Blog Archives
Lessons on Perspective
I have a friend who is regularly mistaken for me. We teach at the same university, share a similar build and height, and have the same rounded face — though I have a more defined nose and he has fairer skin. One day, visibly bemused, he asked me, “Why would they think I am you? Do I look as old as you?” I paused, smiled, and replied, “No. I look as young and handsome as you.” He laughed. And in that small exchange, I noticed something larger than the joke: the same mix-up, the same mistaken identity, had produced two completely different reactions in two different men. He heard an insult about age. I heard a compliment about my looks. Nothing about the situation had changed. Only the lens through which each of us chose to receive it.
That, I think, is the simplest definition of perspective — not what happens to you, but the angle from which you decide to look at what happens to you. Two people can stand at the same window on the same morning. One sees the smudge on the glass. The other sees the sun rising behind it. Neither is wrong, exactly. But one view will serve the viewer far better than the other.
I was reminded of this again in a conversation with a colleague, an expat teacher like me, who was frustrated about his salary. He told me, with some bitterness, that a truck driver back in his home country earned more in a year than he did. I listened, then asked him to slow down and look at the bigger picture. How many hours did that truck driver work to earn that figure? What were the physical demands of long-haul driving, year after year? And what about our own schedule — the fact that, as university teachers, we are paid in full through both winter and summer breaks, which together amount to five months of the year? During those five months, our only real obligations are a handful of meetings at the start and end of each semester. The rest of the time is simply ours.
When he ran the numbers on his actual hourly rate, his frustration lost its footing. He was earning more per hour than the truck driver, under incomparably gentler conditions. His complaint had been built on a true fact — the raw annual figure — but an incomplete picture. He was not wrong about the number. He was wrong about what the number meant because he had left out everything around it.
This is the most common failure of perspective, and the most forgivable one. We are not lying to ourselves on purpose. We simply stop looking before we have gathered the whole view. The fix is almost always the same: pause, and ask what else belongs in the frame.
But there is a second, less innocent failure of perspective, and a different colleague handed me a clear example of it. He told me, flatly, that he considered motivational quotes to be nonsense. To prove his point, he gestured at a small bulletin board bearing a quote that read, “Whatever you are, be good at it.” Then he delivered what he clearly believed was the knockout line: “So if you are a rapist, be a good rapist.”
I told him he had chosen the worst possible illustration he could have picked. More importantly, his example revealed the lens through which he had chosen to interpret the quote. You cannot be good at doing something that is, by its nature, an act of harm. Goodness and harm are not two settings on the same dial; one cancels the very premise of the other. I asked him the obvious question: Why a rapist, of all the things a person could be? Why not a teacher? A father? A leader? Each of those would have proven the quote’s point beautifully — that excellence, applied to a worthy role, elevates both the role and the person in it. Instead, he reached for the most grotesque example available, not because it was the most honest one, but because it was the most useful one for the argument he had already decided to win.
That is the difference between an incomplete perspective and a distorted one. My colleague with the salary complaint was missing pieces of the picture, but he was not hiding from the truth — he simply hadn’t gone looking for it yet, and once he did, he changed his mind. The man at the bulletin board was doing something else entirely. He was not missing information. He was selecting the most damaging frame available and presenting it as the obvious one, so that the quote — and perhaps optimism itself — would look foolish by comparison. One man’s perspective needed completing. The other man’s perspective needed correcting.
I think about these three exchanges together because they map out the territory so well. The mistaken-identity story is perspective in its lightest form — the same fact, received through two different temperaments, producing two different emotional outcomes, both harmless. The truck driver story is perspective in its most repairable form — a real grievance, resting on a partial view, that dissolves the moment the missing pieces are added back in. And the bulletin board story is perspective at its most dangerous — not an honest gap in the picture, but a deliberate choice of the worst possible angle, used to discredit something that did not deserve it.
Obi-Wan Kenobi was right when he said that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. But that is not an excuse to pick whichever point of view is most convenient, most cynical, or most self-serving. It is an invitation to be honest about which direction you are choosing to look — and deliberate enough to ask whether you have actually seen the whole field before you decide what it means.
Perspective, in the end, is not something that happens to us. It is something we choose, conversation by conversation, frame by frame. The only real question is whether we are choosing it carefully — or just reaching for whichever lens lets us win the argument we already wanted to have.
Broadening Your Perspective
My latest YouTube video…
A discussion of what perspective is and why having an enlightened perspective is important.
