This debate of should leaders be feared or loved has been going on for what feels like forever. Machiavelli, that Renaissance dude, thought fear was the way to go. But is he still right?

—

Imagine having a boss who’s a total pain in the neck. You say “good morning” to them out of pure fear, and they’re always putting you on blast in front of everyone else. They’ve got a mouth like a sailor and love to yell at you and your coworkers when they’re stressed out. If you try to talk back or give them your opinion, they’ll just shut you down. Don’t even think about asking them for help – people are terrified to go to them. And when they ask you to meet them, your day is just wasted!

We all probably have or know a boss/supervisor like that. If you don’t know or have one, chances are you might be one. If you are one, you might be the best audience who should read this.

—

The age-old debate about whether it’s better for leaders to be feared or loved has persisted for centuries. Niccolò Machiavelli, a Renaissance political philosopher, famously argued in his book ‘The Prince‘ that it is better to be feared than loved, if one cannot be both. He believed that fear is a more reliable motivator than love because fear is rooted in self-preservation, while love is often fickle and conditional.

But is Machiavelli’s ideology still relevant today? Let’s explore both sides of the argument with a modern lens.

The Case for Fear: Machiavelli and Machiavellianism

Machiavelli’s perspective on leadership was shaped by the tumultuous political landscape of his time, where rulers needed to maintain power amidst constant threats. He believed that fear would ensure loyalty, as people are less likely to challenge or betray a leader they fear. This concept has evolved into what we now call Machiavellianism—a personality trait characterized by manipulation, exploitation, and a focus on self-interest. Leaders who embrace Machiavellianism may see short-term gains, as fear can indeed drive immediate compliance and efficiency.

In the field of psychology, Machiavellianism (sometimes abbreviated as MACH) is the personality trait construct characterized by interpersonal manipulation, indifference to morality, lack of empathy, and a calculated focus on self-interest. The more a leader is into manipulation, self-interest focused, and indifferent to morality, the higher mach it is attributed to the person. Machiavellianism is one of the component of the dark-triad psychological theory – along with narcissism and psychopathy. High scores in these traits have been found to statistically cause social distress and create severe problems for organizations, especially if they are in leadership positions. However, the same traits are also associated with some positive outcomes, such as mental toughness and being more likely to embrace challenges.

A modern example could be Steve Jobs, who was known for his demanding and sometimes intimidating management style. Some former employees have described working with Jobs as challenging due to his high expectations and occasional outbursts. However, his relentless pursuit of excellence and refusal to accept anything less than perfection led to the creation of revolutionary products like the iPhone, iPad, and MacBook. Jobs’ leadership style, though feared by some, was undeniably effective in driving innovation and success.

The Case for Love: Building Loyalty and Trust

On the other side of the spectrum, there’s the argument for leading with love—building strong, trusting relationships with employees or followers. A leader who is loved fosters an environment of respect, collaboration, and loyalty. This kind of leadership builds a positive culture where people feel valued, heard, and motivated to contribute their best work.

Consider the example of Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft. Nadella transformed Microsoft’s culture from one that was often described as cutthroat and competitive to one that values empathy, collaboration, and continuous learning. His leadership, rooted in kindness and understanding, has led to a resurgence of Microsoft as a leading technology company, with employees who are deeply committed to the company’s mission and vision.

Contrary to the dark triad, there exists a light triad that consists of three facets: Kantianism (see and treat others as people, not as a means to an end), Humanism (valuing the dignity and worth of each individual), and Faith in Humanity (believing in the fundamental goodness of humans). People and specially leaders with high levels of light triad demonstrated excellent reliability and validity, predicting life satisfaction and a wide range of growth-oriented and self-transcendent outcomes above and beyond existing measures of personality.

Leading with love doesn’t mean being a pushover. It’s about balancing empathy with accountability. Loved leaders earn respect not just because they are kind, but because they genuinely care about their team’s success and well-being. This approach leads to a more sustainable and positive work environment, where people are driven by purpose rather than fear.

The Balance: Is One Better Than the Other?

While both fear and love can be powerful motivators, they lead to very different outcomes. Fear may yield quick results, but it often comes at the cost of long-term loyalty and trust. On the other hand, love may take longer to foster, but it builds a foundation of respect and collaboration that can lead to sustained success.

Leadership today requires more than just commanding respect; it demands emotional intelligence, adaptability, and the ability to inspire others. In a world where employees have more choices and values like diversity, inclusion, and well-being are prioritized, leading with love is not just preferable—it’s necessary.

Conclusion: Leading with Love in Today’s World

In the modern context, leaders who are loved tend to create more positive, innovative, and resilient organizations. While fear can be a useful tool in certain situations, it’s a short-term strategy that often leads to burnout and high turnover.

On the other hand, love builds trust, fosters creativity, and inspires people to go above and beyond because they feel genuinely connected to the leader and the organization’s mission. In a world that increasingly values collaboration, empathy, and social responsibility, leading with love is not only better but essential for long-term success.

In organizations, to optimize the power of leader expectations, the management and leadership team needs to underscore the importance of the values of trustworthiness among their members. It is believed that when organizations focus on developing trust, they will reap the benefits inherent within the Pygmalion effect as employees will be more responsive to their leader’s high expectations and corresponding behaviors.

So, while Machiavelli’s advice might have been sound in his time, the leaders of today and tomorrow should aim to be more loved than feared. Sorry Niccolò!

You see a viral dance step tutorial video on TikTok, Instagram Reel, or YouTube Shorts and think yourself – I could do it easily as well. You see a plumber fix the leaking tap rotating the teflon seal tape over the tap thrice, and you think yourself – I could do it easily as well. You observe a workshop facilitator conduct a two hours session, and immediately think – I could do it easily as well. The list goes on.

You could do it easily. But chances are, you could struggle – and fail miserably. Many of us overestimate how much we can learn by observing others. I thought I could learn guitar chords just by watching people play over the YouTube videos. And boy was I wrong.

This is a common phenomenon in learning – the illusion of skill acquisition.

Easier Seen Than Done: The Research

In a fascinating study at Northwestern University, researcher Michael Kardas had participants watch videos of skills like dart-throwing and the moonwalk dance multiple times, some even up to 20 times. After watching, they were asked to guess how well they could perform these skills before giving it a shot themselves. Surprisingly, many believed that just by watching the videos, they could become skillful. Interestingly, the more they watched, the more confident they felt about their abilities.

