Navel-gazing is bad for you

[archerships]

Via Marginal Revolution

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/29/opinion/29twilson.html?ex=1293512400&en=567fc7e302d74614&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Don't Think Twice, It's All Right
By TIMOTHY D. WILSON
Published: December 29, 2005
Charlottesville, Va.

Jon Krause
IT'S navel gazing time again, that stretch of the year when many of us turn our attention inward and think about how we can improve the way we live our lives. But as we embark on this annual ritual of introspection, we would do well to ask ourselves a simple question: Does it really do any good?

The poet Theodore Roethke had some insight into the matter: "Self-contemplation is a curse / That makes an old confusion worse." As a psychologist who conducts research on self-knowledge and happiness, I think Roethke had a point, one that's supported by a growing body of controlled psychological studies.

Not sure how you feel about a special person in your life? Analyzing the pluses and minuses of the relationship might not be the answer.



In a study I conducted with Dolores Kraft, a clinical psychologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, and Dana Dunn, a social psychologist at Moravian College in Pennsylvania, people in one group were asked to list the reasons their relationship with a romantic partner was going the way it was, and then rate how satisfied they were with the relationship. People in another group were asked to rate their satisfaction without any analysis; they just gave their gut reactions.

It might seem that the people who thought about the specifics would be best at figuring out how they really felt, and that their satisfaction ratings would thus do the best job of predicting the outcome of their relationships.

In fact, we found the reverse. It was the people in the "gut feeling" group whose ratings predicted whether they were still dating their partner several months later. As for the navel gazers, their satisfaction ratings did not predict the outcome of their relationships at all. Our conclusion? Too much analysis can confuse people about how they really feel. There are severe limits to what we can discover through self-reflection, and trying to explain the unexplainable does not lead to a sudden parting of the seas with our hidden thoughts and feelings revealed like flopping fish.

Self-reflection is especially problematic when we are feeling down. Research by Susan Nolen-Hoeksema, a clinical psychologist at Yale University, shows that when people are depressed, ruminating on their problems makes things worse.

In one study, mildly depressed college students were asked to spend eight minutes thinking about themselves or to spend the same amount of time thinking about mundane topics like "clouds forming in the sky."

People in the first group focused on the negative things in their lives and sunk into a worse mood. People in the other group actually felt better afterward, possibly because their negative self-focus was "turned off" by the distraction task.

What about people like police officers and firefighters who witness terrible events? Is it helpful for them to reflect on their experiences?

For years it was believed that emergency workers should undergo a debriefing process to focus on and relive their experiences; the idea was that this would make them feel better and prevent mental health problems down the road. After 9/11, for example, well-meaning counselors flocked to New York to help police officers, firefighters and rescue workers deal with the trauma of what they had seen.

But did it do any good? In an extensive review of the research, a team led by Richard McNally, a clinical psychologist at Harvard, concluded that debriefing procedures have little benefit and might even hurt by interrupting the normal healing process. People often distract themselves from thinking about painful events right after they occur, and this may be better than mentally reliving the events.

What can we do to improve ourselves and feel happier? Numerous social psychological studies have confirmed Aristotle's observation that "We become just by the practice of just actions, self-controlled by exercising self-control, and courageous by performing acts of courage." If we are dissatisfied with some aspect of our lives, one of the best approaches is to act more like the person we want to be, rather than sitting around analyzing ourselves.

Social psychologist Daniel Batson and colleagues at the University of Kansas found that participants who were given an opportunity to do a favor for another person ended up viewing themselves as kind, considerate people - unless, that is, they were asked to reflect on why they had done the favor. People in that group tended in the end to not view themselves as being especially kind.

The trick is to go out of our way to be kind to others without thinking too much about why we're doing it. As a bonus, our kindnesses will make us happier.

A study by University of California, Riverside, social psychologist Sonja Lyubomirsky and colleagues found that college students instructed to do a few acts of kindness one day a week ended up being happier than a control group of students who received no special instructions.

As the new year begins, then, reach out and help others. If that sounds suspiciously like an old Motown song or like simplistic advice from one of those do-gooder college professors, well, it is. But the fact is that being good to others will ultimately make us kinder, happier people - just so long as we don't think too much about it.

Timothy D. Wilson, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, is the author of "Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious."

