Is Guilt a Useless Emotion?

Today I wish to question the use of guilt as an emotion. Guilt is typically defined as feeling culpable and responsible for things past or possibly for things still to come. However isn’t this a little odd as why should we worry about things we have no control over? If you got angry at your good friend the other day then why feel guilty today? Please don’t get me wrong, realising that what you did was perhaps uncalled for or wrong is perfectly fine, but there is no need to then place a burden upon yourself which will make your life all the worse, this will only add to the damage the initial anger caused. Having an appreciation of how mistakes can be improved is fine, but don’t view it in a negative way.

Guilt is a negative emotion and as such can be very destructive. I know that I personally have a problem with being too hard on myself. I beat myself up about small things and drive myself into the ground for any mistakes made. This problem is also probably linked to the fact that I’m a bit of a perfectionist. Thus my standards are too high, and I can never meet them. Not meeting my expectations leads me to feeling guilty and aggravated which causes a negative cycle and then its all downhill from there.

An interesting example of this would have to be when I played competition tennis at age 15 or so. Coincidentally the tennis has been broadcasting on Australian TV recently as the Australian open is going on in Melbourne. Or perhaps I should say it is concluding in Melbourne as today is also the day of the finals. Anyway, I started playing tennis at around 12 and by the time I was 15 I was, trying not to sound to vain here, quite competent really. However when at 15 I started doing competition tennis I found to my dismay that I would lose pretty much all of my matches, even when my opponents had terrible technique and were obviously far worse than me (technically). Why was this? Ultimately I believe it was due to the stress and guilt I placed upon myself and how I would play badly due to putting myself in a negative state of mind, by beating myself up internally. Basically I’d make one bad shot, give myself a difficult time about it and then never manage to psychologically pick up my game again. Hence I would make a huge amount of unforced errors.

What I’m getting at is that tennis is a very psychological game. I always like to compare it to a fight. When talking singles its just you and the opponent. Hence if they win a point there’s only one person to blame, and that’s yourself. I’d come back each Saturday feeling despondent and being unhappy as well as angry with myself for having yet again lost, normally to an inferior opponent.

Guilt is an overrated emotion. Often people feel guilt for things they did years ago, and while it is good that they wish not to repeat that it is not good that they live in anxiety and fear of that past. Accepting responsibility is immensely important and I encourage it 100%, but it need not lead to guilt. Guilt is a waste of our time. If you do something wrong you accept it, you take responsibility for it, but you do not beat yourself up about it. Where does beating yourself up get you? Nowhere fast would be an appropriate answer, or perhaps the answer should be backwards.

Try watching a game of tennis some time, you’ll understand just how psychological it is. Not that any other sport isn’t of course, but I suppose as I used to play it I understand it particularly well. Its interesting to see that someone who was playing badly can turn their game around or vice-versa, all as a result of mood. Its obvious that being in a good mood can improve not only your actual performance but how you perceive that performance. Allow me to explain:

Imagine yourself playing a game of tennis, and you’re in a really good, positive frame of mind. Typically that means that the positive frame of mind will fuel you and make you play all the better. But even if you still lose (which isn’t to say that the positive thinking isn’t making you play better), you can still think “wow that was a great game of tennis and despite losing I played a good game.” Unfortunately I was never mature enough to think this back when I played tennis, but somewhat ironically it can’t just be thought but sincerely believed, otherwise the thought is like someone else saying it and you saying “bollocks, I played terribly and got beaten as a result.” Personally I find the first, more positive outlook much better and I think it also helps people to perform better too, not to mention just living a more enjoyable life generally.

So where does guilt come into all this? Well, as I mentioned earlier, guilt is a negative emotion and negative thoughts lead to negative results, at least such has always been my personal experience. Taking responsibility for your actions is all well and good, but dwelling on past and potential future failings is psychologically harmful. Indeed the Buddhist philosophy of “Living in the Now…:” coincides with the idea that we should not live in the past or the future, but rather in the ever evolving period of now. Guilt is an escape from the present, inserting worries over which we don’t have control, over what is done, or not yet even the case.

Maybe I’m naïve and foolish to believe that guilt is overrated, but I honestly feel that so much could be gained and that people could move on and better themselves so much more if guilt were at very least toned down, if not eliminated. As the science daily website http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070516081014.htm argues, self-compassion (the ability to treat ourselves kindly) is extremely important. As it puts it: “Life’s tough enough with little things that happen. Self-compassion helps to eliminate a lot of the anger, depression and pain we experience when things go badly for us”. Surely self compassion would be not putting yourself through unneeded pains and anger in the form of guilt.

Remember that getting ride of guilt and hence being more compassionate to ourselves need not remove responsibility. As the science daily site explains: “Self-compassion allowed people to accept responsibility for a negative experience, but to counteract bad feelings about it.” The website also explains how “researchers found that: People with higher self-compassion had less negative emotional reactions to real, remembered and imagined bad events.” It certainly seems that eradicating guilt and with it needless negative tensions yields more positive results. As though in proof of my hypothesis Djokovic just won the Australian Open, despite losing the first set. He kept his cool though and didn’t beat himself up, and it ended up earning him a fancy trophy. I imagine professional sportsmen must have to have be psychologically strong to, else they could not win. The minute a sportsmen starts blaming himself for what he did wrong, it all goes down hill.

So I feel that we as a society or as a species perhaps, must learn to reduce our susceptibility to unneeded guilt. For the third or so time I will stress that taking responsibility is not what I have a problem with, it is doing this by psychologically crippling yourself which I have a problem with. Worrying about all the bad things you have done in life won’t help fix them, only truly accepting responsibility for your actions and by trying to work to improve on how you act can. Guilt is useless, its role is destructive not constructive and as such it should be avoided.

