A Game of Failure

As you probably know by now, I am a big fan of baseball. So why not take a minute, and honor #2, with a post. Yesterday was a big day. It was the very last game in the illustrious career of the New York Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter. In no universe am I a Yankees fan. But, I do admire excellence. And I am a firm believer in learning wherever I can. For this reason, I would listen to anything “The Captain” has to say.

Last week, I saw an interview, on the NBC Nightly News, with Jeter and Brian Williams. (You can see it here.) It was a nice tribute to a sure-fire Hall of Famer. But, there was one thing, in particular, that caught my attention. During the interview, Williams asked, “You've had so much success yet you always call (baseball) a game of failure. Why is that?” Jeter replied, “You fail seven out of ten times, people think you're great. So, it's definitely a game you have to learn to control your emotions.”

What I think Williams and Jeter were doing was trying to make light of the quirky essence of baseball. And I believe it's an extremely useful lesson. I think it's wise to reconsider our shared misconception of failure.

I would venture a guess that the majority of adults have a fear of failure. I know I do. Perhaps this fear is a part of the indoctrination we receive during formal schooling. Who knows. What I do know, as is usually the case, how we got here is less important than where we're going.

It seems to be the case that we were put on this earth to grow. Stated differently, I believe that growth is the human imperative. When we aren't growing, when we aren't becoming more complex individuals, we suffer all sorts of maladies.

The kicker is, it is in the nature of growth, and improvement, that we will fail. The old cliché, of learning to ride a bike, is a useful one. Because no one ever gets it right the first time. Falling down is part of the process. We can't succeed if we refuse to fail. It's one of the best paradoxes you can memorize. The paradox says, “The biggest failures I have ever met, are people who have never failed.” Think about it.

What's important to know is that whoever, or whatever, created us was a genius. Brene Brown is a psychologist who has been making a lots of waves lately. I am a big fan of hers. I paraphrase an excellent quote of hers when I say, “We are wired for struggle.” Let me explain.

As I have already mentioned, I believe growth is the human imperative. And we can't have growth without struggle. Hence Brene's quote. And this is where the human creation is so genius. As it turns out, we are wired to experience joy after we struggle. Now that's about as paradoxical as it gets!

Let me give you a specific example. This example comes from two eminent psychologists, one Hungarian and the other Turkish. These two psychologists were studying chess players. As it turns out, the world of chess has an excellent rating system which very accurately measures the abilities of the various players.

This rating system allowed the psychologists to run a very interesting experiment. The question that came up was the following, when are chess players most enjoying themselves? One might suppose that a very good player, who wins the majority of her matches, would be having the best time. However, it turns out, this is not the case.

What the psychologists discovered was quite profound and I think it might help explain why Derek Jeter loves baseball so much. It was discovered that chess players experience the most enjoyment when their opponent is, on average, 12 % better than they are. That might not seem like a very big deal, but it is. Because the lesson it teaches us is completely counterintuitive.

You see, what happens when you opponent has a rating 12% higher than yours, is that you lose the match three times as often as you win it. Meaning, for every time you win a match, you lose three others. This is kind of crazy. It gives hard evidence to the notion that we are wired for struggle.

Derek Jeter and Brian Williams seemed to have been waxing inquisitive on the humorous nature of baseball. And, I agree, it is rather funny to think that a person could enjoy failure. But it's totally true. As a matter of fact, I don't think baseball would be our national past time if a player got a base hit in the majority of his at-bats. Meaning, if a player were to bat .800 I think baseball would be a bore.

Rather than being bizarre, I think we are intuitively drawn towards the chance to fail. If a player improved his average from .800, to .850, it would probably be greeted with a yawn. However, when a player moves from .250 to .300 they go from being a no-name to being an all-star. Also notice the correlation between chess and baseball. When a baseball player hits around .250 to .300 he “loses” to his opponent two to three times as often as he wins.

When we succeed most of the time, we tend to get bored. We're actually more drawn to challenges because we subconsciously know they pay bigger dividends. And, when we're able to change our perspective on failure, we're able to control our emotions when faced with this most important precursor to success.

