Comments on: Our Obsession with Strengths http://www.sileo.com/our-obsession-with-strengths/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=our-obsession-with-strengths Identity Theft, Data Breach, Privacy, Trust, Business Survival Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:22:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Kyrahttp://www.sileo.com/our-obsession-with-strengths/comment-page-1/#comment-4908 Kyra Fri, 13 May 2011 17:16:14 +0000 http://www.sileo.com/?p=739#comment-4908 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2405811/ http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-healing-arts/200907/resilience-matters-in-traumatized-childrens-lives-and-sensory-activitie http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/trauma-and-stress-in-childhood/201101/new-take-childhood-trauma And a possible explanation for your reaction to Buckingham's philosophy is simply that you misidentified/categorized yourself and your actions at both times you encountered them: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/200911/the-danger-self-affirmation http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2405811/
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-healing-arts/200907/resilience-matters-in-traumatized-childrens-lives-and-sensory-activitie
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/trauma-and-stress-in-childhood/201101/new-take-childhood-trauma
And a possible explanation for your reaction to Buckingham’s philosophy is simply that you misidentified/categorized yourself and your actions at both times you encountered them:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/200911/the-danger-self-affirmation

]]> By: Kyrahttp://www.sileo.com/our-obsession-with-strengths/comment-page-1/#comment-4907 Kyra Fri, 13 May 2011 17:05:57 +0000 http://www.sileo.com/?p=739#comment-4907 It appears you have deliberately taken Mr. Buckingham's advice and twisted it. The man goes out of his way in his lecture series to say that 1.In this culture. women are particularly obsessed with self-improvement and locking themselves into a course of action out of obligation. 2. and that just because you're good at something, that doesn't mean it is what you "should" do. 3. Ladies, STOP DOING BOTH OF THOSE THINGS. So do you. Perhaps a more critical analysis of what Mr. Buckingham has to say is in order.It's more along the line of "do what makes you happy more often, perhaps you will be happier as a result." That doesn't sound silly to me. As for fortitude and learning, please note that Mr. Buckingham takse pains to say that what women are happiest doing is not necessarily what they are good at. and that given that it's clearly not what those women are doing regularly, they probably aren't that good at it because they don't practice. It is a little silly to presume that they will not learn skills and persistence and other strengths of character simply because they enjoy what they are doing. If you're into Buddhism, you should also note that instead of discussing Mr. Buckingham's ideas on *subjectivity* with the Buddhist perspective subjectivity, you have applied the Buddhist perspective on *objective* reality and that's a faulty argument. The Buddhist philosophy on *personality traits* is that it deems all intrinsic personality traits as neutral and human. It is only the context and application that makes us deem them subjectively good or bad. That sort of makes your whole rebuttal inapplicable to the discussion. Mr. Buckingham never asserted that all of *life* would change its nature if you did more of what you liked. All he said was that if you consciously choose (that's pretty Buddhist) to spend more hours of your day doing that which you enjoy, you will be spending more hours of your day doing that which you enjoy. And that you can figure out a way to make enough money at it, and you just might enjoy your job. I don't think that's too earth-shattering. Also, nothing he said was dig at women who don't want careers. He was speaking *to an audience of women who work and want to make that work as fulfilling as possible,* i.e., to people who are unhappy doing their jobs and *aren't* content to just take home a paycheck. His actual advice, what he actually said, is just as applicable to people who don't work at all, but who are also unhappy doing what they're doing. Removing the context of the generalization to make it sound as though it was prejudicial is disingenuous and self-serving, even if the outcome is that you were hurt by it. (Getting to reaffirm that you what you were doing when you *thought* you were following Mr. Buckingham's advice gave you a negative feeling was still gratifying, on some level, I bet.) He also doesn't advocate not working on your weaknesses, either, but that, and here's some simple logic and education theory here: you learn more about solving problems when you control for negative influences on tactics and outcomes, namely, 1. not wanting to solve the problem because it's there's low intrinsic motivation to do so, and 2. negative perceptions about the situation that make the problems seem insurmountable, putting you at a risk for self-sabotage and confirmation bias for low self-efficacy. Buckingham actually suggests that *techniques* that are successful when you are enjoying yourself are just as applicable to times when you are not. Yes, he actually says that and I don't see where he's wrong. Practicing scales in the context of a song you enjoy is just as effective as practicing scales alone. Doing the first can't make you any less competent at the latter. And I don't think it's wrong to suggest you'll be in a better mood if you concentrate on the former.All in all, nothing Mr. Buckingham is saying is too earth-shattering a proposal, and I don't think you really disagree with it. But I do think your knee-jerk reaction to it speaks volumes about what our culture has told us about work and self-improvement. and in case you're wondering, there are psychologists and studies that suggest it's wrong: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201008/what-doesnt-kill-you-makes-you-weaker http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-good-life/200903/resilienceAs for me, I just think it's obvious that the only thing dealing with negative situations teaches you is how to deal with negative situations. They don't actually teach you how to make your life subjectively happier, which is what Mr. Buckingham was aiming at. It appears you have deliberately taken Mr. Buckingham’s advice and twisted it.
The man goes out of his way in his lecture series to say that
1.In this culture. women are particularly obsessed with self-improvement and locking themselves into a course of action out of obligation.
2. and that just because you’re good at something, that doesn’t mean it is what you “should” do.
3. Ladies, STOP DOING BOTH OF THOSE THINGS.
So do you.
Perhaps a more critical analysis of what Mr. Buckingham has to say is in order.It’s more along the line of “do what makes you happy more often, perhaps you will be happier as a result.” That doesn’t sound silly to me.
As for fortitude and learning, please note that Mr. Buckingham takse pains to say that what women are happiest doing is not necessarily what they are good at. and that given that it’s clearly not what those women are doing regularly, they probably aren’t that good at it because they don’t practice. It is a little silly to presume that they will not learn skills and persistence and other strengths of character simply because they enjoy what they are doing.
If you’re into Buddhism, you should also note that instead of discussing Mr. Buckingham’s ideas on *subjectivity* with the Buddhist perspective subjectivity, you have applied the Buddhist perspective on *objective* reality and that’s a faulty argument. The Buddhist philosophy on *personality traits* is that it deems all intrinsic personality traits as neutral and human. It is only the context and application that makes us deem them subjectively good or bad. That sort of makes your whole rebuttal inapplicable to the discussion. Mr. Buckingham never asserted that all of *life* would change its nature if you did more of what you liked. All he said was that if you consciously choose (that’s pretty Buddhist) to spend more hours of your day doing that which you enjoy, you will be spending more hours of your day doing that which you enjoy. And that you can figure out a way to make enough money at it, and you just might enjoy your job. I don’t think that’s too earth-shattering.
Also, nothing he said was dig at women who don’t want careers. He was speaking *to an audience of women who work and want to make that work as fulfilling as possible,* i.e., to people who are unhappy doing their jobs and *aren’t* content to just take home a paycheck. His actual advice, what he actually said, is just as applicable to people who don’t work at all, but who are also unhappy doing what they’re doing. Removing the context of the generalization to make it sound as though it was prejudicial is disingenuous and self-serving, even if the outcome is that you were hurt by it. (Getting to reaffirm that you what you were doing when you *thought* you were following Mr. Buckingham’s advice gave you a negative feeling was still gratifying, on some level, I bet.)
He also doesn’t advocate not working on your weaknesses, either, but that, and here’s some simple logic and education theory here: you learn more about solving problems when you control for negative influences on tactics and outcomes, namely, 1. not wanting to solve the problem because it’s there’s low intrinsic motivation to do so, and 2. negative perceptions about the situation that make the problems seem insurmountable, putting you at a risk for self-sabotage and confirmation bias for low self-efficacy.
Buckingham actually suggests that *techniques* that are successful when you are enjoying yourself are just as applicable to times when you are not. Yes, he actually says that and I don’t see where he’s wrong. Practicing scales in the context of a song you enjoy is just as effective as practicing scales alone. Doing the first can’t make you any less competent at the latter. And I don’t think it’s wrong to suggest you’ll be in a better mood if you concentrate on the former.