Positive Thinking:

Positive thinking is essentially just thinking in an optimistic manner, in contrast to thinking in a pessimistic way. How we perceive the world and let external influences effect us is in large part a subjective process and we can see it either negatively or positively, the essential argument I wish to make is why not view life positively? Positive thinking may certainly sound like a wanky concept, and trust me once upon a time I would have laughed it off as superstitious shite, but today I am all the wiser for coming to terms with it.

I have an uncle who is, as all my uncles, are a good fellow. However whenever I talk to him on the phone I swear he sounds depressed. I told him once to not be so pessimistic and instead be more optimistic. In reply he stated simply that he was being realistic. Well and good, but what I think he was not understanding is that we in large part define what is real. We choose how we react to a situation. Sure influences themselves may be caused outside our sphere of influence, but we still ultimately have a large amount of control in regards to how we react to a given situation.

Let me give you a bizarre example that sticks in my mind. Let us say you go for a stroll around the block, just to stretch your legs, and in doing so you fall and unfortunately break one of your legs. Your instinct is of course to get very angry at the fact that you’ve broken one of your legs and that you can’t ride your bike anymore or whatever other negative thoughts seem to seep into your mind. However a positive thinker might say “right well, I’ve broken my leg that is a bit unfortunate but I suppose things could have been worse, after all I still have the other leg to get home on, and at least its not hailing.” Odd I know, hence why it seems ridiculous. But out of the two responses to the situation which would you rather be? Neither is right or wrong for in the world of the subjective such concepts are intangible. Given that both responses accept what has happened and are as such not denying reality I would much rather be the optimist. Sure there’d be distress at the broken leg, but on the bright side it would soon heal and at least the unfortunate victim in our scenario would be able to gain back his ability to walk on two legs.

So here is where my uncle was wrong. You can indeed be both a realist and an optimist, much as you can be a realist and a pessimist. Admittedly there is a lot wrong in our world and the media serves largely to make us feel bad about it, but this still doesn’t mean we can’t accept the reality and approach it positively. To say that being negative is being realistic simply isn’t so, one can be negatively realistic or optimistically realistic, the way we approach something needn’t change how real it is. However as I addressed in “TPOH – The Media…:”, the negative image painted to us constantly by our ever loyal media really doesn’t help.

The benefits of thinking positively are well known, firstly you’ll increase your chances of enjoying life and secondly you’ll be more likely to, as a result, do better in many ways in life. So let us all be realistically positive, as why would anyone want to do otherwise and be unhappy and depressed?

Changing your thinking is however, not an easy task. Its easy to consciously say, “right I’ll start thinking more positive now”, in practice however the subconscious does not implement this so easily. The idea of “Living in the Now…:” and appreciating things in their current state I find helps one to think positively. Take the process of change slowly, simply try to see the good things in life over and instead of the bad. Try to shift your focus. If it’s raining as your walking home at least think “I’ve got a place with a roof to go to, somewhere to get dry, and for that I’m thankful.” Give it a go, shift negative thoughts to positive ones. Think “I can” instead of “I can’t”, these little psychological changes can create a huge difference to how you live your life. The tricky part is that its not only a matter of saying “life is good”, but also believing it, or else you will simply feel like you are lying to yourself. I don’t promise that this change will happen over night, but it will certainly happen if you put your mind to it, and in turn will make life all the more enjoyable. So think positively and “Carpe Diem”.

The Middle Way:

Recently I have begun to learn about Buddhism, purely out of self interest. I personally am atheist, but Buddhism definitely has some interesting ideas to offer. One idea it offers in the notion of living ““In the Now:”” which I have already written an article on. The other great idea that Buddhism promotes is the ideal of “the middle way”.

Essentially “the middle way” is a theory of moderation and balance. It is also known as the Buddhist practice of non-extremism. It preaches that one can have too much or to little of something and that happiness and a good life is always found somewhere between the extremes. From the limited lectures I have heard on Buddhism I understand that the great Buddha himself starved himself for some time when he wanted to reach enlightenment. Thus there are pictures of him deathly thin during this stage that survive in artworks today. Needless to say the Buddha realised that starvation was one extreme and was therefore something that in actual fact, due to its extreme nature, inhibited him from reaching nirvana and all the connotations of happiness that go with it. “The middle way” thus became seen as a path taken by the Buddha to avoid the extremes of rigour on one side and sensual indulgence on the other. Thus the notion of “the middle way’, stressing the importance of balance in all things, came into being.

However the idea of “the middle way” is not complex and need not necessarily involve any true appreciation of the Buddhist religion. As I have said I myself am atheist but the idea of leading a balanced life makes perfect sense to me. I think most people would agree that balance is important in all things. I mean, I can not think of one single thing were balance is not required. Even take something as seemingly harmless as water, if you don’t get enough you die of dehydration, yet if you get too much, you drown!

The question should not really be whether balance is appropriate or not, but rather how one finds this balance and where on a spectrum it should be. Still, the importance of balance it seems, still needs to be advocated as it seems that many people still haven’t really gotten the idea into their heads. Its important to realise that this notion of “the middle way” is not confined to the material and what is done, but also how things are done and how people think.

The idea of balance as conveyed in “the middle way” has also been known as the Buddhist practice of non-extremism, and this I think, conveys its origins very well. Extremes are never good, they are unhealthy, they are damaging. Obsessions, addictions and other extremist tendencies ruin peoples lives, hence they should be avoided. The principles behind “the middle way” are simple yet effective, as balance seems to be the one key to life.