Get Action

This past week PBS aired a seven-part, documentary series called The Roosevelts. Did you get a chance to see it? I think it was quite good. It was produced and directed by Ken Burns, the guy who did the Baseball documentary back in 1994.

In the first episode, much is discussed about Theodore Roosevelt. Burns titled this first episode, “Get Action.” The title comes from something Teddy's dad used to say to him. Theodore senior used to say, “Get action. Do things. Be sane. Don't fritter away your time. Create. Act. Take a place wherever you are and be somebody. Get action.”

A life of action, that's what the elder Theodore was prescribing. And, it is exactly what Teddy did. But, let's first make a point about another president. Abraham Lincoln. What we know, and has been well-established, is that Lincoln battled severe depression. It's quite a story. Lincoln is arguably the greatest American President in all of history. And, to rise to such heights, in spite of debilitating depression, is truly an impressive feat. What not a lot of people know is that President Roosevelt had demons of his own.

Not a lot has been said about TR's depression. Picture this. The date was February 14, 1884. Valentine's Day. In an unbelievably sad turn of events, Teddy lost both his mother and his wife on the same day. His mother succumbed to typhoid fever. And, later in the day, his wife died of kidney failure. A mire two days after giving birth to the couple's daughter. The pain must have been unimaginable.

Apparently, in spite of all the suffering, Roosevelt was able to out run his sadness. TR listened to his father's advice and kept on the move. For example, he traveled west, and spend a fair amount of time in North Dakota. Basically living the life of a cowboy. Additionally, the documentary revealed a rather startlingly statistic. While in office, TR wrote 150,000 letters, by far the most of any President. To put that number in context, Thomas Jefferson wrote the second most letters. Jefferson's total was 22,000. Busy busy!

This probably isn't something you haven't considered before. After a romantic breakup, or financial reversal, hopefully you're fortunate enough to have friends that help keep you busy and occupied. Staying busy can help keep our minds off the pain. It seemed to have worked for Theodore Roosevelt.

Regardless of whether or not you've thought about it before, it is good it be reminded of the importance of taking action. It's important to remember to not sit around and dwell on our misfortunes. This story also points out the fact that no one is free from grief and sorrow. Not too many people have experienced a greater calamity, than that which befell TR, in the early part of 1884. Most of our troubles are comparatively mild. Good reason to be thankful.

Always remember, whatever it is you do, don't think too much about it. If you're sad, take action. Hopefully with a good friend. If you're feeling afraid, take small baby steps and the fear will pass. If you're angry, go for a walk. Action doesn't necessarily cure our emotional issues. But it does bring a welcome respite. If things get too intense, you might consider doing therapy.

“Get action. Do things. Be sane.” Old advice. And good advice.

Perfectly Imperfect

How do we get to become perfectionists? I'm not sure. But, I know I'm guilty of it. As a matter of fact, I know a lot of us are. It's a terrible waste. Let me share what I've learned.

I have learned, at least in my life, perfectionism is really just a euphemism. When someone is a perfectionist I think what's really going on is they're fearful of making mistakes. As I inspect my life, and my business, I have been able to identify my perfectionist streak. And, truth be told, what's really eating at me is a fear of screwing up.

Can you relate? When people are fearful our main coping mechanism is avoidance. I once heard it said that, “Avoidance is the hallmark of fear.” I have clearly recognized that truth when it comes to building my business. The fact of the matter is, to build a business, self-promotion is required.

JB Say was a French economist in the early 19^th Century. He created what has come to be known as Say's Law. To paraphrase the “Law” it basically says that supply creates its own demand. It's kind of what Emerson was saying, around the same time, when he said something to the effect of, “Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door.”

Say's Law may have been true two hundred years ago. However, today, it certainly is no longer the case. Nowadays, if you wish to build a thriving business, you have to let people know you exist. You have to promote yourself.

When it comes time to self-promote I often find myself falling into a perfectionist trap. My mind plays tricks with me. I spend too much time planning what I am going to say, and not enough time saying it. Do you know what I'm talking about? It's so silly, and so funny. If I haven't had my promoter hat on for a while, it usually takes me a day or two to snap out of my perfectionist ruminations.