However, the study’s results were unexpected. Despite feeling more confident with each viewing, the participants didn’t actually improve in performing the skills when they tried them. Their confidence in learning through observation didn’t match the reality of their unchanged performance. This highlights the misconception that simply watching instructional videos can lead to skill mastery, emphasizing the importance of active practice and engagement for effective learning.

Can you land a plane?

Passive observation can have a surprising effect on people’s confidence in handling challenging tasks, even life-or-death situations like landing a plane, as discovered by Kayla Jordan, a PhD student at the University of Waikato, New Zealand. Inspired by Kardas’s research, she wanted to explore if this phenomenon could extend to highly skilled tasks. Piloting, for example, demands extensive training and knowledge of complex subjects like physics and engineering, far beyond what a short video can convey.

In their study, participants were asked to imagine being in a scenario where they were the only one left to land a plane due to the pilot being incapacitated. Half of them watched a brief video showing a pilot landing a plane, while the others did not. Interestingly, the video didn’t provide any instructional guidance on the pilot’s actions during the landing. Despite this, those who watched the video showed a significant increase in their confidence to successfully land a plane themselves, about 30% more than those who didn’t view the clip, as noted by Jordan. This highlights the intriguing way in which passive observation can influence one’s perception of their own capabilities in demanding situations.

Why does this happen?

If you have been around a child, you will know that they imitate their elder ones. Human beings – since their infant age – watch others and learn. This is the basic premise of the “Social Learning Theory”, developed by psychologist Albert Bandura, which explains how people learn new behaviors and skills by observing others.

This theory highlights three key aspects: observation, imitation, and modeling. First, you observe someone else’s actions. Then, you try to imitate what you saw. Finally, through practice and feedback, you model your behavior to become more like the observed behavior. Bandura also emphasized the role of reinforcement and punishment. If the person you observe gets praised for their actions, you’re more likely to copy them. Conversely, if they get punished, you’re less likely to follow in their footsteps.

However, in case of illusion of skill acquisition, we don’t really reach the imitation and modeling phase. We observe and then do not engage in deliberate practice. Without deliberate efforts made into practicing, we don’t get required feedback for corrections, which means we omit the modeling phase as well. Humans are social beings, and much of our learning occurs through observing others. Mirror neurons facilitate this type of learning, which can be efficient but also prone to creating illusions of mastery.

Here’s the culprit!

I was watching my mom cook a delicious meal. I noted everything she did – from the steps to the list of ingredients. A few weeks later, I replicated her every step. It was a disaster. I swear I did all the steps right, but I don’t know why the meal was a disaster! From childhood, I have learnt cooking from watching others cook – be it in my own kitchen or in the TV cooking shows. That has helped me gain knowledge about cooking new dishes. I have ideas about new dishes, recipes, and the ingredients used – but have I learnt how to cook it? Probably I can’t say unless I give it a try.

This sort of learning is facilitated by our mirror neurons, which is referred, rightly or wrongly, as “The most hyped concept in neuroscience”. Mirror neurons are a type of brain cell that responds both when we perform an action and when we observe someone else performing the same action. Mirror neurons are also said to be responsible for being more empathetic towards another person. They are thought to be involved in understanding others’ actions and intentions, as well as in learning through imitation.

While mirror neurons help us learn by observation, they can also create a false sense of competence because they simulate the action in our brains without actual physical practice or feedback.

So what to do now?

Overcoming the illusion of skill acquisition requires a mindful approach to learning and practice. Here are three actionable things you can initiate to overcome this illusion:

Engage in Active Practice: Instead of passively observing or assuming that watching others perform a skill will lead to mastery, actively engage in practice yourself. Practice involves hands-on experience, allowing you to develop muscle memory, refine techniques, and gain a deeper understanding of the skill. By consistently practicing and actively applying what you’ve learned, you can bridge the gap between understanding a skill conceptually and being able to execute it effectively.

Seek Constructive Feedback: Feedback is crucial for skill development as it provides valuable insights into areas of improvement and helps you correct mistakes. Actively seek feedback from mentors, instructors, or peers who are experienced in the skill you’re trying to acquire. Constructive feedback not only highlights your strengths but also pinpoints areas where you can enhance your performance. Embrace feedback as a tool for growth and use it to adjust your practice strategies and refine your skills effectively.

Set Specific Goals and Track Progress: Establish clear, measurable goals for your skill development journey. Break down the skill into smaller milestones or targets that you can work towards achieving. By setting specific goals, you create a roadmap for your progress and can track how far you’ve come. Regularly monitor your performance, celebrate small victories, and reflect on areas where you may need to focus more attention. Goal-setting helps you stay motivated, maintain direction, and overcome the illusion of skill acquisition by grounding your efforts in tangible outcomes.

One more thing…

Although learning can occur from observing others perform something, the observer’s confidence in their own ability to perform the skill can also be a determining factor. This can cause the false increment of their ability to perform the skill compared to their actual ability. This illusion of motor competence – i.e., “Overconfidence” arises because the learner doesn’t get access to sensory feedback about their own performance.

So the next time you see a video with someone performing or doing something, ask yourself – “Can I really really do it?”.

Spanish La Liga: Real Madrid’s Galacticos

2002-03 Season, Spanish La Liga: O Fenomeno (The Phenomenon) Ronaldo joined the Los Blancos, Real Madrid Football Club, from Inter Milan for a staggering fee of 45 million euros. With his 23 league goals, Real Madrid won the Spanish La Liga for 29th time in its history. They were jubilant and ecstatic with the victory.

In order to further strengthen their team for their conquest next season, the club decided to bring in another star midfield player – David Beckham. In the subsequent 2003-04 season, Beckham arrived at the Santiago Bernabeu, the home of Real Madrid, from Manchester United for a whopping fee of 35 million euros. Addition of Beckham ensured Real Madrid added another star in their galaxy – alongside other star players like Iker Casillas, Roberto Carlos, Zinedine Zidane, Raul, Ronaldo, and Luis Figo. With such reinforcement, they were highly favored to win their 30th title.

In a shocking manner, Real Madrid finished fourth in the 2003-04 season, behind champions Valencia, FC Barcelona, and Deportivo La Coruna. To fight back from this embarrassment, Real Madrid bought another forward next season – Michael Owen – the golden boy from Liverpool. Despite the golden boy addition, the 2004-05 season saw FC Barcelona edge Real Madrid with four points. Real Madrid still couldn’t win their 30th title.

In 2005-06 season, Real Madrid splashed out a whopping 96 million euros for multiple players – defender Sergio Ramos and midfielder Baptista from Sevilla, and forward Robinho from FC Santos. Even with such reinforcements, Real Madrid still finished second behind FC Barcelona, this time with a gap of 12 points. For the second consecutive season, Real Madrid did not win any competitions.