Where exactly balance lies, is not an easy question and in many ways I suppose it could be subjective and hence depend on the individual. The problem here is that many individuals stuck with some obsession are often in denial. This fact makes it rather hard for them to really have an understanding of balance and their lack of it.

Allow me to use some examples from an interesting nutritional perspective that support this principle of balance. Nutrition seems to be an area I know a fair bit more about that I really probably need to, probably as I got obsessively interested in it in a rather “unbalanced” sort of way during my last year of school. Needless to say the obsession has caused some nasty habits, but thankfully I’m at least no longer in denial about it and that’s the first step to reaching moderation! Now, onto the information:

A few years ago I essentially came across the simple facts that for example, non-alcohol drinkers live longer than alcohol drinkers and that vegetarians live longer than meat eaters. At first this all made sense as it saw an obvious link between meat and alcohol with various health risks which decreased average lifespan. However, later results revealed something interesting. While for example non-alcohol drinkers lived longer than alcohol drinkers at large, the group that lived the longest were in fact those that drank small amounts. Amounts which could be described as “balanced”, and “in moderation”. As http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/HealthIssues/1106591095.html states:

“Research extending back as far as 1926 has demonstrated that drinking in moderation is associated with greater longevity than is either abstaining or abusing alcohol. The medical research evidence is now unquestionable and demonstrates that the effect is not the result of health-compromised alcoholics who abstain. When studies restrict abstainers to lifelong teetotalers the result is the same. Nor is it the result of moderate drinkers having better overall health habits. When lifestyle factors are taken into consideration, the result remains. And the effect occurs not only for red wine but also for white wine, beer, and liquor or distilled spirits.”

Similarly it was found that while vegetarians lived longer than meat-eaters, it was those people who ate meat only infrequently in moderated amounts that lived the longest of all. The obvious conclusion I have come to from this evidence is that it is not so much exactly what they are doing, but what it represents that is important here. Those who eat no-meat for example are most likely extreme to some degree, as are those who pig out on hamburgers all day. In contrast, those that live a happy, balanced life and as such one which isn’t extreme, don’t deny themselves things which may be a little bad for them (in this case seen as alcohol and meat) but simply make sure to enjoy small amounts of it in moderation. Thus they live a happy unrestrictive lifestyle in which they get enjoyment and through moderation good healthy, both physically and psychologically.

So I personally believe it is the fact that those who can moderate what they eat and drink and do etc, live longer as they are probably happier with who they are and more content in there day to day lives than the others who either over-indulge, or refuse to indulge at all. So here we come full-circle to Buddha’s personal experiences which led him to, as I said earlier, “avoid the extremes of rigour on one side and sensual indulgence on the other.”

The importance of balance in life cannot be understated, and it is important to remember that all things are ultimately in balance. Extremes are primitive, try your hardest to avoid them. Remember too that the state of mind is greatly important here to. If you forced yourself to only eat limited amounts of meat and drink limited amounts of alcohol you’d probably find that you wouldn’t live as long as those who do it without being forced, simply because again you are being extreme by forcing yourself to do something constantly. What you need is a combination of discipline and desire.

So go find balance in life. Find “the middle path”. I hope you do, and that it brings you contentment ““In the Now:”” and a happier, less stressful life. Happiness seems to come with moderation and balance, at least, that’s certainly what I’ve found to be the case.

Nature vs. Nurture – An Intelligent Issue:

Often I have asked the question is Intelligence a genetically inherited trait or one endowed by the environment? Obviously it is a combination of the two, but we must wonder if one of these factors dominates the issue more than the other. Historically it was noted that intelligent people typically had intelligent children and that intelligence seemed to run in families. The early principles of eugenics confirmed this and there is a fair bit of evidence to prove that intelligence runs in families. However this hardly means it is all genetic. Granted there are genetic links here, but we must also accept that substantial evidence shows that environmental influences in life also play a huge role in matters of intellect.

If we take, for simplicities sake, IQ to be an accurate measurement of intelligence (which it isn’t really), then we can see that as per usual neither factor alone determines intelligence. It is interesting to see that “Various tests have shown that there is a socio-economic link to IQ as people who are better off financially score 17 point higher on IQ tests than those financially disadvantaged people who take the same exam.” (http://allpsych.com/journal/iq.html) This certainly stands to prove that a good environment strongly allows one to develop to ones greatest potential. It is also important to note that 17 points on the IQ test is quite a considerable amount.

As I argued in “The Power of Music – The Link Between Musical Ability and Intelligence” it has also been shown that learning a language and learning a musical instrument are the two best ways to increase the brains neuroplasticity (its ability to create and strengthen links). The previously mentioned website (http://allpsych.com/journal/iq.html) also notes that “cognitive development appears to be stimulated by the development of language.” So in many ways it would seem that environmental influences can greatly enhance ones ability to reach a higher IQ (or intelligence). Many of the activities that affect us seem to particularly potent if they are done at a younger age. If you learn a second language and an instrument at a young age it allows your brain to be all the more flexible than if you learnt these things at an older age. Similarly mothers who are pregnant and eat a bit of fish (or other foods containing omega-3) often have children who are ever so slightly smarter. See the “Omega-3: Something Smells Fishy, What’s all the Hype About?”, if you want to learn more about the amazing benefits of omega-3. I also noted in “The Many Benefits of Exercise – Part 3:”, that exercise has great benefits for the brain. There is also scientific evidence that has concluded that lab mice who had the ability to run and did were more intelligent than there counterparts who did not run.