Comments

[kittles.livejournal.com]

I can't say why, exactly, but that seemes silly; at least the relationship study. When I analyze my relationships, I usually realize either why I'm happy or why I"m not, and stay or go accordingly. The analysis itself is usually in line with the gut feeling. And if it's not, is it really beneficial that those gut feeling folks stayed in their relationships? Staying in one doesn't guarantee they're HAPPY in them. If they only stay because they haven't thought about it... well, it just seems silly. Personally, I analyse my current relationship all the time and determine that it's peachy.

I'll have to analyze this more later. :p

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

I think that there's a difference between rational analysis and dwelling on the negative aspects. In a relationship it's a lot easier to cut and run than a job, for example. If you have to stay in a certain job you hate for a while, there's no point in introspecting about it.

The unexamined life is, in fact, worth living

[perich.livejournal.com]

This is another one of those studies that's so, so counter-intuitive I have to question its merits.

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

really? It matches my experiences (and that of my friends) quite a bit. There's some introspection which can lead to positive changes, but mostly it seems to just get people upset, since their lives are less than perfect.

[perich.livejournal.com]

Maybe "counter-intuitive" isn't the word I was shooting for.

Let me try again: if your life sucks, of course a rigorous process of self-examination is going to upset you. But that's not going to make your life any less sucky. It just means you'll feel better about your sucking life.

So I guess I meant "perfectly intuitive" and "counter-productive" at the same time, and conflated the two. Like a moron. Which I wouldn't have felt like if I hadn't rigorously examined my feelings on the issue.

[candid.livejournal.com]

But that's not going to make your life any less sucky. It just means you'll feel better about your sucking life.

"But that's not going to make you any happier. It just means you'll think you're happier."

:P

[perich.livejournal.com]

I meant if someone's life objectively sucks, not if they're obsessing over trivia.

[candid.livejournal.com]

This is getting a bit Randian for me.

What does it mean for one's life to "objectively suck"? There are happy people "with nothing" and miserable people who "objectively" should be on top of the world.

[perich.livejournal.com]

Yeah, yeah. I know what you're getting at and see the merits of the argument.

At the same time, I knew some genuine fuck-ups in college. These were people whose goals ("have friends, do well in school, get a good job") were directly at odds with the way they lived their lives. A little self-examination would have made them unhappy, sure. But if the constant drinking and the screaming matches with friends were any indication, they weren't terribly happy to begin with.

[fishsupreme]

This is interesting, but it doesn't match my experiences at all.

I've discovered that people are generally terrible predictors of their own happiness. What will make them happy is not what they think will make them happy -- specifically, they overestimate the impact of strong, transitory joy, but overestimate the impact of things that have a minor but constant, recurring effect on contentment.

I think this drives a lot of consumer culture. People want to buy things for the joy of getting new things, but this generally passes very quickly (often before the bill for the new aquisitions is paid, in this debt-laden society.) People think one-night stands make them happy (at least, under the assumption that people attempt to pursue happiness, this seems to be a belief of many people.) People think that winning the lottery would make them happy forever, when in reality surveys of lottery winners show they're generally at their pre-winning level of happiness within three years, as if they've returned to a natural equilibrium.

I realized some years ago that I was no exception to this rule. I thought I knew what made me happy, but I was making the same unchallenged assumptions as everyone else. I have since become a fan of happiness through the scientific method -- happiness by experiment. I actually think about what is presently making me happy, and did so on a pretty regular basis, and compared it to what I had previously thought would make me happy.

By examining causes of happiness in my own life after the fact, I'm able to separate actual causes from anticipated causes. And this has resulted in changing many attitudes I previously had:

1.) I no longer care about career advancement or making more money. Increased income has almost no impact on my happiness; my career path has almost no impact on my own self-confidence or sense of self-worth. Professional life occupies a very low spot on my priority scale, which is odd for an American male.
2.) I no longer desire luxury purchases. Purchases have an extremely short-lived impact on my happiness, measured in days; they're almost never worth the cost. The one exception is actually computer hardware upgrades -- I use my computer so often (usually playing games) that having substandard hardware results in minor but recurring annoyance, and superior hardware results in minor but recurring delight, making it worthwhile.
3.) I still don't want children, but the idea of having them doesn't scare me anymore, and I would not be extremely concerned should my wife show signs of wanting one. While it's not what I want, and I'd be happy never having children, I've observed that family life, mentoring another person, housework, and other tasks that a child would bring are actually generally pleasant to me, to a sufficient degree that I'm sure I'd enjoy being a parent. It may not be what I want now, but my introspection has made me certain I would be able to adjust and still be happy.
4.) Time is extremely important to me; pretty much nothing annoys me more than wasting time (there's so much I want to do, and boredom so alien to me, that time spent doing nothing is particularly irksome.) This is related to #1; the reason I don't care about making more money is that that generally requires more work, and the #1 thing money could buy that would actually make me happier is not going to work.

This also leads to my analyzing things that most people would just take for granted. Currently I am trying to figure out why playing World of Warcraft is more fun than going to work. Sure, it's obvious to everyone that games are more fun than working... but why? What is the essential "gameness" of games vs. the essential "workness" of work that makes them different? Is there some way to tap into this key difference to find a pursuit that is productive and income-generating but lacks "workness" while possessing "gameness"? Some of the obvious things turn out to be red herrings (games can be repetitive, non-goal-driven, and involve following orders, for instance, yet remain fun.)

[fishsupreme]

Er, second paragraph, second sentence should read "specifically, they overestimate the impact of strong, transitory joy, but underestimate the impact of things that have a minor but constant, recurring effect on contentment."

[pentomino.livejournal.com]

Happiness by practical experiment makes sense.

Happiness by thought experiment does not. Or so the article seems to say.

Sounds intuitive to me. Acting without reflection causes more data to come into the system, rather than just more scrambling of the already scrambled and outdated data one might be working with.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

A very interesting & research question!

Can we make work more game-like?

[crasch.livejournal.com]

You've probably seen it already, but if not, you might find A Theory of Fun interesting.

[fishsupreme]

This introspection has had a net positive effect on my happiness, I'm quite certain (I check for that, too.) I think part of it, though, is what I'm introspecting on -- it seems people in this study who thought about themselves or their relationships thought about negative things. That's not my instinct... I tend to focus on the positive, and if I do try to think of negative things, say in my relationship with my wife (where I'm pleased to say finding negative things is not easy), it's in an attempt to identify them so that I can take proactive action to improve them.

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

I would have to agree that dwelling on negative things is counter-productive.

[pentomino.livejournal.com]

Makes sense to me, as I'm a huge navel-gazer and I'm miserable. Bitter, even.

[candid.livejournal.com]

The reactions to this are very interesting to me, because I read it and thought, "duh."

It's "well-known" (I thought) that perhaps the best cure for depression is to go out and do something that takes your mind off of the depression -- exercise, volunteer work, dance classes, etc...

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

i know, right?

[kirinqueen.livejournal.com]

Same here.

[tinymammoth.livejournal.com]

The majority of the posters here assume that your happiness is entirely under your control, and therefore people who aren't happy are making bad decisions and ought to consider those decisions. But in some cases there really is nothing that can be done - I have a chronic illness, and while I do everything I can to treat it, it doesn't do any good to think about it beyond that. It's better to try to do something positive and not think about the problem if it really can't be solved.

A hundred years ago there were far more circumstances of this type and traditional attitudes about dealing with suffering were more in line with this study.

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

yep, when i was in a shitty job, all I could do was send out resumes to other places, but if I thought much beyond that it was hellish and almost killed my relationship.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_luaineach/]

I have always thought that one of the downfalls of "navel gazing" type of self-analysis is that people only do it in a particular mood -- everything they examine about them is continuously being examined in the same light. And given how many moods and perspectives a person goes through -- just as a result of the biological functions, particularly of neurohormones, of being a chemical construct -- it never seemed a very productive exercise to me, the way it seems most usually to be carried out.

As with anything I consider Practice, I think it's important to do such things at times you would *not* be naturally inclined to do so. Five, ten times of stopping whatever you are doing when you are in a *good* mood to sit down an examine 'why life sucks' certainly has an effect on your examination of the same thing when you are again doing it *because* 'life sucks'.

But, for a very long time I've been more interested in organizing the ability/rules of organization and thinking about why we need to think about why we think. I'm looking at acceleration and not velocity.