Little reminders such as, “You can't say the right thing to the wrong person,” do help. I have also placed little notes, around my office, to remind myself that my tendency is to try to be too perfect. Truth be told, I'm simply afraid of making mistakes, and this holds me back.

I also think about the fact that being perfect actually backfires. I mean, do we really admire perfection? Or, does it tend to just piss us off? I think it's the later. I don't think we can really relate to perfection, so I think it's more aggravating than anything. You know the type? The person who always acts as if they're life is flawless.

We know we all screw up and we all makes mistakes. When someone comes across too perfect it tends to remind us of our own warts. And, nobody likes that. I think this perfectionism thing leads to an interesting paradox.

I think we should strive for perfection, all the while knowing that we will never get there. It's a paradox because, why would we work towards something we can never attain? Of course, the reason is because it's the striving that matters. Perfection isn't really the goal. It's just a way to keep striving. We'll never reach perfection so we'll always have something to move forward towards.

Perfection is a big, big goal. That's where it's useful. It's useful to the extent that it staves off complacency. However, when it comes time to do something, when it comes time to take action, an insistence on perfection will totally backfire. That's why I recommend being perfectly imperfect. It sure helps me.

Cheerio!

Timeless Truths

Last week I spoke of my frustration with Mehmet Oz. Here it is. Hopefully you didn't misunderstand. I imagine Dr. Oz is a nice guy. I guess my beef has as much to do with the nature of television as it has to do with Oz. The fact of the matter is, TV shows that aim to get to the heart of the matter don't pull very good ratings. And, as we know, ratings dictate advertising rates.

Sure, sometimes we might watch the Discovery Channel or National Geographic. But not often. When was the last time you watched something on PBS? Can you name even one program on PBS? Probably not. Most people think PBS is boring.

It all ends up being a weird kind of conundrum. A ethical dilemma. People want exciting and sensational stories on television. They want to be entertained. They want to be surprised. So, is it wrong to give them what they want? I think that is an extremely difficult question. And, I don't know that there is a right or wrong answer. But it's still worth considering.

If we are going to give people what they want, I think it is also ok to anticipate their prejudices. Yes, we all have prejudices. Let me give you an example. Just so you know, I am stealing this example from Malcolm Gladwell.

There once was a man, and his son, driving down an old country road. The man lost control of their pickup truck and crashed into a ditch. During the crash, the man was killed instantly. Soon, an ambulance appeared and took the son to the hospital. In the emergency room, the attending physician took one look at the boy, gasped, and said, “This is my son.” Who is the doctor?

It's not an easy puzzle, is it? If you are like most people, you are having a hard time coming up with an answer. It's totally natural if you are stumped. Have you even thought that God must be the doctor? I hear that all the time. But, no, the answer is not God. The answer actually becomes quite easy when I point something out. Most people get stumped by this puzzle because most people have a prejudice which believes that all doctors all male. That's right. The doctor is the boy's mother. You prejudice devil you!

Most people assume that doctors are male. Most people also assume that medical doctors are honest, accurate, and can be trusted. Trust is the key word. Societies operate on trust. One of the reasons the United Stated of America is such an advanced country is because of its high levels of trust. Whenever someone violates the public's trust, they need to be penalized.

So, there are really two elements at play here. On the one hand, I do not appreciate the looseness of the Dr. Oz Show. Meaning, Oz plays fast and loose with the facts. And I think Oz does some damage to the trust we have for doctors. Another issue is the nature of television. Very simply, the incentive structure rewards outlandish behavior, and anything else that will keep people's attention. Stretching the truth, and making people scared, are two effective tactics.

I'm sure 99.9% of all American households have a television set. Even without the sensationalism, watching TV is the way we prefer to focus our attention. Have you ever thought of it that way before? It's true. It's a subject that is discussed in my favorite book of all time. The book is called Flow and it was written by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.