However all of these environmental things seem to be allowing us to fuller realise our potential. I suppose it would thus seem to be the case that it is ultimately genetics which set our potential in the first placel. However this has not been conclusively provien. There was a rather controversial book released in 1994 known as THE BELL CURVE. Ultimately its research into twins who were raised apart or together seemed to suggest that genetics played the biggest role in intelligence. Unfortunately the book then goes on to make some rather racist associations between whites and blacks which are completely unfounded and very naïve. It has spawned a great deal of controversy and several books have been written in response to it, so it is hardly the holy grail of nature vs. nurture in regards to intelligence. None the less the studies within are interesting and do have some scientific validity in associating a strong correlation between genetics and intelligence.

Still, like all of the nature and nurture articles I have written the answer seems to be that ultimately it is a combination of nature and nurture which affects who and what we are. If genetically you are born with no brain obviously you’ll never be a genius. Equally, if you are born a genius and have a serious brain injury then you may well no longer be a genius. Neither category (nature of nurture) should be excluded, and it wasn’t my intent to do so. My research into the area is rather inconclusive and to be honest this doesn’t surprise me.

So what does all this research teach us? What can we learn from this? My advice would be that we must accept that, yes, genetics do play a role in many of our characteristics including how intelligent we are/could potentially be. However, this need not mean we can’t improve ourselves! To think that would be self-defeating. It is a fact of life that the person next to you might be smarter and hence be able to learn twice as fast as you, but is that any reason to give up learning all together? In the end being disciplined and studious seems to pay off more than pure intellect, as I know rather a few smart people who simply don’t care about their academic work and as a result do rather horribly.

Genetics are often viewed as a boundary. However this is often used as an excuse for inaction. Personally I’d rather see genetics as a realistic simple fact of life. If your dumb or short or uncoordinated it needn’t be the end of the world. Just because you are born brilliant doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t become it. Even if your genetics in a certain department aren’t good doesn’t mean you can’t at very least improve somewhat. Typically people can at very least reach an average level of ability in anything despite setbacks. Maybe you don’t have the brains of a natural born scientist, but who the hell says that doesn’t mean you can’t give it your best and try and become one anyway? Why let the fact that you have bellow average genetics for intelligence (which how do you even concretely know anyway, remember the IQ is hardly a good test of intelligence) get in the way of you trying to do your best?

I’ve recently been reading a book about small business (LINK TO BOOK?) in which there is a rather empowering section on not giving up. It essentially gives the outline of an unlucky man’s life, including how this fellow was rejected from parliament on several occasions. However he didn’t give up and in 1860 he eventual managed to become president. That man was Abraham Lincoln, a man who in hindsight people couldn’t imagine as anything but a president. Maybe he wasn’t a born politician, maybe he was but he got unlucky on the way, regardless the point is that he was determined to become something and he didn’t let setbacks or difficulties stop him from trying.

Another interesting fact I can throw in is that a national geographic program called “My brilliant brain” had an episode about Susan Polgar. Essentially her father, a psychologist, believed that the greatest factor to becoming very good at something was simply practice and not natural ability. Susan was then raised to become a champion chess player, and sure enough she did. Her family has no history of great chess players yet her and her two sisters who were brought up similarly, simply played lots of chess and became extremely good through discipline and devotion. It makes one question whats more important, what we start with, or how we use it? In many ways I am inclined to think that the later is more important, as no matter how good we start if we don’t use our talent it is wasted. The later view is also more empowering as it essentially argues that anyone can excel at anything with practice and devotion.

It’s true that genetics limit us, and its important that we take a realistic perspective on how they do. If you’re in your mid-thirties and only one metre tall chances are you’re not going to grow any more. That’s something you can’t change so the only real answer is to try and accept it and move on to change the things we can control. A realistic yet positive outlook would accept various limitations by genetics yet still be optimistic in encouraging positive change and trying to be the best we can. It is unfair to expect anything else and foolish to let genetics provide you with an excuse for never at least trying. All too often genetics become a scapegoat for mediocrity or even worse simply not attempting something. While the limitations placed upon us by gravity, genetics and other limiting things starting with the letter G (maybe guerrillas?), should be accepted and seen as a simple fact of life, we should not get dismayed by these facts. We should simply change our plan of attack to target something we can change, influence and do something about. So look out for killer guerrillas (Jesus, it rhymes!) and other than that enjoy life and live it to its fullest. Change isn’t easy, but its all the easier if you believe you can do it and do think things like “I’d like to do it by genetics won’t let me.” So make a realistic goal that your genetics will allow and shoot, shoot to win, (or slow down rampant guerrillas, the choice is yours)!

The Philosophy of Happiness – Accepting Yourself

If you don’t like who you are you’re not going to be happy now are you? There is a fundamental need to accept oneself before one can be happy. Most of us who are in some way unhappy dislike something about ourselves and hence envision our happier counterpart as someone with very different characteristics. This subconsciously drills into our mind the notion that we cannot be happy simply as we are and therefore puts a condition upon happiness. If this condition is reached all well and good, but if its not (which most often it isn’t) then if you do not change your thinking you are doomed to a life of unhappiness. Not a pretty thing really. What I’m suggesting is that there is some link between being content with who and what you are and being happy. Indeed the words happy and contented are synonyms.

Who cares if your fat, short and poor, why does that mean you can’t be happy? Why do we let the media do this to us? We’ll we don’t really, at least I know that I too am affected by the same stereotypes and I certainly don’t give them my consent to tap into my subconscious as they do, particularly in such a negative way. The irony is that consciously we know that the media’s ideal is bollocks, rubbish, fake and unrealistic, we're not stupid, yet subconsciously we still absorb and believe the ideas we are feed. This is simply because the mindless repetition of the media's ideals become ingrained in our very thought processes. This is essentially how the subconscious mind operates.

