Make Your Mind More Positive and Spread it to Others

One of the easiest ways to make your mind more positive is to have the goal of trying to give sincere compliments. Flattery is easy. But giving honest, sincere compliments takes some effort, and part of the effort is paying attention to what you genuinely appreciate. Which means what? You're on the lookout for the good. You've got your attention on what you like.

It helps to set a goal for the day: "I will give three good compliments today." It sets your attention to look for things you appreciate all day long.

Doing this, you get the benefit of having your attention on the lookout for what you sincerely like, and that is a positive frame of mind.

But in addition, and more importantly, when you do this often, you start living and working in an environment that grows increasingly positive as the people around you begin to realize you are noticing and appreciating the good things they do. They are in better moods, and they are motivated to take more good actions. It creates a positive, upward spiral of good feelings and good actions.

To give a really good acknowledgment, you will have to take the time to think of something that isn't genetic or came about by pure luck, and that you genuinely appreciate. You'll have to dig in and find what you have been taking for granted that, if it was gone, you would really realize you would miss, and that, now that you come to think of it, you really do appreciate but have been ignoring. (Use comparison-reframes to help you with this.)

The reason you want to avoid complimenting genetic things is that it is best to compliment the choices and efforts people make. When someone chooses to put in extra effort to do something well, the choice and the effort is voluntary and therefore legitimately praiseworthy.

If someone was born with a fine-looking face, and you compliment their face, the compliment is not for the person, really, it is for their genetic luck. There is nothing to feel proud about in that, and the compliment somehow feels flat and emotionally meaningless. The person herself had nothing to do with the structure of her face, and cannot take credit for it. Or if she did take credit, it would be vanity, which is a far cry from personal pride.

However, if you compliment someone on the quality of their work, or the extra time they took to do something, or the kindness and consideration they showed in dealing with you, the compliment has some traction. It will have an emotional impact because it is truly meaningful and legitimately praiseworthy.

Also, the more specific you are, the better the compliment. "I appreciate how thoughtful you were when you responded to that woman, and how considerate you were when you answered her difficult question." That is a more specific and memorable compliment than something like, "Good job," or, "You're great."

Be specific about exactly what you appreciate. What did you see and hear, specifically? And why do you appreciate it? What does it mean to you? How does it make you feel?

So that is your mission today, if you should decide to accept it. Start to train yourself to focus your attention on what is good. Overcome your natural negative biases and start creating better feelings immediately. This mission is a great way to do that: Give three good compliments today.

Adam Khan is the author of Self-Help Stuff That Works and Cultivating Fire: How to Keep Your Motivation White Hot. 

The Science of Fasting: Now Streaming on Amazon Prime

It's called The Science of Fasting and it is available for streaming at Amazon Prime here. This is the description of the film:

"Young biologists from the University of Los Angeles have overturned conventional wisdom and used molecular biology to demonstrate the powerful effects of fasting. This research suggests a wide-ranging potential, which could include treatments for the disease of the century, cancer. If these scientists are right, maybe our approach to disease and treatment will need a rethink."

Coaching on Asking a Good Question

Here's a good method for asking questions (see more about using questions to direct your mind here): A good way to use the power of asking a question is ask it on paper and then make a list of answers. Ask the question and keep writing down answers. Set some kind of target — 100 answers, for example — and don’t stop until you hit the target. I think you’ll be surprised at some of the things you come up with, and probably surprised at how creative you are.

Or set a timer for a period of time, say an hour, and keep coming up with answers until the timer beeps. Pick one question, set your alarm, and jot down as many answers to the question as you can in that time. Don’t monitor your answers or judge them (yet). Just try to answer the question as creatively as you can.

The first few answers will be normal, predictable answers. But then you’ll run out of those, and your creativity will have to kick in.

When your time is up, go through and pick the best answers.

A freeform question-and-answer session can be productive too. By "freeform" I mean to ask whatever question comes up for you, and then answer it to the best of your ability. Then see what question comes up for you next, and then answer that one.

For example, this little freeform dialog happened when my first book was published and I was trying to get it for sale in bookstores. I hit several setbacks in a row and I was feeling disheartened. Yet the written dialog I had with myself lifted me out of my demoralized state within minutes. I felt strong and determined afterwards. My fighting spirit had returned. Here's how it went:

Q: Why do I feel sad and defeated?

A: It seems like all I do is stick my neck out, then people are mean to me, and then I feel like a loser.

Q: Why do I want to promote this book?

A: I want Klassy proud of me. I want to make a difference with my life. I want to sell lots of books. I want to make money.

Q: Would I be willing to gain those things if I had to pay for it by sticking my neck out, having some people be mean to me, and occasionally feeling like a loser?

