PantsKicker.com

One form of reframing is making plausible interpretations that help. When you realize the first explanation you make of an event isn’t a good one, ask yourself, “What would explain this event equally well — but make me feel better or help me get more done?” We’re looking for a strong explanation of the event. Ideally you want your explanation to motivate you or energize you, or at least not bring you down.

For example, I found a great reframe in the book, Pain Free: A Revolutionary Method for Stopping Chronic Pain. Most people when they experience pain in their body think they need to rest. This is a natural response to an acute injury. But if the pain becomes chronic, people continue with this thinking, and the author says this is a mistake. When pain is chronic it is from what he calls “motion starvation.”

In other words, the human body needs to move in a variety of ways. Modern life doesn’t require that, so we often go days at a time moving very little (sitting at a desk, sitting in our car, sitting in front of the television, sitting in front of a computer), and what movements we do are in a narrow range. Over time, this motion deprivation causes pain.

The author reframed the cause of the pain. Rather than the usual explanation (if you’re in pain, you should rest), the pain is from motion starvation, and the solution is more movement or a greater variety of movement.

This reframe, this entirely different way of looking at the same thing (the pain) would cause the opposite kind of behavior.

The question is, of course, which frame is correct? We now have two different explanations for, say, a chronic back pain. Do you know which is the best explanation? If you’ve got back pain and you have just learned about this reframe, you really don’t know if it’s a better explanation or not, do you?

To find out which explanation is better, you’d need to find out which one has the better result. I’ve tried both explanations and the “motion starvation” explanation is the better one in my experience. Resting increases chronic pain; movement variety of the right kind decreases it.

A good reframe is a strong explanation of the situation — a way to re-interpret the situation so you are more effective, so you’re more likely to get the results you want.

For example, at one point in WWI, two million Allied soldiers were ordered to stop retreating and go on the offensive. This new battle raged for two days when Marshal Foch sent his general this message: “My center gives way. My right recedes. The situation is excellent. I shall attack.”

Foch had been in command of the center of the whole line, and his renewed offensive essentially saved Paris. He reinterpreted dire circumstances as a perfect opportunity, and we can now see, after the fact, that his interpretation was a stronger one (more effective, more likely to get the result Foch wanted) than the most natural one that would occur to most people in similar circumstances (namely, “we’re completely screwed”).

Military situations lend themselves to legendary moments such as these, when all seems lost and when demoralization means certain and final defeat. Morale is often the crucial deciding factor in military engagements (and in your own life).

In the 1950s Marines were completely surrounded by the Chinese in Korea (at Chosin). Someone asked Col. Lewis “Chesty” Puller if he realized they were outnumbered and encircled. “Those poor bastards!” he replied, “They’ve got us right where we want ‘em. We can shoot in every direction now.”

How’s that for a reframe? They could shoot in any direction and be sure of hitting the enemy because they were surrounded! Think about how that point of view would influence morale. If Col. Puller didn’t have a record of success behind him, of course, his men might have thought he’d lost his mind. But they knew he was an effective leader, and his attitude gave his men determination and fortitude. It was a strong interpretation of the situation. It made them more effective.

Contrast Col. Puller’s reframe with the natural and automatic reaction, “We’re completely surrounded and outnumbered. Oh my God! We’re gonna die!”

The soldiers didn’t know if they were going to die or not. It might have been likely, but that doesn’t make it certain. So this is a perfect situation for a reframe because you can’t determine the truth or falsity of any guess about the future. The only valid criteria for interpreting the event in those kinds of circumstances is to ask, “What will help?”

One point of view that would not help is, “We’re all going to die!” Col. Puller’s point of view worked a lot better.

Let’s look at another military example, this time from the Civil War. Unconditional Surrender Grant, as he became known during the war, often saw apparently bleak circumstances in a way totally different than his fellow officers. And this different way of looking was one of the most important keys to his amazing success on the battlefield.

Grant was once away from Fort Donelson when his officers and troops engaged in a brutal conflict, and when Grant returned, he found very low morale among his men.

When the Confederates attacked, they had been carrying full packs on their backs. Nobody had recognized the significance of that fact until Grant arrived on the scene. They were too demoralized to think straight.

Grant thought the only reason the Confederates would attack carrying packs is because they were trying to fight to get away rather than trying to win the battle.

In a dispatch, Grant pointed out that although his men were demoralized, “I think the enemy is more so.” He reframed the situation, in other words. He saw it from a different point of view than his officers. The Union troops were not merely demoralized and tired from the battle — they were fighting an enemy who was even more demoralized. And to Grant, that meant that whoever attacked now would probably win.