Dissecting Positive Thinking
Some people say that positive thinking is nothing but a delusion. It is… to them. Yes, only to them. To those who think that positive thinking is just a fantasy, it is. What we think things are – they are. Our thinking shapes our truth. It is the brush we use to paint our reality. It doesn’t mean though that what we think about something is correct and is the absolute truth. The reality that our brush called thinking painted doesn’t apply to everyone.
To those who think positive thinking doesn’t work, it won’t. They’d better not try it because their efforts are deemed to fail. It’s unlikely though they would try, given the kind of mindset that they have.
Those who consider positive thinking as a crap also think of people who embrace it as not attuned to reality. Reality? Whose version of reality have the positive thinkers failed to tune in to? Have the idealists, realists, pragmatists, and existentialists (insert more “ists” here) already settled their disputes as regards the nature of reality? What I know is that the debates on whether reality is absolute or relative have not ended conclusively yet.
It’s so tempting to ask the question, “Is reality real?” Well, I just did but I will no longer explore that topic. Let me just share how Ran Zilca describes reality. He said, “Reality is not outside of you. It only exist in your mind, and you view it through your own unique lens, filtered by your senses, your memories, your mood, and by your thoughts. A different person would look through his or her own perspective, and may describe a vastly different reality, as if the two of you are at not all in the same place and time.”
So, nobody should force on anyone the version of reality informed by his or her personal experiences and created by his or her own brand of thinking.
But is it really necessary to run the gamut from classical to contemporary philosophies to discuss and argue the essence of positive thinking? That is tantamount to analysis paralysis. Positive thinking is not an issue to be resolved but a decision to be made. Accept it if you think it works. If not – reject it.
There is no need to argue the rightness and wrongness of positive thinking because it is not a moral issue? Positive thinking does not involve a difference of belief but it is a matter of preference. There’s no moral dispute.
If for example I chose to be optimistic, hopeful , and cheerful, I am not disagreeing with the pessimists. I am merely exercising my right to decide which mindset I would bear. My decision to embrace positive thinking would not affect the pessimists. It would not harm them. Would it harm me? How in the world could a mental attitude that expect good results and a successful future harm the person having it?
Critics better not say that positive thinking has no academic credibility, that no empirical evidence could be provided to prove that it works. It is not true that the proponents of positive thinking have nothing but anecdotal evidence to prove that it works. The critics simply ignoring the latest findings in the field of brain science and are not seeing how practices related to positive thinking, like meditation and mindfulness, have been gaining wide acceptance. There are lots of studies conducted to establish a scientific foundation for this idea.
In an article I wrote on positive thinking, I cited the works of Marc Guidi and Hans Villanueva as examples of studies that have been helping positive thinking develop academic credibility.
Evidence proving that positive thinking works are difficult to ignore, unless the critics are intentionally turning a blind eye. A website called “The Pursuit of Happiness” published an article entitled “Review of Key Studies on Mindfulness and Positive Thinking.” The said article is a list of links to several studies conducted in the areas mentioned in the title (of the said article).
Simply type “studies on positive thinking” in any search engine and you’ll find a lot articles and studies conducted about it.
Positive thinking is more than the “Law of Attraction” – the basic idea of the controversial 2006 documentary film “The Secret.” The principle “like attracts like” is not the be all and end all of positive thinking. The former is only one of the many ideas associated to the latter.
One strategy that advocates of positive thinking suggest is “fake it till you make it.” The critics call it absurd. But what if it works… the way a placebo drug does. Let people try anything that would get them out of a funk. Anyway, the said strategy is only one of the many strategies available for those who want to try positive thinking. If it doesn’t work – abandon it and try other available methods. Nobody really knows it it works or not. There’s no harm if one tries it. Remember that Alfred Adler, the Austrian medical doctor and psychotherapist who founded the school of Individual Psychology, developed a therapeutic technique that he called “acting as if,” a strategy that gave his clients an opportunity to practice alternatives to dysfunctional behaviors.
The one thing that is difficult for me to comprehend sometimes is why some motivational speakers are discrediting positive thinking. The only reason I could think is probably they are trying to sell another self-mprovement method and the only way they could get the attention they need is to say something negative about positive thinking.
The more we really try to dissect the essence of positive thinking using all the isms of intelligent people as lens the fuzzier it becomes. It is but a simple concept.
In Psychology they simply call it dispositional optimism.
Let’s simplify it further in a way that even the modest of minds could understand. Let’s call it hope.
It is as simple as this – Positive thinking is expecting that good things, rather than bad things, will happen… that success is attainable. Positive thinking is always trying until you get (and you become) what you want. It is a refusal to have limiting beliefs. It is deciding to choose only the positives in the different frames of perspectives.
