Since I am taking a short vacation, I will not be posting again in 2 weeks (my usual interval between posts) but in 4 weeks. To compensate for it, here is an extra-long post. Enjoy!

I am going to contrast and compare two different books: Dan Ariely’s latest, The Upside of Irrationality; and Daniel Pink’s  Drive.

Both books are terrific. They read very well. They are very engaging. The authors make an extra effort to illustrate their concepts in the simplest and most understandable way. They both use metaphors that are clear and effective in their power to explain. Not only these two books are a pleasure to read – they are also very informative.

Ariely’s book is sort of a sequel to his hugely successful Predictably Irrational: the Hidden Forces that Shape our Behavior. However in The Upside of Irrationality Dan Ariely’s takes a more compassionate stance towards the bias that make us irrational decision makers, a.k.a. humans. In keeping with this softer perspective, the book shines with many personal stories that are going to touch the reader. And it is no accident that the focus of this book is not “the consumers’” behavior but how people behave at work and in their own personal life. So we have 5 chapters about “how we defy logic at work”, and another 5 about “how we defy logic at home”.

Dan Pink’ s Drive feeds on the work of Ariely and many others on the science of motivation. Pink is a master in making the insights gained by recent research  understandable and readily usable by managers and businessmen. Drive is a call for a general and comprehensive rethinking of the ways in which we organize what we do.  Pink’s metaphor of assumptions that societies have about human behavior as being their operating system is brilliant and enlightening in and of itself! Moreover, the second part of the book is a treasure trove of practical advice - simple strategies to implement the ideas illustrated in Drive.
Continue reading…

Tags: book review, brief coaching, coaching, Dan Ariely, Daniel Pink, Drive, epistemology, marketing, motivation, psychological bias, science, The Upside of Irrationality, training

HOW PLEASURE WORKS

Yale psychologist Paul Bloom gave us a book about pleasure that is a pleasure to read.
Though it is basically a pop-psych book, it reads almost like a collection of short stories – each one with the aim of illustrating from different angles what the nature of pleasure is, each one solidly grounded in psychology or neuroscience.

In the author’s view, human pleasures are universal and are not culturally determined: “we start off with a fixed list of pleasures and we cannot add to the list.” When we derive pleasure from new technologies or cultural habits, it is because they connect to pleasures that humans already possess.

However, most of these hardwired pleasures are not adaptations, but rather are by-products of mental systems evolved for other purposes.

For example, we can get a kick out of coffee, but this is not because “coffee lovers of the past had more offspring than coffee hater” – it is because we like to be stimulated, and coffee is a stimulant.

This is just the starting point for Paul Bloom – the book itself is a journey through the pleasures of food, of sex and love, of collecting objects, of art, of imagination, of sport, of science, of religion. In each entertaining chapter the author argues for his main claim: that “the pleasure we get from many things and activities is based in part on what we see as their essences”.

In other words pleasure is grounded in our BELIEFS about the deeper nature of a given thing – even our sensations are always colored by our beliefs.

That is why an original Picasso is worth a lot of money, but a perfectly executed replica is not. That is why sexual pleasure is not merely a matter of sensations, but it is also rooted in beliefs about who someone really is and what someone really is – as illustrated by the use of bedtricks in plays and fiction, and by our preference for partners that are faithful, smart and kind. That is why how we think about food and drink affects how we judge it – orange juice tastes better if it is bright orange, yogurt and ice cream are more flavorful if described as “full fat”, and experts rate highly the same Bordeaux if it is described as “grand cru classe” but not if it is labeled “vin du table”.

I found particularly interesting the chapter dedicated to imagination, where the author develops a very tight explanation of how imagination arose in evolution and why now we take so much pleasure in it – from daydreaming to playing videogames.

I was also intrigued by philosopher Tamar Gendler’s notion of alief, introduced by the author in that very same chapter regarding imagination.

While beliefs are attitudes that we hold in response to how things are, alief are more primitive – they are responses to how things seem.

Psychologist Paul Rozin found that “people often refuse to drink soup from a brand-new bedpan, eat fudge shaped like feces, or put an empty gun to their head and pull the trigger. Gendler notes that the beliefs here are: the bedpan is clean, the fudge is fudge, the gun is empty. But the aliefs are stupider, screaming, “dangerous object! Stay away!” (p.169).

