What's Wrong With Self-Help Books? - The Daily Beast

Megan McArdle has some interesting observations in What's Wrong With Self-Help Books? - The Daily Beast. If I can fairly summarize her thesis this attitude towards self-help books stems from intellectuals’ elitism: they are so intelligent and above it all that they don’t need to heed the pedestrian advice offered in these books. She could be right.

I also think there is a strain of anti-individualism and determinism behind this sentiment too. If I could put this attitude in words it would be: How dare you think that you can help yourself in this crazy, complicated world? It’s too complicated for you to grasp and you’re fighting a futile battle against over-powering forces. You need the advice of your superior intellectual elite and the solace of the collective. It takes a village to raise a child, doesn’t it? I believe we can affect the wisdom of the decisions we make and the path we chart by reading the advice of some authors then making our own well-informed choices. My goal isn’t to defend that position here. It would take a book (or books) to do that.

Do some (or many) self-help books over simplify? Sure! Are some based on anecdotal as opposed to scientific studies? Yep. Are some just plain wrong? Of course. I’m not saying you blindly accept anyone who manages to get published. There are good self-help and bad self-help books, just as there are good or bad books in philosophy, history, politics, economics, and so on. And we naturally tend to pick authors who share our basic beliefs. A Christian will tend to read books written by a Christian self-help author and avoid an atheist’s screed. And vice versa.

I’d love to be able to spell out criteria for choosing the wheat out of the chaff but I’d say if it can be done it’s a job for someone far smarter than me. Maybe it’s a job for one of our intellectual elite! Just kidding. My goal is here is to simply note this bias against self-help books and offer an observation on the reason behind it.

Saving the New Year - Megan McArdle

This post by Megan McArdle doesn't at first glance appear to fall in the category of self-development and yet I feel it's worth sharing for her basic advice. 

Saving the New Year - Megan McArdle - Business - The Atlantic

The important thing is to pay yourself first. Savings should be the first thing you do, not the last. After you've saved, then you budget your consumption. I won't tell you what to cut, because when you confront your new, slightly leaner budget, you'll be perfectly able to calculate what's no longer worth the money to you. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that after a few weeks or a few months of initial pinch, you won't remember that you miss the money much.

Practical Wisdom: The Master Virtue | The Art of Manliness

This article nicely handles the subject of practical wisdom.

Practical Wisdom: The Master Virtue | The Art of Manliness

Willpower

This article in the Boston Globe nicely summarizes a book I just finished reading, Willpower: Rediscovering The Greatest Human Strength by Roy F. Baumeister and John Tierney.

He and others have also identified a host of things that can drain our willpower, including hunger and fatigue, while neuroscientists are struggling to understand exactly how the brain’s higher reasoning center - the prefrontal cortex - manages conflicting wants and needs to help us make the right decisions. The reason for all this interest? Willpower, it turns out, is one of the most important predictors of success in life.

I found this book interesting because it says something different from the self-help books I’ve recently read. Several books I’ve read talk about making change easier by offering tricks, tips and tactics to accomplish the desired change. However these books don’t explicitly say that you still need to by exert willpower to initiate whatever actions you do take. Applying their tips still starts with a decision to do something and the will to actually do it enough to see a change.

Video Critique: Steve Jobs (Stanford Commencement, 2005) Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish

Because I give many presentations as part of my job I've read a number of books extolling Steve Job's style, and rightfully so. Here is an interesting critique.

Video Critique: Steve Jobs (Stanford Commencement, 2005) Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish

Winning Body Language Review

I've read a number of books on body language so when I started to read Winning Body Language I expected just more of the same. I was wrong. Mark Bowden, author of Winning Body Language, offers some different advice than the usual based on his own approach called the TruthPlane.

Bowden divides our body into different planes, each of which is best suited for different kinds of communication. For most presentations (and communication) Bowden recommends that our gestures stay in the TruthPlane, the horizontal plane extending from the navel.

If you can concentrate on sending out nonverbal messages that are easy for the receiver to interpret correctly – clearly coded, with congruent images and sound – then the audience’s brains stand a far greater chance of relaxing and getting your meaning in the way you intended.

The navel is indeed the control center of your physical balance and the center of your biological mechanism for coping with stress.

Placing your hands in the TruthPlane is the single most effective way for the business communicator to fight back effortlessly against the natural stress reaction and send out a clear signal to the audience that there is no problem.

While most of our gestures would occur in the TruthPlane Bowden also proposes other planes: PassionPlane at chest level for adding excitement, DisclosurePlane at the mouth level, ThoughtPlane (eye level) and EsctaticPlane (above the head).

All of these planes can be used at appropriate times while there is one plane, the GrotesquePlane (below waist level), where he says we should avoid placing our hands. Bowden claims this lowers energy. This contradicts advice I've seen in a couple other nooks which recommend dropping your hands to your sides when not gesturing. As a test I've paid attention to TV hosts who don't work behind a desk, politicians and actors. Many of them gesture mostly in the TruthPlane. I don't know if they were trained to do this or if they just do it subconsciously but my informal survey showed that many people use Bowden's TruthPlane.

He also suggests we use symmetrical gestures to make your message easier to process.

For a message that you send to stand the optimum chance of being interpreted correctly by the audience, it must be taken in coherently by both the left brain’s linguistic logic and the right brain’s nonverbal image processor. This means gesturing with more symmetry between the left side and the right side of the body.

Winning Body Language covers more than just giving presentations. It also talks about how to establish your territory in a room, how to break down barriers to communication and how to structure a presentation. While all of this information is good and useful I found the TruthPlane concept, the core of Winning Body Language, the part I apply the most. And that's the plane truth about the TruthPlane.

A Loser's Winning Moment by Jason Gay

I like this article on the Nadal-Djokovic Wimbledon final. After his introduction which says how easy it is to handle winning Gay says: "But do you really want to prove yourself, to be all-time and great? Learn to lose. Lose beautifully, with class and humility. Lose like Rafael Nadal."

Further on he says:

One of the great aspects of the Nadal-Federer era is that it demolished the myth that nice guys finish last. This isn't to say the rivals don't possess bountiful egos—they do—but there has been an encouraging layer of generosity and civility to the competition. It's a little pathetic how refreshing this is. Too often, antisocial behavior in sports is excused as a side effect of championship determination.

I agree. This was one of the things that bothered me when the Williams sisters were dominating woman's tennis. When they lost they often didn't give credit to the play of their opponent. I remember seeing at least one victory speech in which one of the Williams didn't even acknowledge their opponent. I have to say that this was several years ago. I was pleasantly surprised more recently when Serena graciously handled a loss.

I'm not saying we should like losing. I certainly am not happy when I lose a tennis match. But there is nothing to be gained by belittling your partner or concocting an excuse for losing. If my goal is to improve (which it is) it won't help my effort if I deny why I lost. I'm preventing learning important lessons that could help me play better. And I also do believe my opponent is a partner at least at the level of social sports which for most of us is what we're engaged in. We're not earning our living, landing endorsement deals or vying for trophies when we play sports with friends and colleagues. This is why I used the word "partner" earlier in this paragraph. We're testing each other, partly in order to grow and improve while also enjoying the battle. The fact that Nadal, Federer and others can handle losing as well as they do supports the sentiment expressed in the first quote from Gay.