Real Madrid finally wins their 30th League Title

In 2006-07 season, Real Madrid splashed huge with more than a hundred million euros. Only after signing the 2006 World Cup winning defender Fabio Cannavaro and his Juventus manager Fabio Capello, along with forwards Ruud van Nistelrooy from Manchester United, Gonzalo Higuain from River Plate, defender Marcelo from Fluminense, and defensive midfielder Emerson from Juventus, Real Madrid managed to win their 30th league title. However, shortly after winning the La Liga title, the club surprisingly sacked manager Capello after he refused to field David Beckham and Ronaldo, and his defensive tactics. This season saw Zidane’s retirement as well as Ronaldo leaving Real Madrid for AC Milan.

The Big Question

The question remains – why could Real Madrid, a team filled with such superstars and gifted players, not win the league for over three seasons, and remain trophy-less in two of them?

While there are multiple reasons for Madrid’s galacticos remaining trophy-less for consecutive seasons, one of them is a departure of an under appreciated genius – Claude Makelele.

Makelele arrived at Real Madrid from Celta Vigo in the 2000-01 season, when Real Madrid started operating with the goal of making it the most fashionable club in the world and was dubbed galacticos since they were aiming to recruit one expensive world famous player every summer. However, despite his value for the team, Makelele was one of its most relatively underpaid player, earning a fraction of that paid to teammates like Zidane, Figo, Raul, Ronaldo, Carlos, McManaman and Guti.

When Madrid’s 28th title winning manager Del Bosque was shockingly sacked, and after the arrival of David Beckham, Makelele decided to ask for an improved contract – especially after getting encouragements from team members Zidane, Raul, McManaman, and Morientes. The club management outright refused to even consider his request. Upset, Makelele handed in a transfer request, and was signed by English Premier League sides, Chelsea in 2003-04 season. Club president Fiorentino Perez infamously scorned on Makelele’s footballing abilities after his departure and proclaimed he would not be missed.

Rise of Chelsea: The Makelele Role

In Steve McManaman’s autobiography, he described Makelele as “the most important and yet least appreciated midfielder at Real Madrid.” The then captain of Real Madrid, Fernando Hierro, also criticized club president Perez for both Makelele’s departure and the manner of departure, and said, “The loss of Makelele was the beginning of the end for Los Galacticos, he was the base, the key and I think he is the same to Chelsea now.”

Makelele usually played in front of the team’s back-line, where he served as a defensive protection cover for the defenders. With his ability to read the game, break down plays, mark and anticipate opponents, and aggressive tackling, he was regarded as the best in the position. In his role, he was highly regarded throughout his career for his positional awareness, tactical discipline, intelligence, energy, and ball winning ability. With such abilities and playing a key role in redefining the defensive midfield role, that role is now colloquially known as “The Makelele Role ” in his homage.

With his arrival, Chelsea finished second in the league in 2003-04 season. In 2004-05 season, Makelele was a key player in Mourinho’s campaign, winning the league first time in 50 years and also the League Cup. As of now, this Chelsea side still holds the defensive record for most clean sheets and fewest goals conceded in English Premier League season, all thanks to the defensive cover from Makelele.

The Battery of the Team

When Claude Makelele signed for Chelsea in the summer of 2003, then manager Claudio Ranieri proclaimed Makelele as the ‘battery of the team.’

Now what does this term – ‘battery of the team’ – mean?

Take a moment to think about your decision making process while purchasing a new phone. The decision criteria mostly would include the brand, screen size, display types, processor speed, cameras, RAM, and storage. The battery of the phone rarely comes to the discussion on the decision criteria – not because it is not required, but is often overlooked. The battery powers all the functions – the display, processor, camera, and storage, but is not always considered the best part of any phone. Claudio Makelele was the battery of the team because he was the one to protect the defensive line and supply the ball to the strikers so that they can score.

Similarly, in our teams, we have people who connects and gels the team together – supplying power and energy to other team members. Covering someone’s late night shift, asking a colleague to take a break, protecting a teammate’s mistake – these all are hallmarks of someone who provides energy to the team. The battery of the team often gets under appreciated, and looks like an average performer. But beneath the average performer could be our teams’ battery – who is constantly charging the team, someone who is constantly energizing other team members.

It is essential as leaders and managers to recognize these average performing energizers – because they might be the reason that our star performers are performing their best. Removing them might cause the star performers’ productivity to dwindle down, as that happened with Real Madrid’s galacticos. To identify such ‘battery’ in the team, be in a constant connection with all members of the team – not just with your best performers. Get to know the ins and outs of all team members. Get to know them personally. Get to know which team member contributes in which areas apart from their own designated works.

Getting to know, understanding, and connecting with your team members – this will help you recognize the ‘battery’ in your team. Hold on to them, and sometimes charge them too. It is the battery that powers all other functions in the phone, but the battery needs to be charged too. Similarly, your team’s battery might need frequent charges too.

“You know me, not my story. So don’t judge me!”

“Before you judge me, why not take a good look at yourself?”

“Never judge someone. They’re fighting their own battles.”

These are some common statements we see and hear most of the times. As educated and rational beings, we know that we should not be judging others. But why do we still continue to judge people? We do not like being judged, yet we continue to judge people. Worse, we judge people for judging us. Oh, the irony!

Why should we not judge?

Yes, it is true that we should not judge others. That is true, because we do not know the entire story behind whatever is happening, and judgement of the object or a person would cloud our perception. Forming a narrative based on only half of the story does not really help in fostering and nurturing the relationships that are essential and close to us.

On contrary, judgement – most of the times – are the ones that creates a half-image of the whole, and prevent us from looking at the bigger picture. This myopic sight would trouble our interpersonal relationships – be it personal or professional.

There are a lot of arguments for why we should not judge anyone, or anything, because we probably have only seen it from our lens, and formed our own narratives based on our worldview. This is not necessarily right or wrong, but the bottom line is that it does not show the whole bigger macro-perspective.

But why do we judge?

We will at least in our lifetime remain judgmental of others because that is how our brains have evolved from the past.

Since the times when humans lived in caves, there was always a constant fear of wild animals, a conflicting tribe comprising of physically strong counterparts, natural disasters, and even unknown diseases. Therefore, this judgement of the unknown was an essential skill required not just for surviving, but for thriving too. The initial judgement of “friend or foe” kicked in to understand whether the “unknown” was a potential threat and danger to us or not. And if it indeed was a threat, our ancestors trained their brains to trigger the “fight or flight” response as a way of our survival mechanism.