In Bloom’s essentialist framework, even science and religion can be seen as an obvious source of pleasure – even though they are very different, both science and religion share the basic assumption that there is a deeper reality that has significance. Science can tell us about it, religion provides tools to experience that reality.

Our essentialist nature appears in us as infants, as research carried out by the author and others has demonstrated. With science and religion we come full circle: essentialist properties are attributed to the very fabric of the Universe – and in this insight I, as a reader, took a great pleasure.

Tags: aliefs, beliefs, book review, essentialism, how pleasure work, Paul Bloom, pleasure, Psychology

What is the essence of Solution-Focused practice?

Is it the use of some key techniques, like asking the “Miracle Question”?

Or is it something else?

Veronica Bliss and Dominic Bray try to give an answer to these questions in a little gem of a paper titled: THE SMALLEST SOLUTION FOCUSED PARTICLES: TOWARDS A MINIMALIST DEFINITION OF WHEN THERAPY IS SOLUTION FOCUSED published in the Journal of Systemic Therapies.

As the authors note, some practitioners use typical SF techniques, and yet it does not feel they are “doing” SF; and, on the other hand, some practitioners might not be using some key SF techniques and yet it feels they are “doing” SF.

What are then the “smallest solution-focused particles”?

To answer this question the authors take us on a journey in the history of SF: how SF was born; what its major tenets are; the key role of the therapist in SF.

The authors then talk in detail about the different attempts of coming up with technique-oriented definitions of SFBT, including the minimum requirements listed by the European Brief Therapy Association (EBTA).

This alone makes for very interesting reading.

Veronica Bliss and Dominic Bray then introduce some clinical examples of SFBT done without the use of key techniques – mainly work done with people who have limited cognitive abilities, a kind of work that led the authors to “question the technique-oriented definition of SFBT”.

And here I put in my two cents.

From the opposite end of the spectrum (i.e. coaching, not therapy; executives, not people with limited cognitive abilities), my work has led me to question the technique-oriented definition of SF practice, too.

I did have some coaching sessions in which I was definitely brief (less than 20 minutes), in which I felt I was definitely solution-focused and yet in which no or very few SF key techniques were used: the conversation just flowed naturally following a SF rhythm.

I now consider this to be a sign of Mastery: to leave as little of a footprint as possible in the coaching conversation. Do what is necessary, and only that. Simplify to the utmost. In this I am echoing Peter Szabo’s position that the brief coach is a “witness” of clients’ change – read his 10 brief-coaching assumptions here.

Still, all this begs the question: what are “the smallest number of parameters that distinguish solution-focused work from other kinds of therapy”?

The authors, “in the spirit of the minimalist tradition” (to which I subscribe 100%) find two sets of parameters:

a) the role of the client and of the SF practitioner

b) certain key steps.

Let’s take a look at these two points.

a) the client’s role and the SF practitioner’s role.

The quality of client-practitioner interaction is unique in SF.

Clients not only are “the experts” (one of the main tenets of SF practice) but also have “fewer requirements put upon them.. than they do with other types of psychotherapy“. They do not need to learn the language of the therapist nor to fit the therapist’s frame of reference. They do not have to subscribe to a diagnosis nor even to talk about their problem!

SF practitioners‘ behavior is what makes the difference.
Much has been said about keeping a posture of “not-knowing”.
The authors here, though, go for a very simple idea: “the absolute minimal requirement for uniquely solution focused work is the co-construction aspect which requires that the therapist learn from the client”.

b) This idea of the SF practitioner learning from the client leads us directly to the second point highlighted by the authors: the therapist needs to learn from the client about 4 key things:

“1 – the person’s preferred future and implications thereof (perhaps using the miracle question, but perhaps not)

2 – how they both will know when they are moving in the right direction (perhaps using scaling questions but perhaps not)

3 – what the client can do more of or what he or she might do differently to start moving in that direction

4 – how they will both know when they have done enough SFBT”.

These are, in the words of the authors, “unique aspects which need to be operationalized in the most minimal, least restrictive way.”

Incidentally, the first 3 steps listed above correspond directly to the view of SF practice as a Darwinian Algorithm, which I articulated in a recently published paper.