Flow fits into the category of what I would call “timeless truths.” The book was published in 1990 and it is even more applicable today than it was back then. The book is so deep, I could spend a long time writing about it. For now, let's just talk about one of the lessons that come from Flow.

Have you ever heard it said that an idle mind is the devil's playground? I'm sure you have. It's an old statement because it's a wise statement. A mind left to ruminate usually focuses on things negative. We all know this. But, did you know that is exactly why we watch so much television? What we are doing is we are using TV to give us something to focus on. Something to occupy our mind.

Television has been around for decades. During this time, the producers of TV shows have become experts at getting us to watch. We have all heard of the Nielsen Ratings. Getting more people to watch your show increases your rating. Increased ratings allow you to charge advertisers more to run ads during your show.

People tend to want to be entertained. We don't care much for timeless truths. By airing salacious scandals, and other voyeuristic gossip, TV producers can draw you in. It's basically hard-wired into our brains. When humans lived in small tribes, gossip was a very useful activity. It was the way the tribe could enforce compliance.

We no longer live in such small communities but our brains are still wired for gossip. The thing about gossip is that it is often incorrect. Conversely, schools and places that lecture on timeless truths, are a new invention in the history of mankind. Our brains are not wired to sit and listen to people expound upon timeless truths. We are naturally more inclined to be grabbed by news about who's doing what to who. That is it say, we're attracted to gossip like moths fly into flames.

To my way of thinking, reporting on scientific research that is debatable, and still in its infancy, is a form of gossip. There is lots of gossip out there, but it's rather shallow. If you insist on discussing inconclusive research, please don't call yourself a doctor. This is important because lots of people are watching. We can't help ourselves, TV is simply an activity preferable to playing with the devil.

Oz the Wizard

I am officially fed up with Mehmet Oz. If I needed heart surgery, I would consider using him. Other than that, he doesn't have much to tell me. This has to be said because I hear so many people talking about things they learned from the Dr. Oz Show. In turn, naturally, I recorded some episodes and took a listen. What I saw was not very impressive.

A couple weeks ago I talked about the human tendency towards complexity. Here it is. Related to our proclivity for complex strategies is our tendency towards newness. Meaning, human are drawn towards novelty. In fact, we have a specific, and powerful, emotion that deals with new or unexpected things. That emotion is surprise.

As you probably know, humans habitualize just about everything. We live in a complex world and our brains can only handle so much. To free up computing power we form habits and routines. These habits and routines allow us to not have to consciously think about what we're doing. If you are driving to work, via the same route you've always taken, your subconscious is able to do most of the work.

The problem with becoming so use to our surroundings is that it can put us in danger. When an event takes an unexpected twist, it's a good thing the subconscious brain has a protection mechanism. That mechanism is the emotion of surprise. Whenever we're surprised we snap to immediate attention. Whatever caused us to be surprised gets our full and undivided attention. This is important, it helps keep us alive.

One of the ways the subconscious mind keeps us safe is by being programmed to scan the environment for new events and new phenomenon. If we don't recognize the changes around us we can be put at risk. Though we may not be aware of it, our brain is vigilantly, and constantly, scanning the environment for anything out of the ordinary. Anything new. Mehmet Oz knows this and he is exploiting us for his benefit.

Perhaps you heard that Dr. Oz was recently called to appear in front of the United States Congress. The reason for this appearance was because he has made exaggerated, and unsubstantiated claims, about weight loss products. I won't elaborate on this issue. If you want to, you can read articles online. What bothers me is something else. Though it is related to weight loss, it's something that very few people are talking about.

A while back Oz talked about something called “obesogens.” The idea is that an obesogen is a environmental chemical, which we ingest, and it causes us to get fat. Now, of course Oz would talk about this subject because Americans are obsessed with weight loss secrets. The problem is most of these gimmicks don't work. And, when these secrets don't work, it can make people mad. If enough people complain, you might end up in front of Congress.