Grant had enough evidence for either point of view: Either they were defeated…or they could attack again and probably win. The question was, “Which was the most effective way to see this? Which way would bring the best results?”

Based on what he knew about morale, Grant made his decision. He rode his horse along the line of his disheartened troops, yelling out that the Confederates were trying to retreat, and he urged every man to refill his ammunition pouch and get ready to attack.

Fort Donelson fell. It was one of the most significant Union victories of the Civil War.

In war, as in many other challenging endeavors, morale makes the difference. And morale can be changed with a reframe. Demoralization can be transformed into steely determination and that is a powerful change to make on a battlefield (and in other difficult or challenging situations).

It was a particular talent of Grant’s to see things from the enemy’s point of view. War tends to generate fear, of course, and fear narrows your focus. Fear gives you tunnel vision. Soldiers tended to focus on their own dire situation and not see the big picture. Have you ever had that problem? Next time, try reframing your “dire” situation and see what happens.

Grant was often able to reframe circumstances by widening his point of view, by bringing in more of the scene, and many times this broader point of view made it obvious that the circumstances were less dire than they seemed (to a person with tunnel vision).

Once it was pouring rain, and when Grant rode up, Major Belknap anxiously told Grant their troops were in trouble because of the rain. The roads were hopelessly muddy, they could hardly move, and Confederates were close.

Grant replied, “Young man, don’t you know that the enemy is stuck in the mud too?”

Major Belknap hadn’t even thought of that. He had been so focused on the fearful and frustrating situation of his own troops, he’d forgotten that it was raining on the enemy too! His morale was immediately improved by this new reframe.

Try that next time you face an obstacle to your goal. Widen your point of view, and try to reframe the circumstances in a way that increases your determination.

Read next: Behold the Power of Reframing

Tags: a way of looking by Adam Khan
No Comments »

In the movie, The Game, Michael Douglas plays Nick Van Orton, the wealthy son of a wealthy man. The story begins when Nick’s brother (Sean Penn) gives Nick a birthday present: A life-changing experience, sort of like a personal-growth workshop, except it doesn’t take place in a classroom — it takes place in your life, and you never know who is an actor and what is real. The game is especially tailored to you and you never know what is staged and what isn’t.

The creators of the game make Nick’s well-ordered life completely fall apart. All the things he identifies with — his money, his calmness, his place in society — are taken away from him. His life is destroyed one piece at a time.

When Nick tries to find out if this is all part of the game, it appears the company was a big scam, stole all his money, and left town. They very realistically give Nick the impression they took him for everything he’s worth. He lost his mansion, his credit cards, his Swiss bank accounts. He was penniless.

While all this is going on, we (the people watching the movie) really don’t know what the truth is, and we see Nick going through all these miserable experiences and on the one hand we’re seeing it as anybody would — just miserable experiences and nothing more — and at the same time we are half-viewing it with the question, “I wonder if this is the perfect experience to teach him to be happier?” Because we realize these experiences are teaching him against his will to care more about people, to appreciate what he had, and for the first time in the movie, we feel he is actually engaged in his life. He looked deeply bored with his predictable life before the game started.

He was a snob who lived in a bubble and didn’t really experience real life or real connections with regular people. He needed nobody. But now he has no money, and he has to rely on the kindness of a waitress in order to get something to eat.

Is this a humbling experience, a potentially life-changing experience for Nick? Or is it merely misfortune? We, the viewers, really don’t know until the end of the movie.

Watching the movie was a great demonstration of a profound fact: That the same experience can be seen in at least two different ways, both of them equally valid. One way of looking at it only makes you miserable without any benefit. The other one helps you learn to be a better person, to have better values, and to be happier.

And of course, the thinking viewer will also eventually realize while watching the movie, that all of life is like this.

Someone might get an ulcer, and that is clearly just a hassle and he has to take medication that gives him dry mouth or whatever…or… this is an indicator-beacon that says change your life — the way you live your life produces too much stress.

With the first viewpoint, he just feels frustrated and that probably just makes his ulcer worse. The ulcer itself becomes another stressful thing to add to all the other stressful stuff in his life.

With the second viewpoint, he may feel motivated to change his life in ways that’ll make him feel better. The second viewpoint, the better one, the one that doesn’t come naturally to anybody but the most buoyant optimists, is a reframe.

The point of view you have about something is like a frame around a painting. You can take a painting and put it in an old beat-up frame and it looks like trash. Or you could put it in a fancy, museum-style frame, and it would have an entirely different feel.