Veronica Bliss & Dominic Bray’s minimalist summary of SF matches my summary of SF as a Darwinian Algorithm point by point:

1 – preferred future and implications thereof / establishing a fitness function

2 – knowing when we are moving in the right direction / searching for and scoring useful behaviors

3 – what the client can do more of or what he or she might do differently / replicate behaviors with the highest score and recombine them.

Though using a different language and starting out from a different perspective, I share with the authors of this paper the quest to get to the core of SF and to capture its beautiful simplicity and elegant effectiveness.

Bliss, E.V., Bray, D. (2009). THE SMALLEST SOLUTION FOCUSED PARTICLES: TOWARDS A MINIMALIST DEFINITION OF WHEN THERAPY IS SOLUTION FOCUSED Journal of Systemic Therapies, 28 (2), 62–74

Tags: Darwinian Algorithm, Dominic Bray, essence of, minimalist, smallest solution-focused particles, Solution Focused, technique-oriented, Veronica Bliss

I am reading the latest book by Atul Gawande: The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right.

I have always been a fan of checklists: I think they are immensely useful. When I think of checklists I think of pilots in the cockpit of a jetliner getting ready to take that marvel of technology and complexity into the air.

Moreover, I had the chance to appreciate the writing style and the insights of Dr. Atul Gawande in the past.

So it was pretty obvious to me that I had to get his latest book.

And it is no surprise that I loved it.

A little bit more surprising are the connections that can be made between Checklists and Solution-Focused practice.

1. to begin with, checklists are a simple and elegant solution to a complext problem – and we already talked in this blog about how Solution-Focused is elegantly simple yet very effective.
2. Dr. Gawande makes a distinction between two issues when facing problems: ignorance and ineptitude. Ignorance means that we do not have enough knowledge to deal effectively with the problem – as an example, Dr. Gawande mentions the differences in treating heart attacks now vs. in the 60s. Back then, we simply did not know. Now we know much more about heart attacks and we have a whole array of surgical options, interventions and drugs to treat heart attack victims. Ineptitude is a different thing altogether – it means we have the knowledge to deal effectively with a problem but somehow we fail to take the necessary steps. For example, on average, according to Dr. Gawande, less than 50% of patients with suspected heart attacks receive the proper protocol within 90 minutes of their admittance to the hospital – after 90 minutes the chances of making it through a heart attack significantly drop. It is not a question of lack of will or improper training – it is just that procedures can be very complicated and require the coordinated performance of many specialists. Checklists, then, are a way to deal with this problem: making sure that nothing is missed, making sure that the knowledge acquired is properly applied right here and right now with the patient. It then struck me that SF questions are just that – a way to help clients appy their own experience, successes and insights to the problem at hand. As SF practitioners we assume clients have all the knowledge they need to solve their own problems – they are the experts. They come to us because, for whatever reason, they got overwhelmed by the problem – the sheer complexity seems too much. But our questions, such as the Miracle Question, or the Scaling Question, are ways for clients to make a checklist of their successful strategies and apply them to the problem they are facing now.
3. I admit it – I have a pre-session checklist. Things to do before a session, to make sure the session runs smoothly. I also have a post-session debrief checklist – with a Solution-Focused twist, since it is a checklist made of scales. But it is still a checklist.
4. Another point that is made in the book and that I felt was very interesting is that checklists can be used also to deal with emergencies. Such checklists are not made of routine operations. Rather they make clear who needs to talk to whom and when in case of emergency X – as Dr. Gawande shows, that is a brilliant solution. The checklist still gives structure and tells people who to talk to – but it allows for maximum flexibility in responding to the emergency, shifting responsibility to experts and people on the ground rather than on a single decision-maker.

Tags: Analogies, Atul Gawande, book review, Checklists, Healthcare, simplicity, Solution Focus

Dan & Chip Heath wrote a book that I love: “Made to Stick”.

It is a pleasure to read. It is very informative. It is science-based.
Moreover, it is congruent: the way the book is written and organized reflects what the authors preach.
That, my friends, is a very rare thing.
The insights contained in the book are one of the cornerstones of my Persuasive Communication workshop.

Now there is even more exciting news: Dan & Chip Heath discovered Solution-Focus!!
They wrote a new book about Solution-Focused practices and Positive Deviance – the book is called Switch: How To Change Things When Change Is Hard and goes on sale on February 16.

