Learned Optimism by Martin Seligman

[Divide by Zero]

I've been reading a book that came up in a Corbett report video about learned helplessness called Learned Optimism by Martin Seligman.
https://www.amazon.com/Learned-Optimism-Change-Your-Mind/dp/1400078393

Learned helplessness caught my attention in seeing the state of the world and how the PTB have been trying to control us.

I was also interested because I have been feeling a bit powerless in how things are cascading in the world and would like to be able to properly integrate the Stoic practice of not personalizing it. I figured that this personalization is related to learned helplessness that society tries to impart on people that don't "go with the masses".

The experiment Seligman did to discover learned helplessness was as follows:
3 groups of dogs were put into 3 different situations.


Group 1
Shock administered, but a button was able to be pushed to stop it
Group 2
Shock administered, but the button was false- it only stopped shock when group 1 pushed theirs - so no direct control for group 2
Group 3
No shock administered

They later took these dogs and put them in a box with low barriers, so the dogs could hop out of the box when shocked.
Group 1 (the shocked who could control) and group 3 (unshocked) groups quickly decided to escape the box when shocked.
But the depressing thing: Group 2 would lay down and whimper!

More tests were run to make sure that it was not just conditioning as the behaviorist Skinner would explain as the cause of this. Skinner was the authority on this and it turned out his ideas did not explain it! It was a shock to the study of behavior!
It was narrowed down that this was due to the "learned helplessness" imparted onto group 2, because they did not have any control of the shocks- in fact control was outside them (from group 1).

But they dug deeper and found some dogs would be helpless by default, even if they were in the groups that gave control or no shocks at all! There were also some dogs that never became helpless even when put in the shock without control to stop group!

This lead Martin Seligman to see that there is a learned optimism that could be trained.
I myself have shied away from books on optimism as I have read many in the past and they seem to not really help- as many self help books fail. But this book had an interesting discovery.

The explanatory style that we use to explain good or bad can be used to judge whether we will be one of those dogs that are helpless, become helpless easily, or are resilient. This explanatory style can also be reformed through cognitive therapy which helps us reframe the NARRATIVE we use to explain good things or setbacks. Sounds interesting, to give us a framework to redo our narratives!

The test from the book is here https://web.stanford.edu/class/msande271/onlinetools/LearnedOpt.html
and the simple explanation is below as to what they mean.

Permanance of good or bad - temporary or permanent
Bad things-Permanent would be pessimistic, temporary would be optimistic.
Good things-permanent would be optimistic, temporary would be pessimistic


Pervasiveness of good or bad - universal or specific
Bad things- Universal is pessimistic, specific is optimistic
Good things- universal is optimistic, specific is pessimistic


Hope, which is deemed very important is the Pervasive Bad and Permanent Bad score added up. It determines whether we can face bad things without being "destroyed"


Personalization of good or bad- is related to self esteem- internalizing or externalizing
Bad things-Internalize would be pessimistic, externalize would be optimistic
Good things-Internalize would be optimistic, externalize would be pessimistic


The personalization measurements are quite twisted. It's actually "good" to blame bad on others, but to take good as result of the self. Sounds like modern day narcissism, lol. But Seligman explained that if used with awareness, we can still tweak these in order to fight helplessness- instead of use it to excuse bad behavior or bad judgement.


Final scores:
Total bad is PmB+PvB+PsB
Total good is PmG+PmG+PsG
The score G-B is the total good minus total bad.

 

[Divide by Zero]

The latest chapter I've been reading about halfway through the book deals with optimists and pessimists versus REALITY!


As Seligman progressed, he wondered about why pessimism remained despite being harmful in many ways.


It turned out that pessimists are much more accurate at seeing reality as it is.


Optimists externalize losses (give up ownership of losses) and internalize wins (own wins).


Normal pessimists see losses as they happen- sometimes their fault, sometimes the system or game. Wins are seen the same way.




In evolution, if it wasn't for pessimism, there wouldn't be the ability to accurately judge what is needed to survive for a period of bad odds.




But what he gets into is the proper balance of pessimism and optimism and how with self awareness, we can optimize this for facing reality without crushing ourselves in times of bad situations. I'm looking forward to reading more about this because as times get crazier, it might be a good skill to learn.
I would see it as the master learning how to determine which way to go- so the driver, cart and horse keep going even when the weather is bad!