“This combination of reactions to stress is also known as the “fight-or-flight” response because it evolved as a survival mechanism, enabling people and other mammals to react quickly to life-threatening situations. The carefully orchestrated yet near-instantaneous sequence of hormonal changes and physiological responses helps someone to fight the threat off or flee to safety.”
– Harvard Health Publishing, Harvard Medical School

This “fight or flight” mechanism was a medium for humans to evolve into social groups. As social beings, this practice of judgement was vital for cavemen to establish functioning tribes. Without judgement, the tribe would cease to exist.

Learn how the “fight or flight” mechanism works here.

The best we can do is understand how these judgements are formed and what the judgmental thoughts tell about us.

As Mark says, “the yardstick we use for ourselves is the yardstick we use for the world.” This is why we judge others. Suppose we judge someone for being late, this probably means that we value punctuality. When we judge someone for their appearance, it tells us that we emphasize on the physical outlook. When we judge someone for being disrespectful, it tells us that our principle operates by being respectful towards others. When we judge someone based on their riches, it is just that we value those riches. Simple.

Judgement of others tells us more about ourselves than about them. If we only start noticing by what parameters we judge others, we can understand that those parameters are of importance to us. We can’t stop judging people, but we can surely know more about ourselves with this process. Thus, being mindful and thinking about your own judgements will open doors to understand your own self. This will, however, require a lot of patience as well as practice.

Coming back to the question – will we ever stop judging? Short answer – NO. This judgement is something that is developed with our brain during our evolution, so it is next to impossible for humans to stop judging. However, we can become mindful of our judgements, reflect back on those judgements, and use it as a key to self-awareness in understanding our own priorities, parameters, and principles.

So judge all you want, but be mindful about the narratives being formed, and what those narratives tell you about yourself.

—

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Prayas Rajopadhyaya (@iprayas)

—

The famous Spartan warriors had a credo for their war – “Sweat more in practice, bleed less in war“. Practice is probably the greatest thing humans can do, yet people ridicule it.

For every new thing or an idea that has been brought into the world, people have laughed at it, criticized it, and ridiculed it at the beginning. As the famous quote wrongly misattributed to Mahatma Gandhi goes, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.“

This quote is a summary of Nichoas Klein, an American labor union advocate and attorney, who gave a speech to the Clothing Workers in May 1919, where he said the following:

[…] And my friends, in this story you have a history of this entire movement. First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you. And that is what is going to happen to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. And I say, courage to the strikers, and courage to the delegates, because great times are coming, stressful days are here, and I hope your hearts will be strong, and I hope you will be one hundred per cent union when it comes!

This ridiculing of new thoughts and ideas goes way back in our human civilization. Back when we humans didn’t know earth revolves around the sun, the accepted norm was a geocentric approach – which states that our Earth is at the center of the Universe. Even great philosopher and thinker like Aristotle was in favor of geocentric approach.

When Aristarchus of Samos presented the first known heliocentric approach that placed the Sun at the center of the known universe, with the Earth revolving around the Sun once a year and rotating about its axis once a day, it was met with rejections in favor of geocentric theories of Aristotle and Ptolemy.

In the 16th century, Nicolaus Copernicus, a Polish mathematician and astronomer, formulated a model fo the Universe that placed the Sun rather than Earth at its center. However, he was not certain if he wanted to publish his book containing this fact because of his concerns about possible astronomical and philosophical objections and/or religious objections.

However, in the 17th century, Galileo Galilei presented supporting observations about Copernican heliocentrism (Earth rotating daily and revolving around the Sun) using a telescope. This was – again – met with opposition from within the Catholic Church. The Roman Inquisition concluded that heliocentrism was foolish, absurd, and heretical since it contradicted Holy Scripture. Later on, Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy” by the Inquisition, and thus had to spend the rest of his life under house arrest.

Long before the geocentric theories of Aristotle, the great philosopher Socrates was also executed by forced suicide by poisoning, because he was accused of corrupting the youth and failing to acknowledge the city’s official gods. In 399 BC, his trial lasted a day, and was sentenced to death for his radical thoughts and ideas.

In a world full of ridiculing, why should we practice?

Let us first go back to the time, when ancient humans discovered fire.

Although the direct evidence is scarce, claims for the earliest definitive evidence of control of fire by a member of Homo ranges from 1.7 to 2.0 million years ago. Evidence for the “microscopic traces of wood ash” as controlled use of fire by Homo-erectus, beginning some 1,000,000 years ago, has wide scholarly support ^[a].

In a review for the Royal Society Philosophical Transactions B, J.A.J. Gowlett hypothesizes that hominins took advantage of natural wildfires for foraging. It is difficult to follow the development of human control over fire because of what Gowlett calls its “disappearing act.” Fire isn’t as well preserved in the archeological record as, say, middens or flint tools. And progress was incremental, with fire control being learned in different places at different times. Certain archeological sites have proffered a bounty of stone tools, suggesting long-term quartering. Such occupancy could mean hominins learned to at least maintain fire as far back as 2.5 million years ago. But direct evidence is scarce ^[b].

So what happened after we discovered fire?

The cooking hypothesis, proposed by Richard Wrangham, Ruth B. Moore, Professor of Biological Anthropology at Harvard, claims that fire allowed us to cook our food – making cooked meats easier to chew and digest; and as a result, our bodies could extract more nutrients form the same amount of meat. Wrangham argues that the ability to create cooked foods shaped the brains and bodies of our Homo ancestors. Larger brains allowed us to process more information, create more dynamic social groups, and adjust to unfamiliar habitats. All of which benefited us evolutionarily ^[b].

Cooking can be thought of as “pre-digesting.” Because we’ve already broken down much of the food by cooking, the calorie absorption process becomes more efficient than if the food had been raw, and requires that we put in a significant amount of energy to just digest. The use of fire to prepare food paved the way for the evolution of organisms that could support significantly larger brains ^[c].

Thus, we are where we are now because of practice.

How?

Imagine a scenario – one of the ancient homo species discovered fire and showed it to his close group. He may have been ridiculed, laughed at, or may even have been accused of creating something dangerous and potentially destroying weapon! But had that one homo species given up, and left the practice to discover fire and educate more species, we would probably not have evolved so much as we have now.

Practice enabled humans to discover fire. With fire, humans were able to consume cooked foods. This allowed our body and brain to gain valuable nutrients required for our continuous development. Darwin himself considered language and fire as the two most significant achievements of humanity ^[d].