Fastcompany.com published some excerpts.

Here is one, introducing Solution-Focus Therapy:

Consider the story of school counselor John Murphy and one of his students in Covington, Kentucky. Bobby was a ninth grader who was constantly late for class, rarely did his work, was disruptive, and sometimes made loud threats to other kids in the hallways. Bobby’s home life was just as chaotic; he’d been shuffled in and out of foster homes and special facilities for kids with behavioral problems.

In a traditional counseling session, the therapist digs around for explanations — why are the patients acting the way they are? But Murphy was no traditional therapist. He practiced something called Solutions-Focused Brief Therapy. During his sessions with Bobby, he ignored the child’s problems and focused instead on how to remedy them. Here’s a brief exchange from one of their sessions. Notice how Murphy starts by trying to find a bright spot.

Murphy: Tell me about the times at school when you don’t get in trouble as much.

Bobby: I never get in trouble, well, not a lot, in Ms. Smith’s class.

Murphy: What’s different about Ms. Smith’s class?

Bobby: I don’t know, she’s nicer. We get along great.

Murphy: What exactly does she do that’s nicer?

Murphy wasn’t content with Bobby’s vague conclusion that Ms. Smith is “nicer.” He kept probing until Bobby identified that Ms. Smith always greeted him as soon as he walked into class. (Other teachers, understandably, avoided him.) She gave him easier work, which she knew he could complete. (Bobby is also learning disabled.) And whenever the class started working on an assignment, she’d check with Bobby to make sure he understood the instructions.

Ms. Smith’s class was a bright spot, and as we’ve seen, anytime you have a bright spot, your mission is to clone it. Using Ms. Smith’s class as a model, Murphy gave Bobby’s other teachers very practical tips about how to deal with him: Greet Bobby at the door. Make sure he’s assigned work he can do. Check to make sure he understands the instructions.

Over the next three months, Bobby’s rate of being sent to the principal’s office for a major infraction decreased by 80%. He also made striking progress on day-to-day behavior. Before solutions-focused therapy, his teachers typically rated his performance as acceptable in only one or two out of six class periods per day. After solutions-focused therapy, he was rated as acceptable in four or five of the six periods. Bobby is still not a model student. But he’s a lot better.

Read more excerpts here!!

I can’t wait to get the book!

h/t: Paul Jackson

Tags: books, Dan & Chip Heath, How to Change Things When Change Is Hard, Made to Stick, Positive Deviance, Solution Focused, Switch

Inspired by a tweet from Coert Visser, which mentioned “great books published in 2009″, here is my top 5 list of books that I read in 2009 and that I most enjoyed.

1. Autism’s False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine and the Search for a Cure by Paul A. Offit MD
   Very well researched, a treat for lovers of science, engrossing like a thriller – essential resource for debunking the anti-vaccine movement

2. Positivity: Groundbreaking Research Reveals How to Embrace the Hidden Strength of Positive Emotions, Overcome Negativity and Thrive by Barbara Fredrickson, Ph.D.
   Good introduction to the concept of the Positivity Ratio and some useful guidelines for a well-balanced life from one of the pioneers of the field of positive psychology.

3. Mindset: the New Psychology of Success by Carol Dweck, Ph.D.
   Classic. A simple yet powerful idea. My thoughts on it in a previous post.

4. 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widesprad Misconceptions about Human Behavior by Scott A. Lillienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, John Ruscio, Barry L. Beyerstein
   Yes, I am for evidence-based practices. This book was sheer pleasure and a breath of fresh air: in 50 easy-to-read short chapters, the authors use science to debunk popular myths about how we behave – myths like “most people use only 10% of their brain power” or “playing Mozart music to infants boosts their intelligence”. All in one volume.

5. What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought by Keith E. Stanovich, Ph.D.
   I am still reading this one, and so far it is great: finally a framework to make sense of recent research regarding IQ & genetics, the Adaptive Unconscious and biases in human rationality.

1. Coaching Plain & Simple: Solution-focused Brief Coaching Essentials by Kirsten Dierolf, Daniel Meier, Peter Szabo
   In the spirit of “less is more”, this book embodies the idea that “perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away” -truly the essence of SF coaching

Tags: books, reading, top 5