What disturbs me the most is the fact that the research on obesogens is still in its infancy. It is far from conclusive. But that didn't stop Mehmet Oz. Nope. He discussed the subject as though it is a well established fact. It's not. There's still an article, on his website, which I refuse to link to, that talks about obesogens. And, like a slimy little devil, it's full of the words “can” and “could.”

Don't get me wrong, I'm not naïve. I understand how television works. The news is constantly reporting on research projects without the slightest bit of context. Because the news programs, and Dr. Oz, are not paid to tell you the truth. They get paid to sell advertising. They are paid to keep your attention. I know that might sound a little cynical but, you know it's true.

Think about it, if Oz told you timeless principles, and truths, he would soon run out of material. And then you wouldn't pay attention. By talking about everything new thing, even if it is false, the doctor always has something to discuss. What's more, he can manipulate your emotional circuitry to keep you watching. Dr. Oz's goal is to keep you surprised and scared. Two powerful emotions that will keep you watching. And will allow him to sell his advertising slots for more money.

I understand how the game works. But that doesn't make it right. The biggest issue is that Oz is presenting himself as a doctor. And, while it is true that he has a medical degree, Dr. Oz's specialty is cardiology. Have you ever gone to a cardiologist with a skin problem? I doubt it. And, if you did, I hope that doctor refused to answer your questions. I hope that doctor referred you to a dermatologist. Because that's what good doctors do. They understand their limits and they stay within the lines.

The problem, of course, is that if Dr. Oz stuck to his area of expertise he would bore you to tears. How long could you possibly listen to a discussion about the heart? I don't imagine it would be very long. So, Oz ventures out into territory that he doesn't understand very well. And, it makes sense that he would do this. It's all in the incentive structure. As I've stated, Mehmet Oz is not rewarded for getting you healthy. His reward comes from advertisers with deep pockets.

It is not my intention to be negative or mean. If you have a health issue, by all means, consult an expert. You might also want to read up on the subject. One great resource would, of course, be books. Most books do not contain advertising. The goal of a book is to get things right so that more people will buy the book. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works on television. It's time for Dr. Oz to either get more honest or be called on the carpet more often.

By the way, one might note, this blog does not contain advertising. I am committed to avoiding this (sometimes) perverse incentive structure. I'm not against advertising. I'm against some of the things it can motivate people to do. It can make a good doctor become deceitful.

Confidently Humble

Which should you have, lots of confidence, or lots of humility? It's a trick question! Why not have both? Is that even possible? I think it is. As a matter of fact, this is an idea that goes all the way back to Socrates and Plato. (If I tricked you with that first question, I wonder if you even read the title of this post.)

Lately, I have been paying attention to a lot of the wisdom coming from a couple of Stanford professors. Their names are Jeff Pfeffer and Bob Sutton. I wrote about them in this post: The Knowing-Doing Gap. And, today, I walk to talk about what Sutton calls, “The attitude of wisdom.”

According to Sutton, the attitude of wisdom is about being simultaneously confident and humble. It's about knowing what you know and having enough confidence to act. While, at the same time, being comfortable enough with doubt that you remain open to learning. The attitude of wisdom is about being confident and humble. Perhaps confidently humble.

Many times in life we need lots of confidence to get the job done. Confidence is a good thing. However, when that confidence goes too far, and turns into arrogance or hubris, things start to backfire. This is when we close our minds to feedback. We shut ourselves off to learning and improvement. I know I have made this mistake. Thinking I had it all figured out. Yikes! It's a recipe for disaster.

Being very confident and also very humble, is a paradox. It seems to be a contradiction. And, I think the main reason I like to write about paradoxes is because I'll never run out of material. When it comes to resolving paradoxes, the challenge will never end. I think striking the right tone, between confidence and humility, will take a lifetime of practice. This all relates to one of my very favorite paradoxes, “The more you know, the more you know you don't know.” So true. And so humbling. I think that sentence sort of sums up the attitude of wisdom.

There's a guy out there, named Al Pittampalli, who is talking about the idea of being persuadable. What he found is that there are lots of book written on how to become more persuasive. But, there exists a paucity of books on how to be persuadable. The attitude of wisdom would suggest that we need to be both persuasive and persuadable. However, like Pittampalli says, to be persuadable requires humility. And often times, in our culture, humility is conflated with weakness.