The Subconscious mind stores far more than the conscious mind yet the conscious mind’s information is more direct and controlling. The idea of affirmations are that we should affirm things we wish to be the case, as it will in turn allow us to accept them and allow our subconscious mind to act upon them. It’s a rather strange idea which if you haven’t heard before might confuse you for a while. What’s more the whole thing is mood controlled.

Allow me to use a simple demonstration. If you need to do something difficult and you think “I can’t do it”, its quite likely you won’t manage to do it, for one reason or another. If on the other hand the same difficult situation had been approached with a more positive “I can do it” sort of attitude, then suddenly your chances of succeeding are much higher. It’s funny how the subconscious mind works. Having faith in yourself is unfortunately not an easy thing to do.

Unfortunately we live in a rather negatively tuned environment. I’ve already noted that the media tend to not only be unrealistic and so forth but tend to focus on negative qualities and events. See “The Philosophy of Happiness – The Media & Unrealistic Expectations:” for further details. By focusing on negative qualities it becomes far to easy for us to blame ourselves and to beat ourselves up internally. We don’t accept or like who we are and thus we think negatively. Thus we wish to change to be something we do like and in doing so place a condition upon happiness in assuming that one must become or do that thing to be happy. A fantastic example is of course the media’s emphasise on people being thin. So many of us strive for this ideal yet the whole time you aren’t at the stage you want to be and are still unhappy and as such are highly unlikely to get to the stage you want to, in turn making you unhappier. This leads to a negative cycle of blame, guilt and unhappiness. Life is spent striving for an ideal to make you happy and in doing so you are not content "in the now" and remain unhappy. (The idea of being happy "in the now" is discussed further in:“Living in the Now –The Philosophy of Happiness with a Twist of Zen:”)

What we should of course do is simply enjoy and love ourselves simply for being what and who we are. To view life through a realistic yet positive lens and be content with where we are. That way if we never get anywhere at least we can be happy. The true irony however, is that often being content with who you are makes it easier for you to follow your own desire to do something. The example of losing body fat is again pertinent here. If we are happy with where we were we’ll paradoxically be more able to follow through on our own wishes and change ourselves, funny that. At the very worst you accept yourself for being fatter and simply live life happy and not worrying and stressing yourself over your weight.

Think about it, you may never lose the weight but at least you can be happy. Only you know how hard you may have tried to lose weight and how it failed each time. Indeed it’s statistically proven and has been said by the famous Tom Venuto in his Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle, that 95% of conventional diets fail. Why is this? More often than not it’s a psychological issue as I commented in “Why Diets Don’t Work”.

America has been dieting for years, and with it the average weight has gone up. As the ideal media weight goes further and further down so too does the average weight rise. Why you ask? A large part is no doubt environmental. There is a problem with America and food being so cheap and plentiful. However there is also another side to the problem and that is simply that people are never happy with how they are, so they try drastic things to change like going on ridiculous diets. They are unhappy the whole time, as they are not happy with themselves. They see little progress as goals and expectations are far to high and they ultimately fail. Then they get depressed and eat. This leads them to get more upset, often angry and frustrated and creates a negative cycle that endlessly fulfils itself all while spiralling further downwards. The evidence seems obvious in how fat countries are getting with the same rise in dieting.

Now as I said, don’t get me wrong, environmental issues clearly play a large role, but psychologically there is something here too. People just aren’t happy with how they are, they just aren’t accepting of their own selfs. I want you to look into the mirror and see that what stares back at you however fat, however tall, however lopsided and ugly is the vessel that you find yourself in. That thing gives you life, it gives you experience, it gives you both pleasure and pain. It is god in a sense. Get rid of it and you get rid of yourself. That’s not to say you can’t alter its exterior, but remember, its simply an exterior. The real you is more so what’s inside it, what makes the vessel do what it does.

To be healthy and well requires not only physically doing the right thing but psychologically feeling that you are doing the right thing. Accepting yourself is an important piece in the vast jigsaw puzzle of total-wellbeing that will help to make life a more enjoyable ride and probably bring greater results as a paradoxical added bonus. Indeed Studies have shown that people who are happier live longer:
http://www.health-and-happiness.info/happiness/happiness-increases-longevitywhere-do-we-find-this-gift-of-life.html, so there’s got to be something to it.

Essentially being happy will make life worth living and quite possibly make it not only of better quality, but of longer duration. Happier people are also more likely to create positive change, help the world and generally get more done. So whats the secret to being happy? Well there is no one clear cut simple answer, but the first step to anyone being truly happy involves accepting yourself. You cannot truly love others and the world you find yourself in and thus be happy, until you love yourself. You have to come to terms with yourself, its always the way. So how can you go about it? My suggestion would be to go and do something nice and simple, not something hedonistic, but rather something seemingly spiritual. Go and sit in a nice garden and simply sit and watch the plants, and give yourself time to relax and accept yourself. Never force yourself against your will, work with yourself, cooperation can yield even greater benefits than competition, particularly when it is of an internal nature.

So go now, and be at one with yourself. I mean why the hell not? We only live once, we deserve to love ourselves, at very least. So even if all you’ve got time for is a quick sit down on your floor and a gentle five minute pause where you simply focus on how wonderfully intricate life is, than so be it. But trust me, do at least this, the dividends you will reap by accepting and coming to terms with yourself are worth far more than anything else we can fathom.