A: Yes. Absolutely.

In that short time, I suddenly felt determined. My motivation came back. I remembered that every person I admired had experienced similar trials and hardships, and my line of questioning cast my setbacks in a new, more noble context.

The primary way of asking questions is to create a good question and then have it on your mind for several days or weeks, pondering it in your spare time. It's a good way to direct your mind, motivate yourself, increase your determination, and make lasting changes.

But the two variations I mention in this article can work more quickly. Either ask a question and challenge yourself to make a list of answers, or use a freeform question-and-answer technique. Any questions?

The above is an excerpt from a book by Adam Khan. See it on Amazon here: Direct Your Mind: How to Steer Your Mind to Work For You Rather Than Against You.

Feel Bad Less Often

I was recently visiting a friend of mine at his workplace. He looked at me with a smile that obviously wasn’t full of happiness. “I hate this job,” he said, “I’m getting to the place where I can’t stand these customers!” He was no longer smiling. “There’s no place for me to vent. I can’t tell off my customers. I’d lose my job!”

“John,” I said, “Let me tell you a true story. Once upon a time, a team of researchers wanted to find the best way to deal with anger. They experimented with children at school. In one group, whenever a child got mad at another child, they had him act out his anger with toy guns. With another group, they had the child express his anger verbally. In the third group, the researchers merely gave the angry child a rational explanation for why the other child did what she did. And you know what? The method that worked the best was the last one.”

“The rational explanation?” asked John, obviously needing a rational explanation.

“Yes. There’s been a lot of research showing that anger isn’t really something that ‘bottles up’ inside you, and that ‘venting’ doesn’t help — in fact, venting increases your feelings of anger. Isn’t that surprising? I didn’t believe it at first. But pay attention next time you ‘vent.’ It makes you more angry! Anger is caused by the way you’re thinking at the moment you’re angry, and it seems like it’s building up because you’re running those thoughts through your head over and over, getting madder and madder. But it’s the thoughts that make you mad, not the event itself.

“Imagine you’re in a restaurant with a friend,” I continued, “and you order dinner. Your waiter takes your order and goes on about his business. After awhile, you wonder where your food is. You look for your waiter but don’t see him. You’re getting angry. By the time your waiter walks up (empty handed), you’re really mad. ‘Where have you been!’ you demand, ‘And what happened to our dinner?’ The waiter says, ‘I’m sorry. I forgot to give the cooks your order until only a few minutes ago. I’m really sorry. The hostess just had an epileptic seizure, and I was calling the paramedics and trying to keep her from hurting herself.’

“On hearing this, what happens? Your anger disappears — almost instantly. Where did it go? If anger really bottled up inside you, it would still be there, right? You’ve had no way to ‘vent it.’ But you’re suddenly not the least bit angry. The idea that anger builds up and needs to be released is just another generally-believed idea that’s been proven wrong.

“The reason you’re suddenly not angry is that your anger was being produced by the thoughts you were thinking, and you’re no longer thinking those thoughts, so the anger is no longer being produced.”

“So what am I supposed to do?” asks John. He isn’t smiling, but he isn’t frowning, “When a customer is being a jerk, do I think to myself, ‘My customer is a nice person; I love my customer?’”

“Good question,” I said. “No. I doubt if that would work, because saying things to yourself you don’t believe doesn’t do much good. Have you ever tried it?”

“Yeah.”

“Did it work?”

“No.”

“Right. Sometimes it does, but not very often. What you need to do is question your interpretation. Don’t try to pump yourself up and tell yourself a bunch of positive stuff you don’t believe. Tear apart the negative. When you’re angry, you take your thoughts for granted. If you thought it, it must be so, right? You can trust your own thoughts, can’t you? But if someone else came up and said exactly the same thing out loud to you, you could take the statement apart no problem. But you said it, so you just accept it.

“You should treat the thoughts in your head with as much skepticism as you would treat the words of a fast-talking salesman. ‘Hold on there, buddy,’ you might say, ‘Slow down and say that again...(let him say one sentence)...Can you prove that? Who says? Has a study been done? Who conducted the study?’ You don’t take everything a salesman says at face-value. You question it. You should do the same thing with the thoughts you have that bring you down.

“As soon as you start arguing with your own thoughts, you’ll find it pretty easy to tear them to shreds because the thoughts you think when you’re angry are almost always exaggerations and distortions and unprovable interpretations. Almost always. Like 99 percent of the time. And when you take your thoughts apart, your anger disappears.”

John looked unconvinced.

“Give me one,” I said, “Tell me something you were thinking about a customer.”

“Let’s see...” John recalled, “This lady was being really condescending and the other people...”

