted by Annabel

Talking About Happiness

I was interviewed today by Helen McDermott at BBC Radio Norfolk about happiness, the new campaigning charity, Action for Happiness and the BBC's Happiness Challenge - and, of course, The Real Secret.

Helen claimed she was a glass-half-empty kind of person, and revealed that she had in fact experienced depression, which just goes to show that you often have to look beneath the surface as she comes across as positive and full of energy - even if coping with her new presenting role and the technical demands of the job meant she called me Lynn several times. I can't blame anyone for failing to pronounce "McCarraher" correctly, though - it sounds like "M'Carra", not the "MacCarragher" it reads as.

Anyway, if you want to hear the interview, and the quick tips for boosting your Happiness Set Point on a daily basis, you can listen here (interview starts at 4.45 minutes in):  http://bbc.in/h5Fm4B

Lucy