Don’t get me wrong though. Yes, I have asserted (a few paragraphs back) that positive thinking is a simple concept. But making it work is difficult.
Positive thinking has been misconstrued as just that – thinking. It is not. It is not as simple as you close your eyes, take a deep breath, think about the things you want – money, good health, good relationship, peace of mind and what have you – think you have them, as hard as you could then when you open your eyes you’ll have them in front of you served hot in a silver platter. NO! It doesn’t work that way. That is not positive thinking but rather wishful thinking.
Positive thinking is just a springboard. Nothing happens if a person just thinks and doesn’t act. Isn’t that common sense?
In another article I wrote about positive thinking, I posited, “Positive thinking without positive action won’t work.” A plan of action is required – a plan of action that should be executed and vigorously pursued.
Thinking precedes action. People are (supposed to be) rational beings and whatever decisions they make, whatever course of action they take, they should think about it first. And which would be a better launching pad for the decisions we make and corresponding action we take – a positive frame of mind or a negative one?
Believing that good things are bound to happen and that success is attainable would lead people to know their purpose in life. If people have no limiting beliefs they will be prompted to define clearly their goals and frame a plan of action to attain them. The process will help them develop self-discipline and become self-sufficient, organized, and focused.
Positive thinking is not as simple as it seems. Let me reiterate that for it to work, a corresponding plan of action is required. And that would entail a lot of hard work, dedication, and discipline.
Actually, the believers and critics of positive thinking are both correct. It works and it doesn’t. Confused? Consider this – “Whether you believe you can do a thing or not, you are right.” That’s from Henry Ford. And here’s from Virgil… “Possunt quia posse videntu” (“They can because they think they can.”)
On Perspective
I do have a friend who would usually be mistakenly identified as me. There were many instances that people in the university where both of us are teaching called me by his name and him by mine. Why? None of us is a dead ringer for the other but very likely that our similar built, height and rounded face would make people commit that mistake.
Seemingly bemused, he asked me one time, “Why would they think I am you? Do I look as old as you are?” I paused for a while, smiled then told him jokingly, “No, I think I just look as young and handsome as you are.”
As my friend laughed at my response, I thought that the contrasting way we looked at the issue has opened an opportunity for me to revisit the topic “perspective.”
That (perspective) is one of the most amazing things about us humans – our tendency to look at the same thing differently.
Anything in this world can be viewed from different perspectives. We get to decide at what angle we would look at circumstances, problems, events and even objects using lenses that are uniquely ours. We tend to measure the value of those things using our own sets of standards and label and define them according to our beliefs. Those standards and beliefs are shaped by the way we were raised by our parents, trained by our teachers, influenced by the people around us, and conditioned by our culture.
The sum total of the experiences we accumulated since birth and the amount and quality of information we gathered through the years from different sources are the factors that contribute to the kind of perspectives we develop as persons. Our way of viewing things depends on the belief system that those experiences and information impressed upon us.
Each person is entitled to embrace a particular attitude towards something. There are no specific measurement to determine the rightness and wrongness of perspectives. Only the consequences of a person’s action (or the lack of it) as a result of embracing certain perspectives could perhaps be labeled as right or wrong.
When we are about to take a perspective it’s like we’re positioning ourselves in the number scale and decide whether to go north or south. We can either be positive or negative with our perspective. Those are the only directions we could take when we look at issues and circumstances confronting us. It’s a matter of choice.
Perspective is said to be like a coin, it only has two sides. We flip the coin and choose either “head” or “tail.”
Our perspectives affect the decisions we make. They inform the things we think, say and do. Thus, while we are entitled to have any kind of perspective, in the same manner that we are entitled to our own opinions, we have to understand that we will bear whatever consequences there may be for embracing the perspectives we take.
We also need to understand that we could not assume that what we believe or see is definitive. Different people have different ways of looking at things. The perspective of the world that dictates the lens through which we see it is not the same for everybody. We need to develop the ability to see things from another’s viewpoint.
Perspectives can either be broad or narrow.
Having a broad perspective means being able to see the bigger picture. `
I once had a conversation with another friend about working conditions. He bewailed the fact that a truck driver in his country earns more than what he is earning in a year as an expat teacher. After listening to his litany, I told him to pause for a while and dig deeper into his comparison and consider other factors like number of required work hours and the physical demands for the job. When computing the number of hours, I reminded him that we as teachers are not actually working during winter and summer breaks but we get paid in full by the university as stipulated in our contracts.