So how do you build habit of practice?

Step 1: Shut up and show up.

As James Clear, author of Atomic Habits, say – shut up and show up. Showing up is the first step towards practice and building long term habits. No matter what, show up. Take that first step.

Step 2: Know the environment.

Our environment also plays a vital role in building any habit of practice. If the people around us talk about football all the time, we are bound to watch football – because as humans, we are wired to comply with social groups. If people around us are appreciative and supportive enough, we tend to take the step we never thought we could take. The safety net from our environment really helps in taking new strides. If people around us aren’t supportive, maybe we need to change our environment around us.

Step 3: Use visual cues.

Small wins are massive motivators, but we rarely recognize them. Having a small win, and assigning a visual cue to it is important in any practice. Visual stimulus is important. It makes us stick with good habits. The visual cues act as a reward system for us to continue practicing. A small ‘tick’ on our calendar or marking done in our to-do list are all examples of visual cues working with our brain to reinforce our habit of practicing.

—

A constant reminder for myself to practice comes from my name itself – Prayas, meaning ‘try’. Let’s give it a try. Let’s take the first step.

And let’s keep practicing.

Also read: Awareness & Courage – And how to “Practice” it

Are any worries worth taking in life? Superficially, NO. Even Gaur Gopal Das, Indian lifestyle coach and motivational speaker, asks not to worry about any problems in life because we can either do something or not do something about it. However, on a deep and thorough perspective, maybe there are some worries that are worth scratching brains for.

After coming back home from a different-than-usual haircut, people around me had vivid perceptions – some appreciating the change, and some finding it harder to accept I spent my time and money for nothing. Some even asked why I was so worried about my appearance. I immediately wondered, “just because you are not interested in your appearance doesn’t mean I should not be worried about mine“. That’s when my mind hit this question – “Could there be worries worth taking?”

The Upside of Worrying

Kate Sweeny, a psychology professor at the University of California, Riverside, claims that not all worries are destructive despite its negative reputation. Sweeny and her team led to a research that concluded with surprise benefits of worrying – when done in right amount, it may motivate people to engage in behaviors that are potentially beneficial to their health. Sweeney further suggests that it seems both too much and too little worry can interfere with motivation, but the right amount of worry can motivate without paralyzing.

Worry has been defined in both negative and neutral terms. Edward Watkins, a clinical psychologist and mood disorder researcher at the University of Exeter points out, “By worrying about something, we are more likely to think of reasons to take action and be motivated to do something.” Furthermore, researchers argue that there is a “finite pool of worry“, so anxiety about one matter can inhibit concern about others.

Sweeny points out that alike any emotion, worry also serves a function. Sweeney adds, “It’s a signal. It’s essentially pointing us towards something that might be coming and it’s drawing our attention there. It’s motivating us to ideally prevent the bad thing from happening or at least prepare for it.“

Sweeny says that flow has been especially useful for coping with the stresses of COVID-19. Flow is a state of absorption with moderate challenge and a means of tracking progress – “zoning in” rather than “zoning out”. In Sweeny’s and colleagues’ preliminary research on the mental wellbeing of Chinese people not yet quarantined, flow was associated with reduced loneliness and more health-promoting behaviours.

So could there really be worries worth taking?

Understanding the upside of worrying, we can conclude there could be worries worth taking – especially those worries that will help us to engage in behaviors helpful to us, but not at the cost of harming others.

When we worry about something, it might be telling us that it is important for us. When we start noticing about what makes us worry, or what worries usually surround our mind, we begin to understand how we prioritize and value that instance.

For example:

However, the important point here is while we would be worrying about these worries because they’re important to us, others might or might not be able to understand and relate it the same way. Hence they can easily discard our worries or find it difficult to contemplate why we are involved in it so much. It needs to be understood that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure .

For instance from the earlier evidences,

This leaves us with a very important thought to reflect back:

What are we worrying often about? What does it tell us about ourselves as a person? And are we discarding others’ worries just because we are not invested in it? And the most important one – What are the worries worth taking?

—

Read Next: The Diagnosis Pitfall

“Relax, bro! Why are you always so pessimistic? Don’t think all that negative stuff. Come on, be positive, man. It’s going to be alright, be happy!“

This statement has undertones of a classic toxic positivity. I’ve heard this (or similar) phrase a lot whenever I shared about my problems, setbacks, and failures. In all honesty, this was my go-to phrase and an automated advice for anyone who shared their problems with me as well. This advice largely never worked for me, and I’m pretty sure it has not worked for others as well.

Given that we all hear these phrases every now and then, and given the internet world full of motivational instagram posts & pinterest images, the toxic positivity is not only futile in solving our problems, but also creates additional problems for us.

INTRUSIVE THOUGHTS

Those thoughts that pops up and makes us feel worried, guilty, and/or ashamed is termed as “intrusive thoughts”. All those thoughts of “What if I’m not as good as others think?“, “Why am I always a burden to others?“, “I’m the worst person in the world” are examples of intrusive thoughts which can cause distress, since its nature might be upsetting. Even if one is of a sound mind and free from mental health issues, it is possible to be struck by intrusive thoughts out of nowhere.

So why do we have intrusive thoughts? Turns out, these thoughts are what kept humans alive, with our brain’s flight or fight response. Our brains have evolved to keep us safe by continually scanning for dangers. These thoughts are the results from danger scans.

What keeps the thought going? Simple – we try to avoid it. That is what keeps the thought going. The more we try to push it away, more it sticks to us.

Learn about thoughts escalation here.

DO NOT THINK ABOUT GIANT RATS

Simple exercise:

Whatever you do, do NOT think about GIANT RATS. Just don’t. DO NOT THINK ABOUT GIANT RATS. I repeat – DO NOT! Master Splinter? I said don’t!

How did it go?

This is a common brain paradox – If we are trying to avoid a thought, our brain focuses on it more. Scumbag brain!

This is exactly why the “don’t think about it” advice never works. If you suppress thinking about your ex, you’ll eventually think more about him/her. This study on paradoxical effects of thought suppression proves that when you’re asked not to think about something, it actually makes you more likely to think about it.

As Mark Manson, author of ‘The Subtle Art of not Giving a F*ck’ writes, “Everything worthwhile in life is won through surmounting the associated negative experience. Any attempt to escape the negative, to avoid it or quash it or silence it, only backfires. The avoidance of suffering is a form of suffering. The avoidance of struggle is a struggle. The denial of failure is a failure. Hiding what is shameful is itself a form of shame.“

TOXIC POSITIVITY – WHY DOES IT HARM MORE?