How about one last paradox? Whether you like him or not our President, Barack Obama, says some pretty interesting things. In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama talks about some of the things he does when he feels his own hope fading. Being a public servant can be a thankless job and the president is not immune to doubt. To strengthen his resolve, Obama reflects on Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and the people, “who ultimately laid down their lives in the service of perfecting an imperfect union.”

Those last four words are what got my attention, “perfecting an imperfect union.” It's kind of like a paradox. It's kind of like what Robert Browning said about how a man's reach should exceed his grasp. I hope, and I believe, that America has this attitude of wisdom. I think it takes a pretty high level of maturity to be confident in America's greatness and still understand that she has room from improvement. I think we should all strive to perfect an imperfect union. Be it the United States of America. Or, be it our very own marriage.

I think we are pretty familiar, and comfortable, with either/or decisions. That is why I asked the question at the beginning of this post. But, I also believe we are capable of operating at a higher level. A level where we recognize and solve paradoxes. It's something I wrote about in this post: Operate at a higher level.

The Logic of Suicide

I think it is safe to say that suicide is one of the most traumatic events in all of human existence. But, I don't believe that should preclude us from discussing the subject. This post ties together the three elements of work, emotions, and paradoxes.

On the face of it, the idea that suicide is logical seems contradictory. It seems unacceptable. It doesn't make sense to most of us. However, to the person who commits the act, the decision contains its own logic. The fact that we may not understand does not mean the sufferer has not thought things through.

It may seem weird but suicide actually does relate to work and to business. Often times a company will think that their customers, or prospective customers, are acting irrationally. The producer of a new product, or service, usually has a picture, in his or her mind, of how their creation will be accepted by the market. And, as it turns out, things usually turn out other than planned.

Some years ago a company created motorized bicycles, to be sold to low income individuals, in third world countries. A fair number of bikes were sold but then something bizarre happened. All of a sudden, a lot of orders came in for just the motor. Meaning, people didn't want the whole bicycle, they just wanted the motor that powered the bike. This didn't make any sense.

The producer of the motorized bikes knew that these poor people needed reliably affordable transportation. They also knew that the motors were durable and could last a long time. They should not being breaking down. What's more, if consumers tried to take the motor, and attach them to their existing bicycle, they would spend much more than if they simply bought the preassembled product.

What were these crazy customers doing? Were they poor and dumb? This sort of scenarios plays out quite often. Most the time the producer tries to force the issue. Since the manufacturer often sees no use for a motor without a bike, they can be quite insistent that the customer is wrong. Then they refuse to sell the motor without the bicycle. That is a bad mistake.

As luck would have it, this particular company was wiser than most. Instead of pushing forward, against these “stupid” customers, the company went out and looked around. They went to see, with their own eyes, why these silly peasants didn't want the entire bike. What they found surprised them.

People were using the bicycles, to get around, but they also didn't mind pedaling themselves. So the motorized bikes weren't a huge draw. However, humans are ingenious and these customers found a better use for the bicycles. As it turns out, there exists a bigger headache than pedaling yourself around on a bike. The bigger challenge is transporting water.

The majority of the people, who bought these motorized bicycles, were indeed low income. And, the way they make the little money that they do is by farming. Many of them would farm rice. As it happens, rice requires extensive irrigation. It requires a lot of water.

What these poor and “dumb” people discovered was that the motor, from these new bikes, could be rigged up to propel water and irrigate their fields. This was something they wanted! Pedaling a bike is relatively easy. Watering your rice fields can be a real pain in the butt.

To this company's credit, they went and looked at the situation. In a moment the company changed course and got into the farming business. They adapted the motors and sold them specifically to water the fields. Most companies don't do this. People tend to be more stubborn. Instead of accepting that their ingenious invention is more useful somewhere else, most people refuse to change. They simply conclude that people are crazy or irrational. They continue producing what they want to produce instead of making what people what to buy. This is a big mistake.