He realized at the end that his pay per hour is actually higher than the truck driver and his working conditions are much better.
It is not really hard to train the mind to look at the bigger picture. It is easy to look beyond the obvious if only we’re open-minded. It does not require a special kind of training. All we need is common sense.
There are a lot more that could be explored in the discussion of perspective. At the end, the thing that matters is the answer to the question, “How do our perspectives affect the way we live?”
If the lenses we are using to view the world have brought us success and happiness, why change them. We’ve been told many times, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” But what about if those lenses are seemingly broken and have caused us nothing but failure and misery? Is it time to visit an OPTIMIST?
Defining Happiness
What may be considered as the most encompassing definition of happiness was provided by the great Greek philosopher Aristotle. He said, “Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence.” The Dalai Lama seemed to have concurred when he said that the very purpose of life is to seek happiness.
Life indeed is an endless quest for happiness. People always seek for things that gives them pleasure and enjoyment. They do whatever it takes for them to attain contentment and satisfaction. They enjoy the moments when they feel untroubled, delighted and satisfied.
Happiness may come from different sources. It can be put this way also…that happiness is an effect resulting from different causes. It depends on a person’s beliefs and perspectives. People define happiness in different ways thus they tread different directions when pursuing it. They differ in opinion as to what brings joy and meaning to one’s existence.
Since time immemorial people have been debating whether or not money can buy happiness. The question commonly asked is “Are wealthy people really happy and those who are not unhappy?”
Democritus articulated,“Happiness resides not in possession, and not in gold, happiness dwells in the soul.” In disagreement Albert Camus had this to say, “It’s a kind of spiritual snobbery that makes people think they can be happy without money.”
Which of the two contentions would hold water in a world driven by materialism, Democritus’ or that of Camus? Can people be happy without money? Does happiness reside on the things that a person’s wealth would allow him to buy and to own…clothes, jewelry, gadgets, cars?
However a person responds to the questions aforementioned is grounded on his perspectives about life. Whatever a person does to his life is his own prerogative. Believing that money dictates happiness would not make a person bad. And if believing so would make him focus on amassing wealth then fine. People do whatever makes them happy. As Aristotle said, “Happiness depends on ourselves.” How a person gets the money is another question.
Oscar Wilde once said, “When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is.” Believe that or would you rather take it from Benjamin Franklin who said, “Money has never made man happy, nor will it, there is nothing in its nature to produce happiness.” He also added that the more of it (money) one has the more one wants.
Here’s another one from Henry David Thoreau… “Wealth is the ability to fully experience life.” In response, Dennis Waitley explained, “Happiness cannot be traveled to, owned, earned, work or consumed.” In addition, he argued that “happiness is the spiritual experience of living every minute with love, grace and gratitude.”
The downside of embracing Thoreau’s thoughts can be summed up in the following question: What happens if you don’t have wealth? Would it mean that those who do not have money cannot fully experience life?
Not everybody can be rich so much so that they can buy beyond what is necessary. Many are content with having just enough. Many live modest lives and they do not complain.
There are people who earn just enough to buy the basic things they need yet they are happy. They live in modest houses, not big mansions and not all of them have cars yet they are satisfied and contended. Why? They don’t have lots of money but perhaps they have love. They chime to George Sand’s idea that there is only one happiness in this life, to love and be loved or sing along with The Beatles who, in one of their songs said, “For I don’t care too much for money, for money can’t buy me love.”
There are people whose happiness lies not in the material things the world offers. Some people find happiness by helping others. They believe that there is more happiness in giving than in receiving (Acts 20:35). They embrace the idea “Happiness never decreases by being shared (Buddha).”
Some feel ultimate joy when they bask in the glory of their achievements, when they finally get what they have worked so hard to achieve. As Franklin D. Roosevelt puts it, “Happiness lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort.”
However a person wants to achieve happiness is entirely up to him. But as Zig Ziglar pointed out, “Until your are happy with who you are, you will never be happy with what you have.”
We don’t only chart our own destiny but we also define our own happiness. It starts from within. It should not be contingent on anything nor dictated by terms set by other people.
Happiness is a decision we make. “Most folks,” according to Abrham Lincoln, “are as happy as they make up their minds to be.”
So, heed Leo Tolstoy’s advise, “If you want to be happy, be.” Remember what Buddha said, “Happiness does not depend on what you have or who you are; it solely relies on what you think.”
Source: Defining Happiness
M.A.D. LIGAYA
M.A.D. L I G A Y A 