Suck it up, Buttercup

IMG_1916 (2)

Who loves the idea of self-control? This instantly conjures images of narrow-nosed thin people sanctimoniously forgoing dessert or wide-nosed big-bosomed matrons shaking a finger your direction. On the other hand, the conscious control of impulses signifies maturity, and is the foundation of civilization.

Self-control exists in other species. It is a wonderful and slightly-disturbing thing to watch a well-trained dog sit quivering, waiting for the command that allows it to eat the treat. I relate so deeply to the agony in those ebony eyes, and when faced with certain temptations, do not often do as well as the dog. Think caramels in dark chocolate.

Food is one thing. Sex is another. When it comes to sex, contrary to what Hollywood might portray, humans have generally agreed that sexual interaction involving two or more people should be consensual. The myth that a weaker sexual partner finds it pleasurable to be overcome and “taken” has little basis in reality. However, we must admit that we’ve built a powerful storyline about the sexiness of pursuing, or being pursued. I grew up in a hunting culture. A successful pursuit meant killing the pursued and eating it. This is definitely not sexy.

But how many Disney movies insinuate the reward for the smart pursuer is the breathless acquiescence of the pursued? And how many ways do we tell physically-weaker potential sexual partners to be coy and play hard-to-get, yet to also present themselves in ways that are alluring as possible? This whole notion of conquest as an acceptable sexual practice has got to go. Men and women who know what they want, politely inquire about the possibilities, and then respect the answer must be elevated to heroic status, not decried as easy or weak.

It isn’t necessary to ditch the thrill of the chase, or the fun of seduction. But it is necessary to define some limits and redefine success. Just because you are rich and powerful, and can use that to attract all sorts of admirers, you cannot cross the line and force yourself on anyone who doesn’t explicitly indicate he/she welcomes your advances. This is uncivilized, uncouth, shameful, and often, illegal.

Which brings to mind this whole notion of “exposing” oneself. I had a friend who was a carhop (I realize this is a prehistoric occupation). She delivered a Coke and a hotdog to a guy who’d unzipped his pants and had his penis out, all big and pink. She backed away, shaken, but told only me. In retrospect, I so wish we’d had the wherewithal to gather a few carhops and a manager to peer in the open window, evaluate his “manhood” and give him a score. Comments like “not pretty” or “sort of small” may have curbed this behavior. Informing the community might have done so as well.

I doubt the impulse to show one’s stuff is limited to those with penises, large or small. Apparently, it’s erotic to be seen naked, or nearly naked. Maybe the fantasy is that showing one’s stuff will cause instant desire in the viewer. I don’t know. I’m a psychologist, but I’m not a Kinsey. My point is that there are vast differences in levels in aggression, inappropriateness, and ways to inquire about sexual interest. The hanging-out of one’s usually-covered parts is just a sad bid for cheap thrills.

We must teach ourselves and our children to be less squeamish, more honest, less selfish, more tolerant, less judgmental, and more centered. We need to tell ourselves and our children, “Hey, if someone shows you their privates, or tries to grope or kiss you, glare at them, back away, say no, tell someone, and if possible, throw up on them.” And of course, we have to continue to work on making these responses safe.

We’ve got to promote, honor, (and insist upon) self-control, civility, and assertiveness. In the grand scheme of what it means to be human, all adults must be free to define their sexual preferences, and seek partners and fulfillment within their values, using their own internal barometers. But that freedom stops—and I mean FULL STOP—if it ever encroaches on or overrides the preferences of the other partner(s). So, how’s a person to know if he/she has encroached? Dr. Bossypants has a few guidelines.

  • No one whose consciousness is impaired can give an honest, thoughtful “yes” to any sexual activity. An impaired “yes” is not to be trusted.
  • Though it varies state to state, generally no one under the age of 16 is thought to be able to give legal consent. I know a lot of 15-year-olds who would disagree. Be that as it may, the fallback is the law. If your desired partner is 16 or younger, and you are four years older, this is not going to fly legally. Don’t mess with it.
  • No one is giving unfettered consent when in fact, if they say no, they lose a job, status, or other opportunities the asker may hold. Power differentials are sticky wickets and need extra caution, even if the less-powerful one says yes. For instance, we would have far less concern if Trump made a pass at Angela Merkel than if he copped a feel from an 18-year-old admirer.
  • A sexy, reluctant, alluring “No” is still a “No.” Back away. It isn’t worth it to test the hypothesis that the potential partner is using “no” seductively. (BTW, potential partners, let’s give this Disney-driven conquest notion a rest, okay? Learn to say what you want, for real. It’s okay to change your mind, but you have to make that verbally clear.)

For many, sex is better than chocolate. Harder to resist. More rewarding. In fact, few things even approach the gratification of an orgasm. But bottom line is this: We will be a far better, safer, happier, healthier civilization when every sexual act is fully consensual and enjoyed by all involved. And here’s a bonus: By observing the Bossypants guidelines, you may get to stay in office, or keep your job. Look, if a dog can develop the internal maturity to forgo a tasty treat, so can you.