Nature vs. Nurture – The Unending Debate Part 2:

Genetics definitely play a large role in how we turn out in life, this is quite obvious. If you’ve ever seen identical twins or even just similar brothers and sisters you can often see similar features such as face shape or eye and hair colour, this is largely genetically based. However the evident problem here is that these siblings share quite similar environments, which makes it hard to really say that its all genetically based. However it is certain that some traits are far more genetically based than others and some are more within our control than others.

Often people seem to use genetics as an excuse. For instance someone may believe they have genetics which make them rather slow at thinking, and therefore decide to avoid an academic life as they don’t think they could possibly compete. Maybe they’re right, but there is also a large chance that even if they are right they could still be an academic through determination and vigorous application to studying. What seems to happen here is that genetics determine how well someone reacts to a certain environment, but obviously that isn’t the whole picture, because then it comes down to how often the genetics get the chance to interact with the environment. Allow me to try and explain with an example. Person A may have a good ability to gain muscle, whereas person B may have a below average ability to build muscle. However, if person A were to not exercise regularly and lead a rather lazy life whereas Person B kept quite fit and exercised regularly as well as eating well then Person B would most likely be quite well muscled. Most people would in comparing them think “ahh Person B has a unique ability to gain muscle”, but in fact this is simply not so, Person B in fact has a disadvantage in our comparison yet he still comes out on top due to simple persistence and determination.

Similarly you may have a genetic tendency to get diabetes or high cholesterol, but that in itself does not doom you to either. Rather it means that it is easier for you to get these medical problems and that therefore you may have to try a little harder to avoid them then people who are not so genetically prone. A healthy balanced lifestyle should keep you from ever developing the problems as while the genetic potential is there it is never being realised (and in this case it is a good thing that the potential isn’t being realised)! At the same time it is important that we realise the genetic limitations that are unique to each person. You certainly can gain more muscle than another person with identical genes by training, but maybe you will never be a professional Olympic-lifter as you simply lack the muscle and joint strength. Its not to say you couldn’t do Olympic-lifting and have fun and keep fit all while improving your strength, it is however to say that you must realise that if you have certain genetics you may not be able to go pro. Realising these limits need not be pessimistic, it is simply trying to put a realistic perspective on life. As http://www.maxwellsfitnessprograms.com/pdf/GENETICS%20OF%20A%20TRIATHLETE.pdf states:
“Accepting your genetics is by no means negative or limiting. It is quite the opposite. It is taking control of all the things you can to be the best you can be.”

It is important not to think of Genes as dominating the environment in a causal way. As http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture_2.htm argues: “Researchers on all sides of the nature vs nurture debate agree that the link between a gene and a behaviour is not the same as cause and effect. While a gene may increase the likelihood that you'll behave in a particular way, it does not make people do things. Which means that we still get to choose who we'll be when we grow up.”
Genes are dependant on the environment to be expressed, and the environment is dependant on genes to have a basis for expression. The two work together, they are mutually inclusive and intertwined, in reality the nature vs. nurture debate is a little silly as the two categories should never really be split as they are. Another article (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2820222/Blinded-by-Science-Nature-via.html), put this nicely in saying:
“We are indeed controlled by our genes, but they in turn are influenced by our experiences. Ridley says that the mapping of the genome "has indeed changed everything, not by closing the argument or winning the [nature versus nurture] battle for one side or the other, but by enriching it from both ends till they meet in the middle.”

In my opinion some things are simply more determined by environment or as the case may be genetics. If you’re fat you may be predisposed to gaining fat but you can most likely lose it through exercising and eating healthy. In contrast changing your eye colour could be rather more difficult! What’s more there also needs to be a distinction made between simple genes (genotype) and genes which have then also been set to a certain degree by early environmental influences (phenotypes). That is to say that everyone has a fat storing gene (although if your unlucky you may have a few more), but there tendency to store fat can be greatly effected by the diet of the mother while the baby is still prenatal. I remember reading a study about it in identical (presumably cloned) mice. Unfortunately I can’t seem to find it again. All I remember was that these mice were genetically identical and while they were all in their genetically identical mothers they were split into two groups. The control group ate a typical western diet high in saturated fat and sugar while the other group ate a much more healthy diet. Once both groups had given birth to the technically genetically identical groups of babies they put them all on the control group diet (the crappy American style diet) and they noticed that the original control group gained far more weight and had a far greater likelihood of developing diabetes and other problems on the rather unhealthy diet. The irony is that the other group didn’t even though they were genetically identical. This shows that the initial interaction with the environment sets the genes at differing levels (phenotype), and this is ultimately nearly as important as the genes themselves.

Regardless of all this essentially what I wanted to get around to saying was that we can’t change our genes, or how they are set. At least not at this stage, and the prospect of changing them certainly brings up odd ethical questions. But, we can at very least control our environment to a degree and make it as best we can to help how our genes express themselves in the future. If you unfit then you can exercise regularly and eat well and improve your fitness, regardless of your genes. Maybe your neighbour can get fit quicker than you but who really cares? The point is you’re doing something good for yourself, and that’s all that matters in the end.

I think this whole article about genetics brings up a really important issue relating to competition which essentially argues that we should only really compete with ourselves. Its often far to unfair to compete with other people as they may often not be on a similar level whether it be genetically or from environmental exposure. Thus instead of racing against the Olympic marathon runners times simply race against your own best time. Who cares if its ten times as long, if you improve your time only a little bit you are still improving, and in the end that’s all that matters. I suppose a nice way to conclude on genetics is to say that not everyone can be a professional athlete within a certain field, otherwise there amazing performances wouldn’t be seen as nearly as amazing as they are. But even so that is not to say that every singly one of us can work with what we’ve got and improve.

