The other day I read an article in Newsweek entitled The Creativity Crisis (via my Twitter-friend @BeyondMeds). The article is about how American creativity is declining and what we can do about it. While there are many interesting tidbits in the full article, what stood out to me most was a particular research study from University of Georgia’s Mark Runco:

…creative people, for the most part, exhibit active moods and positive affect. They’re not particularly happy—contentment is a kind of complacency creative people rarely have. But they’re engaged, motivated, and open to the world.

The new view is that creativity is part of normal brain function. Some scholars go further, arguing that lack of creativity—not having loads of it—is the real risk factor [for anxiety and depression commonly thought to be a trait of creative people]. In his research, Runco asks college students, “Think of all the things that could interfere with graduating from college.” Then he instructs them to pick one of those items and to come up with as many solutions for that problem as possible. This is a classic divergent-convergent creativity challenge. A subset of respondents…quickly list every imaginable way things can go wrong. But they demonstrate a complete lack of flexibility in finding creative solutions. It’s this inability to conceive of alternative approaches that leads to despair. Runco’s two questions predict suicide ideation—even when controlling for preexisting levels of depression and anxiety.

In Runco’s subsequent research, those who do better in both problem-finding and problem-solving have better relationships. They are more able to handle stress and overcome the bumps life throws in their way. A similar study of 1,500 middle schoolers found that those high in creative self-efficacy had more confidence about their future and ability to succeed. They were sure that their ability to come up with alternatives would aid them, no matter what problems would arise.

In other words, people who aren’t particularly depressed or anxious now that can easily list potential problems but can’t come up with any solutions are more likely to think about suicide (a hallmark of depression).

The Unsuccessful Success Strategy

Lets say you were to take one of these people from the study who can’t think of solutions and get him or her to walk across burning hot coals barefoot by entering a “peak state,” screaming “COOL MOSS! COOL MOSS! COOL MOSS!”, and beating their hands on their chest to “break through their fear.” Are they likely to be more creative in coming up with potential solutions to their problems and thus staving off depression? What if this person were to take Robbins’ suggestion that the firewalk is a apt metaphor for how one should deal with life’s challenges in general?

Here’s a little thought experiment:

• A person with a lack of creativity in solving personal problems (i.e. “unsuccessful”) learns this “success strategy” of aggressively pumping themselves up instead of thinking about solutions.
• Unprepared for potential personal threats—since they haven’t thought through them—and yet manically overconfident, this person inevitably fails at reaching their goals, or else massively overcompensates thus creating multiple negative side-effects (more problems).
• Failing to reach one’s goals/creating more problems that seem overwhelming (due to poor problem-solving ability) creates feelings of depression and despair (another problem).
• Still not equipped with an effective strategy for dealing with problems or unpleasant emotions, the person doubles down on the original strategy since it at least worked temporarily to keep overwhelming emotions at bay.
• Still unprepared, s/he fails again, causing more intense depression, despair, anxiety, etc.
• Rinse and repeat.

Here we come to understand a looping program for spiraling depression, if not bipolar—built into the very framework of the cult of aggressive positivity found in Tony Robbins’ workshop, but also found in other popular self-help workshops, books, CDs, blogs, eBooks, coaching programs, etc. As with most chronic psychological problems, the attempted solution makes the problem worse. The alcoholic drinks to make his hangover go away. The sweet-tooth eats sugar to reward himself for going all day without sugar. The unsuccessful self-helper pushes away fear only to then be more unprepared and therefore more likely to fail, becoming even more depressed with each failure. By not thinking about negative potential problems or future scenarios, one never develops the skill of being able to handle them. Of course as soon as you teach your people to think critically, you’ve lost most of your potential money as a guru—both because they get better and thus aren’t as eager to buy more of the same, but also because they think critically about your sales messages too. One can still make a respectable living this way, but will probably not reach the same dizzying heights of fame and fortune.

Robbins claimed in his public TED talk—with now over 2.1 million views on YouTube alone—that he has never lost a client to suicide. Since his organization doesn’t do followups with all of his thousands of seminar attendees (only a select few that are used for video testimonials), this claim is totally corrupted by confirmation bias. There have been many reports of suicide and psychosis following intensive weekend workshops like Robbins’ on anti-cult forums like Rick Ross. Were these caused by the workshops themselves, or would they have happened anyway? The question of causation is tricky business, especially with lawyers under the employ of seminar organizations actively suppressing such negative information (note to such lawyers: while I can neither confirm nor deny any claims as to whether anyone has ever committed suicide as a result of attending a Tony Robbins event or any other workshop, I won’t be removing this post which merely states my opinions and is protected free speech—see also.) Regardless, the aggressive positivity taught in this and related workshops certainly does not adequately prepare participants to think effectively about life’s challenges. While Robbins does include a hodgepodge of other methods of personal change, his strong emphasis on emotional bodybuilding likely leads others to the emotional highs and lows I experienced as a devotee of his methods. Now we can clearly understand why.

Emotional Bodybuilding: All Show and No Go

Aggressively inducing states of happiness and overconfidence when you feel otherwise actively prevents you from becoming more resourceful and creative with personal problem-solving. Robbins and other Self Help gurus repeat the mantra that fear is the only thing stopping you from achieving your goals, and then encourage you to actively suppress fear by overwhelming it with aggressive positivity. While a little push may be a useful thing at times to get started, clearly what potentially depressed people need is to creatively think through rather than aggressively break through their fears.