Toxic or forced positivity – Dr. Jaime Zuckerman, a clinical psychologist, explains this term as the assumption, either by one’s self or others, that despite a person’ emotional pain or difficult situation, they should only have a positive mindset or “positive vibes”.

Toxic positivity can take many forms: It can be a family member or a friend who chastises you for expressing frustration instead of listening to why you’re upset. It can be a suggestion to “look on the bright side” or “be grateful for what you have” by completely discarding the problems.

In this time of COVID-19 global pandemic, the situation is even more dire. This pandemic has intensified the already unprecedented and uncertain future, and our automated reflexes is most likely to be overly optimistic or positive to avoid accepting a dreaded reality. Let’s accept – our lives aren’t just roses, but with thorns as well. And as Susan David, PhD says, “We will find ourselves in situations where we will feel anger, sadness and grief and so on. Unless we can process, navigate and be comfortable with the full range of our emotions, we won’t learn to be resilient. We must have some practice dealing with those emotions or we will be caught off guard.“

RESEARCH EXPERIMENT ON TOXIC POSITIVITY

Several studies (Gross and Levenson, 1997) show that suppressing thoughts and hiding or denying feelings leads to more stress on the body and/or increased difficulty avoiding the distressing thoughts and feelings

In Gross and Levenson’s study, research participants were divided into two groups and shown disturbing medical procedure films while their stress responses were measured (e.g., heart rates, pupil dilation, sweat production). One group was asked to watch the videos while letting their emotions show whereas the second group of subjects were asked to watch the films and act as if nothing were bothering them.

The result? Those participants who suppressed their emotions (acted as if nothing bothered them) had significantly more physiological changes . The emotional suppressors may have appeared cool and calm but on the inside their stress was erupting!

Courtesy of The Psychology Group, you can find how to turn toxic positive advices to non-toxic acceptance and validation here.

Let’s understand – suppressing, denying, and avoiding does not work. Sometimes, we need to ACCEPT the negatives. Furthermore, as mentioned in this paper, the ability to regulate our emotions is associated with greater well-being, income, and socio-economic status. Accepting the negative, and navigating what our emotions are telling us is the step forward to overcome this spiral of intrusive thoughts & toxic positivity rumination. Also, tragic optimism can be the antidote to toxic positivity. I’ll explain more about this in my next post.

Remember: It’s okay not to be okay.

SHIT HAPPENS!

Dogma, in the broad sense, is any belief held unquestioningly and with undefended certainty. It’s a point of view that people are expected to accept because it is put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. This helps us understand more about the ‘Earned Dogmatism Effect‘ – which tells us that being labeled as an “expert” may contribute to us being close-minded.

In a study with six experiments, Victor Ottati, Erika D. Price, Chase Wilson from Loyola University Chicago and Nathanael Sumaktoyo from University of Notre Dame tested the Earned Dogmatism Hypothesis, and concluded that experts are entitled to adopt a relatively dogmatic, closed-minded orientation. As a consequence, situations that engender self-perceptions of high expertise elicit a more closed-minded cognitive style.

Inflated Scores

In one of the tests, participants were randomly assigned to the easy (successful) or difficult (failure) political test. Fifteen multiple choice questions were asked, with questions in the easy condition being, “Who is the current President of the United States?“, to equivalent question in the difficult condition being “Who was Nixon’s initial Vice-President?“.

Upon completing the test, participants were provided with false and inflated scores. Participants in the easy (successful) condition were told that they performed better than 86% of the other test takers; whereas participants in the difficult (failure) condition were told they performed worse than 86% of the test takers.

The participants in the difficult (failure) condition expressed greater political open mindedness than those in the easy (successful) condition. This went on the prove that even the higher self-perceived expertise created an effect of cognition blockade into themselves. Those people who had the impression that they were relatively expert on a certain topic (even when they were given inflated scores), led them to be less willing to consider others’ viewpoints – as stated by this earned dogmatism effect.

President Obama’s Policies

In another test conducted by Ottari and team, participants were asked to enlist either two (easy case) or ten (difficult case) policies implemented by the then US President, Barack Obama. Participants were randomly assigned to the easy or difficult case. In the easy case, participants were allowed to advance to next screen as long as they described one policy. In the difficult case, the participants were asked to write ten policies signed by Obama, or if they couldn’t name ten, they were instructed to write “I don’t know” in the remaining text boxes.

The result? All participants in the easy condition named at least one policy and more than half of the participants named two policies. In the difficult condition, participants named an average of four policies. As predicted by the Earned Dogmatism Effect, participants in the difficult condition reported greater openness to political open mindedness, while participants in the easy condition had less openness to other political opinions.

The Conundrum of Confidence & Competence

The top rated professor at Wharton for seven straight years, Adam Grant, says, “We need to stop mistaking confidence for competence.“

The problem is that we equate confidence with competence. But they’re very different things. Unjustified confidence is a form of incompetence, and likewise, competence doesn’t really justify the confidence.

In Grant’s recently published book, “Think Again“, he describes two major syndromes – armchair quarterback syndrome and imposter syndrome – with the difference of these two things – competence and confidence.

When confidence is greater than competence, we fall victim of armchair quarterback syndrome, when we become blind to our own weakness. The opposite of armchair quarterback syndrome, imposter syndrome, is where competence exceeds confidence.

So where do we begin then?

In between the two syndromes, we have the sweet spot of confident humility zone. The right balance between competence as well as confidence brings out the best within us, allowing us to dodge the tricky earned dogmatism effect.

No one likes an arrogant expert. Being definite, confident, and certain are all good things for conveying competence, but being dogmatic, narrow, and inflexible can limit the credibility and usefulness of the expert. 

To start with, we need to think deliberately how we can be wrong. Of course it is hard for our biased brain to scan our wrongness ourselves. To avoid such biases, we can reframe the question as, “How can others be right?“. Asking the question would not really prevent us from escaping our wrongness, but helps to understand a different perspective where two rights can exist.

Countless studies have shown that most of us overestimate our understanding of various topics, everything from how a vacuum cleaner works to the detail of political policies – a phenomenon explained by ‘the illusion of explanatory depth’. It is essential for us to understand and establish a realistic sense of our own knowledge. A simple way to address this intellectual overconfidence is to make the effort to explain a relevant issue or topic to yourself or someone else in detail, either out loud or in writing. This exercise makes us aware about the gaps in our knowledge, making it more apparent, thereby breaking this illusion of expertise.