“Wait,” I interrupted, “Let’s take one at a time. ‘The lady was being condescending.’ That’s a good one. Do you think you could argue with that?”

“Well...I don’t know.”

“Was she being condescending?”

“Yes. She was.”

“Are you sure? Can you read minds?”

“No. I guess it’s possible she wasn’t being condescending.”

“Maybe she wasn’t. How could you know for sure? Maybe you misread her tone of voice and body posture. It happens, you know. Don’t you hate it when someone misreads your tone of voice? It happens. Maybe you misread her’s. Are there other possible explanations for the way she was talking to you?”

“Yeah, I guess. Maybe she was in a bad mood when she came in and I had nothing to do with it.”

“That’s a good one. That’s certainly possible. Give me another one.”

“Uh...I remind her of her son, and she’s in the habit of being condescending to him.”

“That’s pretty good. You’re good at this. Both of those explanations have nothing to do with you. In other words, with either of those explanations, you don’t have to take it personally. And if you don’t take it personally, you’re probably not going to get angry. Can you think of another one?”

“Let’s see...How about: She was actually strongly attracted to me and had a hard time controlling herself and her effort to control herself looked like ‘condescension.’”

“Okay. Good. Now which explanation do you settle for?”

“Hmm...let me think...”

“None!!!” I say a little too loudly. “You have effectively destroyed your original interpretation—the one that was making you angry. You’ve proven to yourself that there are other equally possible theories to explain what you experienced besides, ‘She’s being condescending.’ Since you don’t know what the ‘real’ explanation is, you can just leave it at that. It is unknown. And when there are several equally possible theories to explain things, you won’t be too upset by any one of them. And you’ll feel better. And you’ll act more effectively because of it.”

“This is good,” he says, looking a little hopeful.

“It works really well. How do you feel now.”

“What do you mean?”

“Do you feel angry?”

“No.”

“See, it’s working already!”


MOST OF THE MEANINGS we make automatically are given to us during our upbringing. We’re using the meanings we’ve been given without ever suspecting we have a choice. We’re somewhat passive receptacles of the culture we grew up with.

We don’t realize our power to make meanings, so we don’t exercise it. But the meanings we make have a tremendous impact on our lives.

If you think when you and your spouse get mad at each other it means your marriage is on the rocks, that meaning will affect the outcome of your life. It will affect how you feel. If you become afraid of conflict because you think it means The End, and you avoid conflict (maybe you don’t speak the straight truth in order to avoid conflict), you’ll create misunderstandings. Things s/he doesn’t know about you will start accumulating. Confusion and distrust will accumulate right along with it. This, in itself can lead to what you feared: the eventual demise of your marriage.

The meanings you make have an impact on your life.

By experimenting with different meanings, you can improve your attitude and ability to handle problems in your life because a different meaning gives you different feelings and different actions, and that gives you different results in your life.

Meanings are not facts. When a meaning causes you dysphoria or ineffectiveness, question it. Make up other meanings.

You’re in the driver’s seat.

Adam Khan is the author of Antivirus For Your Mind: How to Strengthen Your Persistence and Determination and Feel Good More Often and co-author with Klassy Evans of How to Change the Way You Look at Things (in Plain English).

New Podcast, Episode 7: Girl Raised By Monkeys

This is a true story of a five year-old girl who was abandoned in a Columbian jungle and was sort of adopted by a troop of Capuchin monkeys. She lived with them until she was 10 years old. Listen to The Adam Bomb podcast here:

70 Percent of the World's Dryland Areas are Desertifying

According to the U.N., 70% of the world's dryland areas are desertifying. Why does this happen? And why do most fixes fail? Managing Wholes answers these questions:

The word desertification was first used in 1949 by the French geographer Andre Aubreville to describe the change in North and equatorial Africa from productive savanna forest, grasslands, and shrublands into unproductive desert. Compared to the 2000 slump in tech stocks or the September 11, 2001 attacks, desertification is not an issue for most North Americans.

Massive erosion during North America's Dust Bowl years (1931-1938) has been blamed on inappropriate use of technology (ploughing the prairies), overpopulation in the affected region, and lack of rainfall. Many people believe that the problems related to the Dust Bowl have been solved--by resettlement of some of the remaining population, the establishment of National Grasslands and the Soil Conservation Service, government spending and regulation, and the return in most years of "normal rainfall."

Yet the United Nations reports that Texas and New Mexico are some of the fastest, most severely desertifying areas of the world. We have lots of names for this problem: droughts and floods, weeds, overgrazing, wildfire, endangered species, and the chronic downtrodden state of the agricultural economy (in spite of massive subsidies, enormous technical improvements, and overseas markets). These are problems for that tiny sector of the economy known as agriculture. We have separate government agencies in charge of each of the symptoms.