The Meaning of life (and other trivial concerns!)– An Existentialist Approach:

Probably man’s most asked questions would have to be something along the lines of “why are we here”, in essence “what is our purpose” or as it is often phrased “what is the meaning of life”. This question is of course closely rivalled by “where do all my socks go and why is it that despite how many socks I buy I never have a matching pair?” which is yet another of life’s many great mysteries. Personally I always liked Douglas Adams’ simple answer to the meaning of life in his: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The answer was of course the now rather infamous number “Forty-Two”. In many ways his comical answer to one of life’s greatest problems highlights how insufficient any clear cut answer would be. How can you go about answering a question as mind boggling as what is the meaning of life?

The meaning of life certainly does seem to be a rather subjective question, and thus one which embraces relativism. Yet this doesn’t really help us much and we now start to wonder if there is no concrete answer. Existentialist theory addresses the issue of not knowing a concrete answer to this ultimate question in stating that it leads to anxiety. If on the other hand there were a clear-cut and set answer to life such as “To eat spaghetti”, then everyone could take comfort in knowing that they fulfil life’s purpose by regularly eat spaghetti and so on. But while the answer remains unknown so to remains a feeling of insecurity in not knowing whether we are in fact doing the right thing. This uncertainty is seen to lead to the aforementioned anxiety.

However fear not, for existentialists and Buddhists alike argue that we need not live a life of anxiety. They admit that there are no fixed values in the world, no things which are simply right or wrong but therefore argue that this places the moral onus on us to create our own values and build society upon these values. They argue that this provides humanity with a fresh slate on which to carve its own values, as shaped by its individuals. Instead of feeling anxious at the lack of values this optimistic way of looking at life stresses felling empowered by our ability to create our own values and to support what we believe in. Thus, while the existentialist view is sometimes associated with a period of angst in which people don’t know what exactly they should be doing, it is seen as able to be overcome when people take on responsibility by defining their own morals, thus empowering themselves. Hence, existential theory is not really nihilistic at all, but rather positive in how it expresses that we are in a position of creative freedom. This creative freedom provides us with a means to mould the pillars of society as we see fit.

Typically existentialism by its nature denounces God as it denounces pure objective truth, yet there is also a stream known as Christian existentialism which still accepts Gods existence. Christian existentialism however must settle be content with the idea that god exists but in no way interferes with human development and hence leaves values open to us to decide upon. The atheist view obviously thinks the same thing, but without there ever being a god. So whether you are religious or not must not necessarily stop you from accepting the primary ideas behind existentialist theory.

I suppose the hard part comes in accepting that life has no true meaning before we create one. While it seems easy to accept I think subconsciously this scares us greatly. I think instinctively we want values to exist of their own accord, much as a physical object would? We want to think that certain virtues, such as helping old ladies to cross the street, exist independently of our minds. Otherwise those virtues become nothing but tentative beliefs. When I say unfounded I mean that they don’t have something concrete to back them up.

Here’s a good example to illustrate what I’m trying to get at. I recently mentioned that I got Terry Pratchett's lattest book Making Money (Discworld). Fear not for it is not a self-help book about making money, rather it is a brilliantly entertaining and comical masterpiece as most of his works are (in my humble opinion of course – but then I always had a taste for the bizarre and humourous). In not giving the plot line away I will simply say that the protagonist who is trying to help the bank out of financial difficulty wants to implement paper money as a currency and in turn get rid of all the gold in the bank’s vaults. The people of the city Ankh-Morpork of course enquire as to what exactly the paper money is other than just paper if there is no gold being held by the bank to give concrete worth to the currency. The protagonist argues that the money is given value by us anyway, and that the whole notion of the city (Ankh-Morpork) itself and all within it should give the paper value as a currency, and therefore that the gold is not required to give it its value.

Okay, if you’re still with me, the equivalence to my article on the meaning of life is that it is simply the way that our minds work that we think better in concrete terms. We can more easily accept and understand values being “right”, “true” or “worthy” if they are concretely supported. That is to say if some figure who can’t be wrong like god says hitting old ladies is bad, then hitting old laddies is bad. We take comfort in knowing that we don’t really have to understand why these things are, or take any responsibility for why they are, they just are. However existentliasts argue that nothing gives value to a concept like “hitting old ladies is bad” other than us ourselves supporting such values.

Essentially the difficulty here is in the individual taking responsibility for being a bastion of human values, or values that he would see as being of best use to humanity. Accepting this does require some open-mindedness, and open-mindedness typically leaves people open, funny that. The thing is when people are open they are also vulnerable. An analogy would be accepting someone else’s blood into your own veins, certainly it might help, but equally if that blood is somehow tainted it could hinder, such are the uncertainties anyone faces when they let their guard down. This quote from Tool sums the idea up nicely:
“To think for yourself you must question authority and learn to put yourself in a state of vulnerable, open mindedness, chaotic, confused vulnerability, to inform yourself.”
- Intro speech to “Third Eye Live” by Tool

It seems that all this theorising has lead us to conclude that the meaning of life is only given meaning by living, which seems rather self-evident, as how could we have any meaning without conscious life? What we do through living and what we support and believe gives life meaning. Meaning doesn’t give life, rather life gives meaning!

Excuse me if that was rather a leap of faith, I don’ think I made that journey of understanding as pleasant as I probably could have, but the words sort of just typed themselves out. So it seems that those who run around life looking for meaning are like the people who run around looking for their glasses when they are in fact wearing them on their head. No, they’re not stupid, or blind, that wasn’t the point I was trying to make. Rather, meaning is always there, it is not something which can be sought in a physical sense, rather it is found through doing. In the odd analogy of the person with glasses on their head the glasses are found when the person instinctively pulls them down to read something. So too does man instinctively reach out and use meaning, when he requires it to see life with clearer vision.