 

[Divide by Zero]

The latter half of the book goes into the studies that end up confirming how our explanatory style can cause sabotage in sports, school, careers, and politics. It really is statistically proven.


The techniques given later on in the book are very good to help with dealing with situations. You basically want to use these on things that don't require an objective judgement in order to make a safe choice.


He did say that natural optimists have a hard time judging reality. In our work that would be a problem, especially when it comes to improving the self. But again, we don't need to keep the narrative of doom over our heads- in some cases it might impede our ability to grow past those issues.

YOUR SCORE on the test in chapter three is the main way to tell whether or not you need to acquire these skills. If your G–B score (your total score) was less than 8, you will benefit from these chapters. The lower it was, the more benefit you will derive. Even if your score was 8 or above, you should ask yourself the following questions; if the answer to any of them is yes, you too can make good use of these chapters.
• “Do I get discouraged easily?”
• “Do I get depressed more than I want to?”
• “Do I fail more than I think I should?”
In what situations should you deploy the explanatory style–changing skills these chapters provide? First, ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish.
• If you are in an achievement situation (getting a promotion, selling a product, writing a difficult report, winning a game), use optimism.
• If you are concerned about how you will feel (fighting off depression, keeping up your morale), use optimism.
• If the situation is apt to be protracted and your physical health is an issue, use optimism.
• If you want to lead, if you want to inspire others, if you want people to vote for you, use optimism.
On the other hand, there are times not to use these techniques.
• If your goal is to plan for a risky and uncertain future, do not use optimism.
• If your goal is to counsel others whose future is dim, do not use optimism initially.
• If you want to appear sympathetic to the troubles of others, do not begin with optimism, although using it later, once confidence and empathy are established, may help.
The fundamental guideline for not deploying optimism is to ask what the cost of failure is in the particular situation. If the cost of failure is high, optimism is the wrong strategy. The pilot in the cockpit deciding whether to de-ice the plane one more time, the partygoer deciding whether to drive home after drinking, the frustrated spouse deciding whether to start an affair that, should it come to light, would break up the marriage should not use optimism. Here the costs of failure are, respectively, death, an auto accident, and a divorce. Using techniques that minimize those costs is inappropriate. On the other hand, if the cost of failure is low, use optimism. The sales agent deciding whether to make one more call loses only his time if he fails. The shy person deciding whether to attempt to open a conversation risks only rejection. The teenager contemplating learning a new sport risks only frustration. The disgruntled executive, passed over for promotion, risks only some refusals if he quietly puts out feelers for a new position.

 

[Divide by Zero]

Here are a few of the examples to use as a template for our own dialog.

Identifying ABCs

1. A. Someone zips into the parking space you had your eye on.
B. You think_____
C. You get angry, roll down your window, and shout at the other driver.
2. A. You yell at your children for not doing their homework.
B. You think “I’m a lousy mother.”
C. You feel (or do)______
3. A. Your best friend hasn’t returned your phone calls.
B. You think______
C. You’re depressed all day.
4. A. Your best friend hasn’t returned your phone calls.
B. You think______
C. You don’t feel bad about it, and go about your day.
5. A. You and your spouse have a fight.
B. You think “I never do anything right.”
C. You feel (or do)______
6. A. You and your spouse have a fight.
B. You think, “She [He] was in an awful mood.”
C. You feel (or do)______
7. A. You and your spouse have a fight.
B. You think, “I can always clear up misunderstandings.”
C. You feel (or do)______
Now, let’s take a look at these seven situations and see how the elements interact.
1. In the first example, thoughts of trespass set off your anger. “That driver stole my place.” “That was a rude and selfish thing to do.”
2. When you explained your treatment of your children with “I’m a lousy mother,” sadness and a reluctance to try to get them to do their homework followed. When we explain bad events as the result of permanent, pervasive, and personal traits like being a lousy mother, dejection and giving up follow. The more permanent the trait, the longer dejection will last.
3 and 4. You can see this when your best friend doesn’t return your phone calls. If, as in the third example, you thought something permanent and pervasive—such as “I’m always selfish and inconsiderate. No wonder”—depression would follow. But if, as in the fourth example, your explanation was temporary, specific, and external, you wouldn’t be disturbed. “She’s working overtime this week,” you might say to yourself, or “She’s in a funk.”
5, 6, and 7. How about when you and your spouse have a fight? If, as in example 5, you think “I never do anything right” (permanent, pervasive, personal), you will be depressed and not try to do anything to heal the breach. If, as in example 6, you think “She was in an awful mood” (temporary and external), you will feel some anger, a little dejection, and only temporary immobility. When the mood clears, you’ll probably do something to make up. If, as in example 7, you think “I can always clear up misunderstandings,” you will act to make up and you soon will feel pretty good and full of energy.