To understand another way to combat our illusion of expertise, we need to explore one of the mental models given by Josh Waitzkin, a chess prodigy and an author of the book, “The Art of Learning“. Waitzkin tells:

The same way we look back at five years younger ourselves and laugh about how stupid we were, we will definitely look back at today five years from now and laugh again. We commonly go on to say, “I didn’t know before, but I know today”. This only tells us that we don’t know something today as well, which we will know tomorrow. This realization will definitely help us to break the illusion, and come above the earned dogmatism effect.

In conclusion, the next time your back of the head tells you during a conversation, “I know, thanks”, tell the biased brain, “You don’t know everything, so let me listen.”

—

Also read: Where even experts can go wrong?

Disclaimer: I am – by no means – an expert in equanimity, and this article only represents the tips I have been practicing on my own.

equanimity
/ˌɛkwəˈnɪmɪti,ˌiːkwəˈnɪmɪti/
noun
calmness and composure, especially in a difficult situation.

Our life is full of problems, conflicts, and crises – be it at work, home, or in relationship. From forgetting an anniversary to homelocked in quarantine during a global pandemic, stress has surrounded our lives. In times like these, most of us – we panic. And we stress even more.

However, we see some people find it easy to navigate around stress. Some people deal with conflicts with some impressive calmness. We don’t even see a slight flinch in their responses. How do people gain such composure even in adversity? This question hit me hard. I decided to explore. I vowed to become one of such people. I’ll tell you what I’m doing so far, but let’s first understand the concept of equanimity.

What actually is Equanimity?

Equanimity – by its definition – might sound like mindfulness. But it’s not. It’s moving beyond mindfulness. This article from Mindfulness journal speaks more about what equanimity is, and has addressed it as follows:

In the Buddhist tradition, the term “equanimity” (upeksha in Sanskrit, upekkha in Pali) is a complex construct that has been given multiple definitions along the development of Buddhist thought. At its heart is the word for ‘eye’ and ‘see’, with a prefix suggesting ‘gazing upon’ or observing without interference. It is “a state of mind that cannot be swayed by biases and preferences”, an “even-mindedness in the face of every sort of experience, regardless of whether pleasure [or] pain are present or not”. This state of equanimity manifests as “a balanced reaction to joy and misery, which protects one from emotional agitation”.

Equanimity is the capacity to remain neutral, to observe from a distance and be at peace without getting caught up in what we observe. It’s the capacity to see the big picture with understanding. In essence, it is about taking nothing personally, refusing to get caught up in the drama – either our own or others’.

Equanimity is the foundation for wisdom and freedom and for compassion and love. It is not, as some have mistaken, a “dryness,” coolness, indifference or aloofness. It is not the suppression of feelings, apathy or inexpressiveness. Equanimity is not indifference.

Equanimity also involves a level of impartiality (i.e, being not partial or biased), such that one can experience unpleasant thoughts or emotions without repressing, denying, judging, or having aversion for them. Similarly, in a state of equanimity one can have pleasant or rewarding experiences without becoming over-excited (e.g., to the point of mania or hypomania), or trying to prolong these experiences, or becoming addicted to them.

Practicing Equanimity

To begin understanding about practicing equanimity, let us understand this verse from the Bhagavad Gita first:

योगस्थ: कुरु कर्माणि सङ्गं त्यक्त्वा धनञ्जय |
सिद्ध्यसिद्ध्यो: समो भूत्वा समत्वं योग उच्यते ||

yoga-sthaḥ kuru karmāṇi saṅgaṁ tyaktvā dhanañjaya
siddhy-asiddhyoḥ samo bhūtvā samatvaṁ yoga uchyate

Translation: Be steadfast in the performance of your duty, O Arjun, abandoning attachment to success and failure. Such equanimity is called Yog.

Equanimity Step 1: Our feelings aren’t us.

Practicing equanimity requires us to remain equipoised in the face of joy or sorrow, and such balanced reaction will protect us from emotional agitation. As Harvard Medical School’s psychologist Susan David, PhD says, “When we identify with an emotion too closely, we often describe it as if it defines us.” A space between us and our emotions is required for clarity. Dr. David further recommends us not to say “I am sad”, or “I am anxious”. Instead, we should try to notice the feeling for what it is – “I am feeling sad”, or “I am noticing that I’m feeling worried”.

Understanding this becomes crucial to avoid reacting emotionally. To get better at this, my good friends Sagar, AJ & team of My Emotions Matter (MEM) recommends separating facts from feelings. Here are some examples from team MEM on separating facts and feelings:

Feeling: You ignored me.
Fact: You haven’t replied to my message for 10 days.

Feeling: I’m worthless.
Fact: I didn’t pass my exam.

Separating facts and feelings allows us to refrain from labeling, judging, or diagnosing any person, object, or event. This allows us to objectively view the incident without falling prey to any cognitive biases. The Indian philosopher Krishnamurti accurately remarked, “The highest form of intelligence is the ability to observe without evaluating.“

Equanimity Step 2: We need to manage our response to our feelings.

Meditator, writer, and speaker Yung Pueblo mentions, “It is not about managing your emotions, it is about managing your reaction to your emotions.”

“Reactions give us the clearest view of what our mind experienced in the past, they are the dense patterns that rise from the deep subconscious as a way to protect us. This form of defense is not based on wisdom, but on survival, when we start expanding our self-awareness, especially during moments of turbulence, we start to see that we have more effective options than just repeating blind behaviors, which produce limited results that generally wipe away our clarity and inner peace in the process.”
– Yung Pueblo

We manage our reactions not by controlling them but by bringing awareness into the process — it is hard to change if you cannot see yourself.

Equanimity Step 3: Developing stoic resiliency.

It’s not events that upset us but rather our opinions about them.

— Epictetus, Stoic philosopher

Equanimity is the central concept in Stoic ethics and psychology. The Greek stoics used the word “Apatheia” (from a- “without” and pathos “suffering” or “passion”), which referred to a state of mind in which one is not disturbed by the passions. Equanimity is closely related to multiple religions – in Hinduism as Samatvam, in Buddhism and Yoga as Upeksha, in Judaism as Menuhat ha-Nefesh or Yishuv ha-Da’at, in Islam as Aslama; and has been used as a core principle in multiple philosophies – in Pyrrhonism (as ataraxia), Taoism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism.

Stoic philosopher Epictetus mentioned that the chief task in life is simply to identify and separate matters so that one can clearly segregate which are externals not under their control, and which have to do with the choices one can actually control. Roman emperor and stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius also mentioned, “You have power over your mind-not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength“.