Reframing means seeing the same situation in a different way. It means to see the same picture through a different lens. It means to see the same event in a different context. It means interpreting a situation a different way — in a way that makes things better. It means reinterpreting an event in a way that helps you feel better and get more done.

We automatically see (interpret, understand) the events in our lives in a certain way. You found out in Antivirus For Your Mind that it really helps to scrutinize the way you naturally explain setbacks and find mistakes in your explanations. You look at your explanations and ask, “Is it true?”

But sometimes you can’t answer that question. Either you don’t know or the answer cannot be known at all. That’s a good place to use reframing.

You must explain events. If you don’t do it deliberately, your brain will do it automatically. What explanation should you use? When you don’t know whether an explanation is true or false, what criteria should you use?

The only intelligent criteria to use in that case is, “How helpful is it?” Does your explanation help you feel better and get more done, or does it hinder you?

If you find your interpretation isn’t either true or false (either you can’t find out or there is no objective way to decide), and you find out it is definitely not helpful, unfortunately, you can’t just leave it at that. You have to come up with another interpretation. Your mind will not allow “no explanation.”

Your explanation can certainly be provisional — good until something better comes along, like a scientific theory — but you’d better choose your best explanation or your brain will do it for you.

In the next article we’ll explore how this can best be done: Grow Stronger With a Good Reframe.

Tags: a way of looking by Adam Khan
2 Comments »

Why does motivation fade? And what can you do about it? The question is answered in the section, Cultivating Fire: How to Keep Your Motivation High. Read the first post in the series here.

Tags: cultivating fire by Adam Khan
No Comments »

The most effective way to renew your motivation is to seriously consider giving up on your goal — not as a trick, but sincerely. Oddly enough, this can be extremely motivating. Why? Because it brings you back to reality. After all, this is your goal. This is not something you have to do; it’s something you want to do.

But too often a goal you are initially very enthusiastic about and want very badly becomes a drudging chore you feel you have to do. Why does this happen?

When you first create a goal, you see the big picture — you see the result, you see what you want — and you feel motivated.

Then comes the work. You make your list of things to be done to accomplish the goal. You realize it could take many years. You get to work on it, and of course, you hit setbacks. You get bogged down in details. You get bored with tedius parts. And you might even forget why you wanted the goal in the first place.

Your motivation wanes because your attention is no longer on the goal, no longer on what you want. Your attention is on the problems and on what you feel you have to do.

So you need to refresh your goals once in awhile. Do a kind of mental reboot. Start by seriously considering the possibility of giving up on your goal. Ask yourself, “Do I still want to achieve this goal?”

Every once in awhile, when you ask this question, you will find that in fact, you no longer want it — not because of demoralization, but because your values have changed, or maybe you’ve thought of something better, or whatever.

But most of the time, once you think about it and give yourself the freedom to give it up and start something new, you will find you still want your goal.

That realization, all by itself, can make you feel more motivated because now you don’t feel you have to accomplish your goal. Now you are freshly and vividly aware you sincerely desire it, and that’s a totally different feeling.

ONLY A PREFERENCE

One of the first principles of Albert Ellis’s work is to “upgrade your musts to preferences.” That is essentially what you do when you allow yourself the freedom to give up on your goal. Ellis uses the principle in therapy because it brings people back to reality. In reality, most of the things you feel you have to do are things you actually simply prefer to do (given the consequences one way or the other). But the feeling of wanting to do something is positive and pleasant, while feeling you must do something feels like drudgery.

So when Ellis does his therapy, he helps his clients realize some of the musts and shoulds that run their lives are merely preferences they themselves have chosen. This, all by itself, removes a lot of craziness from their lives. It gets rid of unnecessary negative emotions.

To give up your goal, to even consider giving it up, and then choosing it anew reminds you that your goal is a preference. It really isn’t something you have to do.

Someone might say, “No, I really have to, because if I don’t, I can’t make the mortgage.” But this is not entirely accurate. He does, in fact, have the option of selling his house and living in a small apartment.

“I can’t do that!” he says, “I have my wife and kids to think about.” But the truth is, he really could. And oddly enough, if there was something he wanted badly enough, his wife and kids would probably be willing to sacrifice luxuries for him.

But the point is, you often have many choices you are unaware of. You have choices you haven’t thought of. Why? Because you haven’t thought about it! You set your goal a long time ago, and now you’ve got your nose to the grindstone. You need to rise above your project once in awhile and look at the whole picture.