One way of stopping the pessimism is by using distraction:

... you can undercut ruminations by taking advantage of their very nature. Their nature is to circle around in your mind, so that you will not forget them, so that you will act on them. When adversity strikes, schedule some time—later—for thinking things over … say, this evening at six P.M. Now, when something disturbing happens and you find the thoughts hard to stop, you can say to yourself, “Stop. I’ll think this over later … at [such and such a time].”
Also, write the troublesome thoughts down the moment they occur. The combination of jotting them down—which acts to ventilate them and dispose of them—and setting a later time to think about them works well; it takes advantage of the reason ruminations exist—to remind you of themselves—and so undercuts them. If you write them down and set a time to think about them, they no longer have any purpose, and purposelessness lessens their strength.

But distraction is not as effective as disputation- which sort of rewrite the way we see situations, using logic.
We can record some ABC's to apply the further techniques leading to ABCDE- Adversity Belief Consequences Disputation and Energization.

Adversity: I came home early from work and found my son and his friends hanging out in the garage smoking pot.
Belief: What does he think he’s doing? I’m going to strangle him! This just goes to show how irresponsible he is. I can’t trust him at all. Everything out of his mouth is just one lie after another. Well, I’m not going to listen to any of it.
Consequences: I was out-of-my-mind angry at him. I refused even to discuss the situation. I told him he was “an untrustworthy little delinquent,” and I spent the rest of the evening fuming.

But here’s how an ace disputer would conclude this internal dialogue:
Disputation: Okay, it is definitely true Joshua is irresponsible to smoke pot, but this doesn’t mean he is totally irresponsible and untrustworthy [implications]. He has never cut school or stayed out late without calling, and he has been good about doing his share around the house [evidence]. This is a very serious situation, but it is not helpful to assume that everything he says is a lie [usefulness]. Our communication in the past has been okay, and I think if I remain calm now, things will go better [usefulness]. If I am not willing to discuss the situation with Joshua, things cannot be resolved [usefulness].
Energization: I was able to settle down and begin to handle the situation. I began by apologizing for calling him “untrustworthy,” and I told him we needed to talk about his smoking pot. The conversation did get fairly heated at times, but at least we were talking.

And then there is a more advanced practice, using someone else to voice your own inner critic (automatic negative thoughts) and disputing that too, enforcing the ability to defend yourself (from yourself).

Situation: Brenda and her sister Andrea have always been very close. They went to the same schools, traveled in the same circles, settled down in the same neighborhood. Andrea’s son is a freshman at Dartmouth, and both Andrea and Brenda are excited about helping Joey, Brenda’s son, start researching the colleges he wants to attend. At the beginning of his senior year in high school, Joey tells his parents he doesn’t want to go to college; instead he wants to restore houses and work in construction. When Andrea asks Brenda why Joey doesn’t want to go to college, Brenda loses control and snaps, “Not that it is any of your business, but not everyone has to follow in your son’s footsteps.”
Accusation (by friend): You ought to be sick and tired of everything in your life being an open book to Andrea. She has her own family. There is no reason for her to be constantly nosing around in your life.
Disputation: I think you are overreacting just a wee bit. All Andrea did was ask why Joey has decided not to go to college [evidence]. That’s a fair question [alternative]. I would feel I could ask her that question if the situation were the other way around and it was her son, not mine, who’d decided not to go to college [evidence].
Friend interrupts: She thinks she is superior to you because her son is going to Dartmouth and Joey isn’t. Well, you most certainly don’t need that kind of attitude from your sister, so she can just buzz off.
Disputation continues: She wasn’t acting superior or rubbing my face in it; she’s just concerned because she cares about Joey a great deal [alternative]. I guess I am feeling defensive about Joey’s decision and envious of where Brenda’s son is [alternative]. Actually, I am proud of how close Andrea and I are. Sure, every once in a while things get competitive, but I wouldn’t trade our closeness for the world [usefulness].