Peter Drucker once said that there are no irrational customers, there are only lazy producers. And, as usual, Peter was right. Instead of assuming people are crazy it's better to assume people are pretty smart. Your customers are fully capable of thinking. And, when they do, they come up with some wild stuff. No producer of bicycles could have predicted that their real success would come in farming. And, because they are so committed to bikes, most producers would be unable to exploit an opportunity that lay right before their eyes. Most people wouldn't even try to look. Then there are those that would look and they would see what is happening. Yet they would still decide to continue making bicycles.

In a weird way, this brings us to suicide. The majority of people, who commit suicide, are suffering from depression. Depression is an emotion. It's kind of like sadness on steroids. And, suicide is, sometimes, the paradoxical solution. Thankfully we have people like Martin Seligman.

Seligman is a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. In 1967 he was conducting experiments with dogs. In one condition the dogs were repeatedly administer a shock and, understandably, they jumped to a new location were there was not shock. In the second condition the dogs were again shocked. But, this time, they could not move to escape the shock. Before long the dogs realized there was nothing they could do and they stopped trying to avoid the shocks. They had learned that they were helpless to change their situation.

This became known as the theory of learned helplessness, and it's a really big deal. I won't get into it here but this experiment completely upended the world of psychology. Until this point, psychology was dominated by Skinner's theory of behavioralism. The behavior of these dogs violated the prediction of the behavioralist theory. Seligman's insight ushered in the age of cognitive psychology.

That's not the end of the story. A third experiment was ran on these dogs. This time, once again, the dogs were given a safe zone. Meaning, they were able to escape the shocks. But something really interesting happened. Even though the dogs could escape the shock, many of them chose not to. They were simply resigned to their lot and they sat there enduring the shocks. Meaning, the dogs had come to learn, to believe, they were helpless.

Seligman would argue, this is what is usually at the center of depression. Over time, depressed people have come to believe there is nothing they can do to fix the problems in their life. They suffer. And they can suffer for a long time. Eventually, some come to believe the situation will never improve. They get stuck. And, this belief gets stronger and deeper every day.

Some people come to believe there is nothing they can do. They believe they are permanently stuck in misery. For some of these people death is the only way to end the suffering. And, that is what they choose. As paradoxical as it is, some people come to believe that death is the only way to end suffering. This is the logic of suicide.

Please understand, in no way am I advocating suicide as a good option. I was simply trying to illustrate that people are logical and they do think things through. This story has more to it that you must hear. Suicide does have a logic, but it also has a mistake. In the majority of situations there is a way to fix the problems of life.

The majority of people, who choose to end their own lives, had problems that could have been fixed. I'm not saying they didn't try. And, I'm not saying fixing problems is easy. But, for whatever reason, this particular person couldn't solve this particular problem. This is where it becomes extremely important that we destigmatize depression. As it stands, a lot of bias swirls around what we call “mental illness” (a term I am not a fan of.)

Nobody wants to be labeled “crazy” or “mentally ill.” Often for pride, and other understandably vain reasons, people who are suffering do not reach out for help. As I've said, most problems can be fixed. However, when a person repeatedly tries, and fails, the problem is compounded. Instead of believing the problem is difficult, this person can start to believe that he or she is defective or is a failure. It can easily become a downward spiral.

Not even for one second am I suggesting that I have all the answers. The reason for this post is very simple. It breaks my heart to see people believe they are so stuck that they give up on life. We all have problems, some worse than others. Just because a person is having difficulty with their struggles, does not make them crazy or mentally ill. As a substitute I guess I kind of like the term “troubled.” Maybe we should says that the person is “troubled” or “has troubles.” I really like that second one. To me, “has troubles” suggests impermanence. And, most problems, most troubles, are not permanent.

Don't get me wrong. I am as guilty as anyone. I have called people crazy before. And I have, hopefully, learned from my mistake. What I've learned is that I called someone crazy when I didn't know much about them. What I've learned is that, before we label a person crazy, maybe we should take a lesson from a bicycle manufacturer. Maybe we should go out and look. Maybe we should try to understand.