Luckily the fear, sadness, anger, and other unwanted emotions contain the key to liberation from the emotions themselves….to be continued….

In part 3 I’ll cover some of the methods that actually do work in successfully dealing with life’s challenges. Spoiler alert: it involves courageous awareness of what’s actually happening without pushing it away, clear thinking and rational planning, compassion towards one’s self and one’s suffering, and looking for the positive in the negative (rather than instead of the negative) as in creative problem-solving and acting-as-if there is positive intent in unwanted experiences and behaviors. Oops, just gave away the secrets to happiness—should have monetized it first!

The story of Roger Bannister breaking the four-minute mile barrier in 1954 is often cited as proof of the power of positive thinking. The fact is, however, that Bannister’s realism, not exuberant faith, can easily explain how Bannister achieved the feat.

The typical telling of the story is a conflict between negative and positive beliefs. The good guy is Roger Bannister, who uniquely believes that he can beat the four-minute time. The bad guy is everybody else, including the other runners of the world. Bannister’s faith in himself propels him across the finish line, breaking the barrier, proving that the positive is stronger than negative. He wins over converts to his faithful cause, who then proceed to smash the barrier themselves.

A deconstruction of the myth lays bare the underlying message while admitting a more thorough admission of fact into the story. The mythological structure supports three crucial elements of the “positive thinking” message:

• the world is divided into positive believers and negative non-believers
• negative belief is the primary obstacle to achievement
• blind faith in positive belief is necessary for success

The myth makes use of omission and exaggeration of fact in order to communicate its message.

The first element is supported by citing doctors and other authorities who claim that the four-minute mile was impossible if not lethal. The reference to “impossibility”, danger, or death underline the “negative” aspects of the belief.

The second element–that belief, as opposed to physical ability–is the primary obstacle to achievement, is supported by the fact that many runners broke the barrier so quickly after he did. They must have been physically able, for how could they train so quickly to such a high level of performance? The story implies that belief alone explains why runners followed suit so quickly.

The third element is that blind positive faith is able to and required to transcend physical limits. Including the fact that he was the first implies that the barrier at four minutes was real. He had no evidence that it was possible, and people warned him of the dangers. His belief rested in faith alone. There is usually an underlying theme, evident in the title or otherwise, which suggests that the fact that the belief is positive is what give it its power.

To recap the story in terms of the three elements: everyone believed that the four-minute mile was impossible. Everyone, except Bannister. His pure, positive faith allowed him to do what others failed to do. Once he proved it possible to the non-believers, others began to see the light and they could do the impossible as well.

The assertion that most (if not all) believed that the four-minute mile was dangerous if not impossible is easily falsified. The story omits that the other runners of the world were in pursuit of the four-minute mile. They must have believed it was possible or they wouldn’t have competed for it. The tendency for journalists to drum up conflict and drama easily explains why the “barrier” was created. It also explains why so many doctors were quoted saying it was dangerous. Danger sells papers. Bannister himself was a medical student at the time he broke the barrier, trained in the same medical system as the rest of the doctors. It is highly unlikely that he was unique in his beliefs.

The issue that so many runners broke the barrier so quickly is used to show how important belief was. But the fact is that the record was ready to be broken. The graph of world records (shown below) clearly shows that the sport was ready for a breakthrough. The major tension at the time was who would succeed and when, not whether it was possible. The fact that people only succeeded after him is due to the convenient choice of Bannister as the hero. He was the first, so of course there was no one before him.

The final element–that Bannister was bolstered by blind faith–is similarly false. The implication downplays his medical training and his talent as a runner. As a medical student, he was well aware of the physiology and anatomy of the human body. He was also a good runner, so probably had a good intuition for his own limits. The myth omits the fact that Bannister used a peculiar training regimen and pacing strategy for the deciding race. His actions show his belief in planning and strategy, not a reliance on blind faith. Anyone at the time, especially an educated person, could clearly see that the four-minute mile was due to be broken, so need not rely on faith.

As to the fact that he was first, the timing of his and his competition’s races (along with the weather) decided who would break the barrier first. John Landy ran a four-minute mile forty-six days later. What would have happened if the dates of the two races had been reversed?

The myth of the four-minute mile implies that blind faith can overcome physical obstacles. But on closer inspection, the facts of the event support a much different message: that critical thinking, physical endowment, planning, luck, and hard work are “the secrets” to success. Roger Bannister was 6-foot-1 and obviously one of the fastest runners of his day. His race was luckily timed just before Landy’s race, and the weather met the world record requirements. He ran every day to train for the race. Of course he believed he could do it, but it was not blind faith.

The call to faith erodes the more important idea that we are very often wrong so we must critically question our beliefs. We must rely on our intelligence and available evidence to determine what to believe because we have nothing better. It is frightening that we know we are wrong but we don’t know in what way and still we must act in the world. It is much more comforting to believe that “positive” beliefs are truer than “negative” ones and not have to face the real difficulties of the world. Beliefs should not be classified into positive and negative, but into true, untrue, and undecidable. The troubles of the world are too real to rely on wishful thinking.

Raised as an atheist, Eric Normand observes that the more support exists for a belief, the more likely it is to be false. Only mass delusion can produce such agreement. Besides getting him into trouble, this perspective leads him to question popular thought and explore contrarian views with as critical an eye as he can muster. Eric Normand confronts certainty, wishful thinking, and the difficulty of everyday life at The Journal of a Renegade Yogi.