If you think about it, if you look at the whole picture, you may go back to the grindstone, but you’ll feel good about it now. You’ll realize you have chosen it. You will have the alternatives to compare it to fresh in your mind. And you will feel motivated. You’ll feel better and get more done.

SAME GOAL, DIFFERENT APPROACH

Sometimes you may feel like giving up because what you’re doing isn’t working. One alternative to giving up on the goal entirely is to keep the goal but change your approach. For example, remember I tried to lose weight but was unsuccessful? I thought, “I can’t seem to do it.”

But now I understand that the way I was trying didn’t work. The goal was possible after all, but the method I was using was doomed to failure, like trying to criticize someone into a good mood or trying to cure anemia by bloodletting. The philosophy of low-fat, high-carb dieting doesn’t work without a lot of self-discipline or social support.

In another example of this principle, a group of Norweigans were able to stop Hitler’s quest for nuclear weapons by continually changing their approach.

Hitler wanted nuclear weapons. But first he needed “heavy water” (deuterium oxide, D2O). Heavy water is like H2O but the hydrogen is replaced by deuterium atoms (which has has two extra neutrons so it is heavier than ordinary water).

After Germany invaded and occupied Norway, Hitler used a facility there to begin the work. Making heavy water required an enormous amount of equipment, and it took a long time to get a sufficient amount, as the heavy water dripped slowly to fill up the tanks.

The Allies found out about this project, and of course, wanted to stop it. The British proposed bombing the heavy-water plant, but it was so close to a town (Vemork), the Norweigian resistance fighters talked them out of it. It would create too many civilian casualties.

They still had the goal (stop Hitler from developing nuclear weapons) but their approach needed to change. Giving up the goal wasn’t an option anyone seriously considered. Hitler with nuclear weapons? It was unthinkable. So they came up with a different approach.

The British launched a commando raid, using silent gliders. But both gliders crashed, leaving 23 men alive. The Nazis captured the survivors and executed them.

That approach didn’t work. The Allies needed another plan. This was one of England’s top military priorities because they had good evidence Germany was close to building an A-bomb. With only one such bomb, Hitler could easily wipe out half of London.

Six Norwegian resistance fighters escaped Norway and volunteered for training in England for the mission. To avoid the fate of the last volunteers, they were all issued a rubber capsule of cyanide to pop in their mouths if they were captured. A soldier only had to bite on the capsule, and it would burst. Within three seconds, he would be dead.

The six volunteers learned how to handle explosives, worked out their plan, their timing, learned to make detonators, studied diagrams of the buildings and the nearby German military station, etc. This time they would leave nothing to chance. Hitler’s project had to be stopped.

The Norwegians parachuted in — and missed their landing spot by 20 miles. They tried to get to the rendezvous point, but were caught in a blizzard. They were supposed to meet four of their fellow sabateurs already in Norway.

When they eventually successfully got inside the building, they were able to set explosive charges that destroyed the heavy water cells. Success at last!

But the Germans rebuilt it within months. It was obviously high on their priority list also.

This was tremendously discouraging and alarming. That several-month delay, however, might have been enough. Nobody was sure. The United States was pressing for bombing the plant — this was too important to be left to luck. And finally it was done. British and American planes — 388 bombers in all — dropped 828 bombs. They devastated the plant, but unfortunately one of the places that was not destroyed was where the heavy water cells were stored!

The Germans decided the heavy water they had made so far was too vulnerable, so they planned to move it to Germany. For the Allies, this was their last chance. They couldn’t let the heavy water make it into Germany.

To get the heavy water out of Norway, first it had to be transported by ferry. Norwegian resistance fighters successfully planted explosives on that ferry, sending it (and all the heavy water) to the bottom of the lake. This was finally the end of Germany’s “nuclear dream.”

How many different approaches did they try on this single goal? Four times they created a plan, trained for it, mobilized the equipment and men, and executed their plan before they finally succeeded in achieving the goal.

If you find yourself in a similar situation — still wanting the goal but having failed using the approach you first came up with — you have another option besides giving up: You can come up with another way. You can use what you learned in your first failed attempt to wipe the slate clean and begin again, knowing what you now know, to create a new plan using a different approach. This is another way to refresh your goal.

WHEN YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT TO DO

Sometimes when you seriously consider giving up on a goal, you can’t decide whether you really want to or not. There are so many good reasons and feelings on both sides, you’re on the fence. You don’t know what you want to do. At times like that, the best answer is finish what you started. When in doubt, finish the job.

It is more efficient. You already have something invested in the project, and you have no better alternative. You may merely be in a temporary funk, and it would be foolish to give up on your goal.