Advertisements

Sexual Misconduct: Not inevitable. Not adaptive. Not nice

From Facebook Ad

(picture from an “innocent” Facebook ad that popped up to make me feel terrible about my lips, cheeks, waistline, legs, and “rack” this morning…felt so bad I had to write something.)

The craggy, wizened trees are falling in the forest at alarming rates, chopped down by accusations of sexual improprieties—everything from running around in their presumably saggy old white underwear to texting themselves in poses that cause a gag reflex in most of us. Apparently, a lot of behinds, ample or otherwise, have been grabbed. Pussy snatched. Breasts ogled or stroked. Various openings penetrated by fingers and peckers in unwanted thrusts. Sexual commentary coyly blabbered, meant to arouse—but instead causing fear, pity, and disgust.

These acts have involved underage, unaware, unwilling, and (dare I say it?) sometimes, unwise human beings. Yes, there are power differentials, jobs (or even lives) to lose, and other legitimate reasons to endure the sexual nausea caused by revolting, arrogant beings who think they’re sexy. But show me your paunchy belly and private parts once–shame on you. Show me them again…it isn’t a game. At least for now, it’s illegal. Ah, methinks it may be time for a reality check and a sea change in our understanding and tolerance. Where do these beings get these awful ideas and what can we do about their damaging effects?

Oh modern better version of Kinsey, wherefore art thou? Masters and Johnson, come back. Update your research methods.

In the meantime, Dr. Bossypants has a few ideas. First, the advertising industry has endless images that suggest that sex is all anyone wants, day or night, in whatever form possible. Usually, the message is that all females, regardless of age or sexual orientation, want to be ravaged, and men, to be real (hetero) men, should step up and do some ravaging (while beating up a few bad guys, or even shooting them to death in the process). I don’t know how many editions of Killing Us Softly Jean Kilborne will need to make before we knock it off.

From Jean’s website: “Advertising is an over $200 billion a year industry. We are each exposed to over 3000 ads a day. Yet, remarkably, most of us believe we are not influenced by advertising. Ads sell a great deal more than products. They sell values, images, and concepts of success and worth, love and sexuality, popularity and normalcy. They tell us who we are and who we should be. Sometimes they sell addictions.”

And may I add, sometimes the media glorifies violence. Oh yes it does. Hey, you deniers and wistful hopers, MEDIA SHAPES OUR IDEAS AND CHANGES OUR BEHAVIORS.

Yes, dear evolutionary psychologist, we are evolved beings, linked to basic biological urges by the fact that we’re alive. And advertising and other media work partly because they tie into these basic needs for food, sex, and companionship. But, as I’ve crudely pointed out in other posts, if we were directly tied to these biological urges, we’d just eliminate our bodily wastes indiscriminately. Instead, we’ve socialized ourselves to a much more pleasant and sanitary set of practices.

Not only are we evolved, we’re creative. We now participate in our own evolution. We make stuff up. We invent things to make life easier, more entertaining, less painful. For instance, we’ve developed pain killers that kill pain (perhaps an adaptive invention), but of course, we often end up addicted to this mellow state (definitely not adaptive).

So, back to survival as a species: sex between consenting adults is an excellent idea for companionship and sometimes, deliberate, thoughtful reproduction. This is adaptive. Pedophilia is not. Constant scanning for a way to cop a feel is not. Degrading and objectifying potential sexual partners is not. Using others to buoy up flaccid self-esteem is not. Violence and sexual manipulation are not. Forcing yourself on someone is pathetic and shameful, not adaptive. This is definitely not the kind of sperm we want floating around. It will not improve the species.

Here’s what Dr. Bossypants says: Excusers, shut up. Accusers, examine the factors. Predators, get help, get surgery, stay home. Stop running for office or locating yourselves in places where your addictions and predilections are unwelcome and hurtful. Power should not give you sexual access to anyone, ever. Survivors, heads up. Speak up. Things are not safe yet. Society, get honest. We are sexual beings. We have work to do to make this a good and healthy thing. For all of us.

How? I’m open to further suggestions. Boycott advertising that ruins self-esteem and sexualizes everything. Embrace a broader and more adventurous definition of beauty and sex appeal. Make fun of violent movies. Push back hard on men or women who violate basic respect and trust. Stop dressing our little people up like sexually-available props.

And here’s my sentimental and personal favorite: Let’s value, love, and teach our children well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkaKwXddT_I

Fake News: Cancer

IMG_0754 (2)

Fake news is a primary food source for societal cancer. Cancer is not like an injury or a nasty bacterial invasion. Cancer cells are our own cells, gone rogue. As the saying goes, “We have met the enemy, and it is us.”

Cancer cells engage in two eerily familiar and maladaptive behaviors:

1) They replicate themselves over and over, failing to diversify.

2) They’re “immortal.”  They don’t a natural lifecycle and die when they should.

This is quite reminiscent of humankind—not at its finest, but at its most common, fearful, lazy, and arrogant. First, let’s consider diversity. Failure to appreciate and welcome diversity is deadly. If we could interview cancer cells and ask why they clone themselves rather than allowing the natural variations of creation to define the body, their noses would elevate and they would assure us they are superior.