However, these "rural problems" turn into urban problems. Where do our families come from? In North America we are usually not more than three or four generations away from the land. In Nigeria, the abandonment of the countryside for the cities is much more recent.

According to the U.N.'s Kofi Annan, "drought and desertification threaten the livelihood of over 1 billion people in more than 110 countries around the world." Reports the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification, "70 percent of the world's drylands (excluding hyper-arid deserts), or some 3,600 million hectares, are degraded."

In 1992, Rhodesian wildlife biologist Allan Savory came to a startling conclusion. Most experts on desertification blame overpopulation, overstocking with livestock, overcutting of trees, poverty, warfare, inadequate technology or education, the tragedy of the commons, or shifting cultivation. In West Texas, where Savory was working at the time, none of these causes were present. Rural population was declining, livestock numbers were way down from earlier decades, mesquite trees were encroaching, and there was peace. Money, technology, and education were abundant, all land was privately owned, and there was no shifting cultivation. Yet West Texas was desertifying as rapidly as the worst areas of Africa or Asia.

Savory concluded that the decision framework that most people use, and in which they are unconsciously trained, is well adapted to treat symptoms, but to leave the causes unaddressed. Savory was forced to conclude that the lack of a holistic decision framework was the fundamental cause of human-induced desertification, in both ancient and modern times. His book Holistic Management: A New Framework for Decision Making (1998) is a simple and dedicated attempt to provide a usable alternative.

By 1992 the United Nations Environment Programme had spent US$6 billion treating the symptoms of desertification, with another $450 billion called for. Though some people are skeptical of the U.N.'s figures for the rate at which productive land is turning into unproductive desert, the reality worldwide is that land deterioration continues to have a serious impact on the quality of people's lives. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to understand the causes of desertification and loss of biodiversity and to support the numerous practitioners of cost-effective, successful approaches. It is our premise that the common denominator of these approaches is that they consciously seek to manage wholes, rather than just parts.

The above is from the Managing Wholes website, which is full of articles that detail success, and explanations of the background knowledge and skill that enables people to succeed--in spite of powerful habits, training, and conditioning that tend to keep most of us operating in linear or conventional decision frameworks.

Huge New Study on Red Meat: It Doesn't Harm Your Health

Date: September 30, 2019

Source: McMaster University

Summary: Contrary to previous advice, five new systematic reviews suggest that most people can continue to eat red and processed meat as they do now. The major studies have found cutting back has little impact on health.

Read the whole article here: No need to cut down red and processed meat, controversial findings suggest.

Here are some excerpts:

A panel of international scientists systematically reviewed the evidence and have recommended that most adults should continue to eat their current levels of red and processed meat.

The researchers performed four systematic reviews focused on randomized controlled trials and observational studies looking at the impact of red meat and processed meat consumption on cardiometabolic and cancer outcomes.

In one review of 12 trials with 54,000 people, the researchers did not find statistically significant or an important association between meat consumption and the risk of heart disease, diabetes or cancer.

In three systematic reviews of cohort studies following millions of people, a very small reduction in risk among those who had three fewer servings of red or processed meat a week, but the association was uncertain.

McMaster professor Gordon Guyatt, chair of the guideline committee, said the research group with a panel of 14 members from seven countries used a rigorous systematic review methodology, and GRADE methods which rate the certainty of evidence for each outcome, to move from evidence to dietary recommendations to develop their guidelines.

"There is a worldwide interest in nutrition and the issue of red meat in particular. People need to be able to make decisions about their own diet based on the best information available," he said.

Bradley Johnston, corresponding author on the reviews and guideline, said the research team realizes its work is contrary to many current nutritional guidelines.

"This is not just another study on red and processed meat, but a series of high quality systematic reviews resulting in recommendations we think are far more transparent, robust and reliable," said Johnston, who is a part-time associate professor at McMaster and an associate professor of community health and epidemiology at Dalhousie.

The accompanying editorial by authors at the Indiana University School of Medicine said: "This is sure to be controversial, but is based on the most comprehensive review of the evidence to date. Because that review is inclusive, those who seek to dispute it will be hard pressed to find appropriate evidence with which to build an argument."

Other researchers involved in the work included those from the Netherlands, Poland and Spain, including the Iberoamerican Cochrane and Polish Cochrane centres and the guideline committee included lay people as well as the scientists. Dena Zeraatkar and Mi Ah Han, a visiting professor from South Korea, also had leadership roles on the McMaster team working on the reviews.

There were no primary external funding sources.