All in all, nothing Mr. Buckingham is saying is too earth-shattering a proposal, and I don’t think you really disagree with it. But I do think your knee-jerk reaction to it speaks volumes about what our culture has told us about work and self-improvement. and in case you’re wondering, there are psychologists and studies that suggest it’s wrong:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201008/what-doesnt-kill-you-makes-you-weaker
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-good-life/200903/resilience

As for me, I just think it’s obvious that the only thing dealing with negative situations teaches you is how to deal with negative situations. They don’t actually teach you how to make your life subjectively happier, which is what Mr. Buckingham was aiming at.

]]> By: Erichttp://www.sileo.com/our-obsession-with-strengths/comment-page-1/#comment-490 Eric Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:19:28 +0000 http://www.sileo.com/?p=739#comment-490 This is great thinking. I'll bet companies that encourage and support this kind of approach to work and life actually benefit. Do you have any examples of that? This is great thinking. I’ll bet companies that encourage and support this kind of approach to work and life actually benefit. Do you have any examples of that?

]]> By: AThttp://www.sileo.com/our-obsession-with-strengths/comment-page-1/#comment-477 AT Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:27:26 +0000 http://www.sileo.com/?p=739#comment-477 This is a great blog post-extremely thought provoking. I, too get very caught up in thinking I always have to be strong, and yet I feel empty. I love the points that John makes about highly succesful people who have capitalized not on their strengths, but on their weaknesses.It seems as though John has a great deal of talent in other areas beyond his expertise in Identity Theft. I would love to hear more! Thank you! This is a great blog post-extremely thought provoking. I, too get very caught up in thinking I always have to be strong, and yet I feel empty. I love the points that John makes about highly succesful people who have capitalized not on their strengths, but on their weaknesses.

It seems as though John has a great deal of talent in other areas beyond his expertise in Identity Theft. I would love to hear more!
Thank you!

]]>