I used to occasionally have what I called a doubt funk. It usually happened when I was in the middle of a big project and I started thinking there was a better use of my time; maybe I should be doing something different; maybe the project would fail; maybe my destiny lay somewhere else and I was wasting my time.

I never went into a doubt funk between projects. I’ve never had a problem thinking up new goals and feeling enthusiastic about them.

But I suppose it was “the grass is always greener” because no matter what I was working on, I could think of other projects that might be a better use of my time. I aborted a lot of perfectly good projects because of it. I still have several half-finished books sitting in my filing cabinets. Lots of projects of different kinds down through the years never saw the light of day because a doubt funk came along and deflated my motivation.

I eventually learned the way to handle doubt funks: Finish the project. That policy will get the most done with the greatest fun over a lifetime.

Half-finished projects are a waste of time. To spend all that time getting something halfway done and then stopping means all the hours spent on the project were wasted. And wasting time is demoralizing.

I got the answer to doubt funks when I read a true story about Dr. Archibald Cronin. When Cronin was 33, he was a doctor in London. Once in awhile, he had a doubt funk, thinking maybe he should specialize in a different kind of medical practice. He worried that what he was doing wasn’t good enough.

Cronin eventually developed an ulcer and his doctor prescribed the standard treatment of the time — six months “complete rest in the country on a milk diet.”

He went to a small farm outside a village in the Scottish Highlands. After about a week, this very energetic, high-strung man was climbing the walls. His mind was thrashing around for something to do. Then he realized he’d always wanted to write a novel if he ever found the time. He suddenly realized he had the time! So he began.

After three months of being engrossed in the project, he sent his handwritten pages to his secretary to type up for him. When he received his first chapter and read it, he was devastated. It was terrible.

He understood with clarity and certainty that he had no business trying to be a writer. He was defeated, demoralized, and embarrassed.

In his anguish and shame, he threw the whole manuscript into the trash.

Feeling glad and relieved that he had “come to his senses,” he went for a walk, where he ran into Angus, the farmer, and stopped to chat, as he often did. When Cronin told Angus what he had just done, Angus was silent for a long time.

Then Angus spoke. “My father ditched this bog all his days and never made a pasture.”

He stopped digging and looked at Cronin. “I’ve dug it all my days and never made a pasture. But pasture or no pasture,” said Angus as he pushed the shovel back into the bog, “I canna help but dig. For my father knew and I know that if you only dig enough a pasture can be made here.”

Angus kept digging. Doggedly. Relentlessly. Unmercifully.

Cronin stood there watching him, and while he watched he experienced an intense personal crisis and then a revelation.

Cronin saw his situation as the pattern he’d followed all his life: He would start off in a particular direction and never get anywhere because doubt would overtake him halfway through it.

And then he saw it as a pattern and revelation not just for himself, but for all of humanity. He wrote later, “In this present chaos, with no shining vision to sustain us, the door is wide open to darkness and despair. The way to close that door is to stick to the job that we are doing, no matter how insignificant that job may be, to go on doing it, and to finish it.”

Cronin stomped back to his room and pulled his manuscript out of the trash. He was angry and fiercely determined. He got back to work on the manuscript and would not stop, no matter what kind of doubt or frustration he encountered. He kept working until he finally finished the thing.

He randomly chose a publisher out of a catalog and mailed off the manuscript. Then he relaxed and recovered from his ulcer.

Just as he was preparing to head back to London, he received a telegram from the publisher: they were interested. Unbelievably, the manuscript he had once thrown away was published as a novel in 1931 (Hatter’s Castle) and sold three million copies. It was even made into a movie.

When you don’t know whether to give up a goal or finish it, the answer is the same for you and me as it was for Cronin: Go to work on the current project, determined and resolute, and finish it.

MANAGING THE PROJECT

After you finish your project, then think about what you want to do next. On your way to a goal, you will think of other goals. Write down those ideas and file them. Then get back to your current project. When you are finished and you’re ready to decide on the next goal, look to your file for ideas.

And make sure you take the time to choose your goal. Carefully weigh the possibilities. Make your decision a project. You may be spending a lot of time on your next goal. It is a very important decision. Don’t choose carelessly or on a whim. Take your time.

And when you periodically refresh your goals, give it some time. Take the time to consider your goal. Find out if you really want it. Most of the time you’ll be surprised to find you really do. That is one of the best ways of all to cultivate your motivation.

This is one of seven principles of Cultivating Fire: How to Keep Your Motivation High.

Tags: cultivating fire by Adam Khan
No Comments »