Holocaust survivor and prominent Viennese psychiatrist, Viktor E. Frankl’s most enduring insight has been derived from this philosophy of stoicism – “You cannot control what happens to you in life, but you can always control what you will feel and do about what happens to you”. Forces beyond our control can take away everything we possess except one thing, our freedom to choose how we will respond to the situation.

The ability to reason, take a perspective from outside of the situation, and hold ourselves accountable are ways that the Stoics would have laid the foundation on building resiliency in one’s’ life.

No person has the power to have everything they want, but it is in their power not to want what they don’t have, and to cheerfully put to good use what they do have.

— Seneca

To sum up the resiliency from the Stoics, focus on two principles – i) Events are neither good nor bad, but it’s our own interpretation of them that is good or bad, and ii) what lies within our sphere of control and what lies beyond it. The trifecta for change suggests being aware of these two principles as a foundation for building resilience, and practicing equanimity. The second stage is to accept that whatever we are doing, we take the full responsibility. No one else is responsible for what we think, feel, or act except us ourselves. And finally, the third stage is to act. During the act, it is essential we ask ourselves – “Is what I am doing helping or harming me?”

Again, let us be reminded that our actions are within our control, but the results are not. As organizational psychologist, Adam Grant once mentioned, “Satisfying work is about enjoying the process, not the product. Pride in the result is not a substitute for joy in creating it.”

This brings us back to the Bhagavad Gita verse mentioned above. When we can perform any act to the best of our ability, abandoning worries and attachment to results, and remain equipoised, then we can say we are in the path towards equanimity.

Read Next : Lazy Humans & Principle of Least Effort [Popular]

The Diagnosis Pitfall

A woman – visibly in panic and grief – runs into the emergency room with her two years old daughter, who was experiencing severe stomach pains.

Normally, the ER (Emergency Room) doctor & the team would have started running tests for diagnostics. However, in this particular case, the ER doctors shifted their attention from the two-year old daughter to the mother, because the mother appeared to be overly concerned and seemed like a parent who would overreact. The doctors sent the mother-daughter home, dismissing any signs of impending severe dangers.

The woman returned the next day. While the ER doctors know how vital it is to carefully listen to the parents while treating infants, the doctors were now even more justified that the woman was overreacting, and labeled her as “hypochondriac”. Once again, the ER doctors sent them home, without proper tests and diagnosis.

The third day – the woman is back at the hospital with her daughter. It was only when the toddler lost consciousness, the doctors realized something was terribly wrong; but by then, it was already too late to save the precious life of the two-year old.

The moment the ER doctors labeled the mother “hypochondriac”, they fell into this pitfall of “Diagnosis Pitfall”, or “Diagnosis Bias”.

(Story adapted from Ori & Rom Brafman’s “Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior”)

—

How can skilled, educated, and experienced doctors & physicians make such a disturbing decision? They go through years of rigorous training and intense practises because they’re responsible of saving someone’s life. But is it possible that even these knowledgeable doctors & physicians fall into the diagnosis pitfall?

Turns out, they can.

They’re humans after all. And our reliance on our cognitive process is vulnerable to biases, which makes treatment and diagnosis errors more likely than we think.

—

The journal article from Jill G Klein (associate professor of Marketing at INSEAD) published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) explains about the five pitfalls in decision making about diagnosing and prescribing. The five common pitfalls are – i) Representative Heuristic, ii) Availability Heuristic, iii) Overconfidence, iv) Confirmation Bias, and v) Illusory Correlation.

“Studies based on both simulated cases and questionnaires show that doctors are susceptible to decision making biases, including insensitivity to known probabilities, overconfidence, a failure to consider other options, the attraction effect, and the availability heuristic. The good news is that training in these dangers can reduce the probability of flawed medical decision making.“

Caroline Wellbery, MD from Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, District of Columbia explains in her paper about the diagnostic bias and prevention strategies.

For a list and explanation about 50 various cognitive and affective biases in medicine, click here.

The Diagnosis Pitfall : How do you fall in?

In the above story, the doctors fell into the diagnosis pitfall in the moment they labeled the patient as “hypochondriac”.

When we label a person or situation, we put blinders to all evidence that contradicts our diagnosis. The “experts” at times are blinded by their past experiences, and could be fixated on the new event being the same as their past events. This happens to all of us. When we tend to selectively focus only on a part of the event that triggers our inner advice monster, we succumb into this trap of diagnosis pitfall. When we listen to someone sharing their story, and a part of it resembles our past event, we quickly prescribe them what had worked for us without realizing their situation might be completely new.

There are usually three parts in falling prey to this biasness, viz. i) selective focus, ii) awakening inner advice monster, and iii) putting blinders to evidences that contradicts our diagnosis. Selective focus is when we tend to pick up only the selected event that resembles our past experiences and then zone-out the rest. Then, we subconsciously awaken our inner advice monster to prescribe what worked for us in the past, and finally, we do not look up enough evidences and factors that can contradict the advice we are about to prescribe.

The Diagnosis Pitfall : How do you get out?

To overcome this diagnosis, we need to understand how we get in first. Once we understand the “getting in” part, we can become aware of this dangerous pitfall, and the cost of this pitfall could be catastrophic. Being aware of our cognitive biases is the step one of overcoming any biases.

Second, understanding the three steps of falling prey to the diagnosis pitfall is essential. The answer to “getting out” of this pitfall is hidden in the route to “getting in” this pitfall. To overcome selective focus, we need conscious and empathic listening. When someone is sharing their situation, it’s not only the words that we should be paying attention to. Empathic listening is about letting the speaker know that we are genuinely interested in listening to them, we understand their problem as well as how they feel about it.

Taming the inner advice monster could be hard, but not impossible at all. To tame our advice monster, what we want to do is replace our advice-giving habit with a new habit: Staying curious. It’s as simple — and as difficult — as that.

Only when we have listened empathetically and not awakened our inner advice monster in between, we can then finally look for prescriptions. However, we should also be aware to look out for evidences that contradicts our prescriptions. In addition to vouching for “how this advice could work for you because it worked for me”, we should also seek to answer “how this advice could not work for you”.

Each person and each situation is different. Therefore, practicing a beginner’s mindset – or “shoshin” – could be crucial to overcome this pitfall. As Dr. Tracy Ochester (author of ‘Attitudes of Mindfulness: Beginner’s Mind’) puts it, “when we adopt the mind of a beginner, we endeavor to look at things as if for the first time, free from the influence of the past or speculation about the future. We open ourselves to what is here now, rather than constructing stories about what we think is here”.

Read Next: Don’t think outside the box