Therefore to find meaning in life we must take full responsibility for our own lives and thus through living life we create meaning. If you believe in stopping poverty then take responsibility. Firstly you must realise that the problem exists and the you must take action. Donate to a charity. Volunteer to do charity work, raise money for a worthy cause. Why not? Why not you? Why wait for someone else to do it? You are the one who holds the values you believe in, therefore you should be the one to try and spread the sense behind those values and to in turn place the foundation for meaning through life.

The Philosophy of Happiness – The Media & Unrealistic Expectations:

Mainstream Media is full of crap. Images of guys with washboard abs, and chicks with breasts big enough to sink the titanic, why do we think of this as the norm? Go walk outside right now and inspect the next 10 people that walk past your street and you’ll find that unless you live in Hollywood they probably all look the complete antithesis to what we see in the media. So why do we believe in the media's ideal? Why are we all so gullible?

What is perhaps even more amusing is that if you were to meet the rather ripped fellow that you saw in a magazine he would not look nearly as good in real life. Why is this? Well, firstly he probably specially ate essentially only protein and drank virtually nothing for two days before the photo shoot, so that he was nearly about to collapse from dehydration on the day of the shoot. Secondly he probably had some expertly placed lighting to make his muscles stand out in a certain way and he was probably waxed up in grease to make his skin look all shinny. Lastly, and probably most ironically, its probably not really him your seeing in the picture… rather its him having been airbrushed and digitally altered, tweaked here and there and the end product is the picture you idolise as symbol of humanity. And this is what we call the ideal?

Having such an image as this associated with normality, or at least with what we wish to be is very harmful. It is in fact extremely detrimental to our psychological wellbeing. The simple fact is that over 99% of us will never look quite like the image we’re presented with, yet we try to none the less. The true irony is that even that small percentage that could look like that image still won’t without all of the little fiddly adjustments like digital manipulation. This ideal hurts our self-esteem and typically leads us to do stupid things like exercise all day everyday in an attempt to catch up to the elusive surreal. The media encourages unobtainable ideals, well bugger them. Don’t spend your life seeking the elusive only to find when you get there that it’s not what you wanted anyway. Trust me, we’re far better off just looking at the picture, chuckling at the absurdity of the image, and simply being happy with who we are.

As I addressed in “Living in the Now – The Philosophy of Happiness with a Twist of Zen:” happiness essentially comes from embracing yourself, accepting yourself as it were, in the “now”. That is to say not accepting yourself as you were yesterday or as you hopefully will be tomorrow, but rather as you are this very moment. In contrast when we see these airbrushed people in movies who have an entire crew at their disposal simply to embellish their jaws and except ourselves to look like that; well needless to say we don’t live up to it. Even those of us already with very good genes who exercise regularly and eat well and healthy can’t match such images. Its just not real, its just not natural and most importantly it certainly isn’t healthy. So then we feel that we ought to look like this as that particular image is revered and is essentially what our society is seen to support. Hence we don’t embrace ourselves as we are but rather place a condition on our happiness, namely that “I have to look like X before I can be happy.” Therefore we envisage happiness in the future. But the future will always be the future, just like now will always be now. Hence you will never truly be happy, only for brief moments as you think about what you could maybe be one day. Is all this trouble to look like something unnatural and in fact unhealthy worth it? Is it worth sacrificing our happiness for? I mean we live only live once. Surely we ought to live with some degree of happiness?

The media is a bastion of negativity, the false hope we are presented with in visual imagery is really just the tip of the iceberg. We always read about people dying or people failing or various ugly things happening, world wide. Why don’t we get nearly as many stories of the good things happening in life? It just seems that danger, threat, depression and pessimism seem to sell better. In this case we as the media’s audience really are just as much to blame for the subject matter they choose. It is not simply a process of them choosing it, but of us choosing to read it.

What can we do about all this? Simply put, there is a need for a more positive media outlook, and the way we can try and do this is to support media sources which are more inclined to portray positive news, news which provides hope and not fear. You may well find that by doing this you also make your life that little bit better as it will encourage positive thinking, while also supporting society at large to move in the same direction. I would certainly like to think that my little corner of cyberspace is somewhat more positive than traditional media sources. By reading something like this you empower yourself and feel good, rather than feeling depressed and insecure as one does after reading about more terrorist attacks and so forth.

Simply thinking positively can completely change how you lead your life, how much enjoyment you get out of it, how productive you are, and how you yourself impact the world around you, further creating positive change. Even if it sounds a little silly at first it honestly works, after all we experience the world through our own eyes, and if we can put on the glasses with the positive lenses everything looks so much greener. A large chunk of life is after all subjective. So go ahead think positively, you won’t regret it.

The big problem however is that thinking negatively also follows a similar pattern to thinking positively, only backwards. You become depressed and down, and then so do those around you at the next thing you know you find yourself living in a hostile environment where people scowl at one another and lead miserable and unhappy lives. Unfortunately the media encourages this sort of thinking much more so than it does positive thinking. I honestly don’t think they realise how by doing this they are shaping the world to make it all the more negative.

Anyway, enough negativity for one day! We know no that thinking positively reaps its own rewards this is rather self-evident, and hence we should all avoid negative thinking as much as we can. Obviously there will be down times, but such is life, simply try and overcome then and get back to enjoying life and helping to create a better world through a positive attitude. We must drop the unrealistic expectations that the media shoves onto our backs and rather create out own ideals, based on a positive society intent on creating change of a realistic yet constructive and optimistic nature.