When diversity is obviously nature’s way to a healthy, robust planet, why are humans so resistant?

Some argue it’s in our genes to prefer and protect those we’re related to, or those who look (and think) like us. Maybe, but ultimately, at the global level, this is not adaptive. Too much inbreeding isn’t good. Nonetheless, humans tend to divide into groups of us and them. The inner circle, the outer darkness, the ones who get it and the ones who don’t. The familiar and the foreign. The Self and the Other. It’s a pain to tolerate difference, and it’s comforting to have someone or something to blame for almost everything. Fake news helps us latch onto “the other” and have someone to hate.

And why are humans hateful, greedy, and aggressive? For most of us, way down deep, it is fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of being cheated, fear of humiliation, fear of being alone. Many things in life frighten us, but ultimately, most fears can be traced to fear of death, the final unknown. Humans are notoriously unwilling to welcome aging and death thoughtfully and graciously.

Here’s where cancer’s other maladaptive attribute comes into play. Cancer cells don’t die a natural death. Of course, things come to an end when they’ve killed their host.

How is this related to Fake News? Denial of our ultimate fate (the decline and death of our bodies) makes us nervous and gullible. We want to distract ourselves, find a phony savior, and project our difficult emotions out on trumped up “enemies.” When we are busy fervently hating someone, we don’t have time to face or deal with life’s ultimate truths. Fake News is hateful, cathartic, simplistic, and seductive. The same hateful falsehoods stay alive indefinitely because we won’t examine them and let them go.

Humans would be far less susceptible to the cancer of fake news if we welcomed diversity and recognized that our hatred and greed is driven by fear. We’d be less willing to lie, or be lied to, if we nurtured our natural curiosity and life-affirming compassion instead of hunkering down over whatever possessions or hollow self-worth we’ve managed to hoard in this short but wonderful life.

Here’s Dr. Bossypants’s gentle advice.  Let go, you tight-fisted, gullible, lying scaredy-cats. Love a stranger. Hell, love an enemy. Go for broke. Be fantastically mortal… Or stay hateful, small, and frightened. Your choice.

Fake News: Moral Incontinence

Ducks (2)

As a psychologist interested in ethics, Dr. Bossypants spends many hours contemplating the human condition. Lately, she’s been fascinated with the facile ascent of fake news and the apparent gullibility and complicity of humans in this phenomenon. Here is the first of perhaps many speculations.

From time immemorial, humans have needed each other to survive. Even rugged individualists and extreme preppers benefit from the collective creativity of the human species. And generally, we don’t want to hang out with just any old Jane Doe or Joe Blow. We seek people who more or less value and agree with us. Usually, outliers start suspecting there’s something wrong with them, and soon enough, there will be. Completely isolated people suffer, and most break down over time.

Within the context of community, humans have a lot of other needs. For example, there are needs for power and control, prestige, order, safety, excitement, love, nourishment, offspring, humor, and attention. There are needs to contribute positively to society, and needs to protect yourself and those you love. This is not an exhaustive list. Some argue that these needs can all be traced back to the urge nature imbedded in us to propagate our genes. Maybe. But like many of our basic animal urges, we must refine, redirect, balance, and sometimes overcome these urges with consciousness, compassion, courage, reason, and love. Nature has no problem with animals dropping their pants and pooping wherever and whenever this natural and necessary need strikes, but I’m a big fan of outhouses and collective expressions of self-control in this domain. The taming of fire as an evolutionary step forward is rivaled in importance by the invention of the diaper. Indoor plumbing came much later, but again, an impressive leap for humankind.

Fake news is tempting for many reasons. As we’ve noted, humans like to feel like they belong. They hang with their homies, even in the face of evidence that their homies might be bad dudes. And humans greatly enjoy being right. Most parents have noticed that the shorter, less mature among us will argue well past the point of absurdity to hold on to a false belief that benefits them. For instance, the possibility of global warming is quite inconvenient. Therefore, the easy route is to simply deny it.

Fake news is generated for financial and political reasons. Fake news is certainly not our best attempt to explain the world or keep ourselves informed. Mature, moral humans can distinguish between fact and propaganda, between rumors and explanations. We have the means and the abilities, but we often lack the will.

So here’s one possible conclusion Dr. Bossypants endorses: Fake news is successful because of moral incontinence. Yes–giving into the temptation to cut corners and indulge in what Freud might have called leakage of the Id.

Aristotle believed humans were prone to moral incontinence when it came to money or self-aggrandizing. And of course, anger. Think about it: When you let yourself get crazy angry, you might say or do things you aren’t proud of later. Similarly, when we let ourselves want to be right at all costs, we gobble up bot-driven absurdities to bolster our beliefs. Sadly, the more frequently and loudly lies are repeated, the more likely they are to be believed. It’s Groupthink on steroids. Generating, promoting, and sharing highly suspicious “facts” in order to reassure our inward little self, be popular, or sell ads is the equivalent of taking a moral dump in a crowded room.

Diaper-up, people. These compelling human needs (to belong, be right, be rich, etc.) set us up for trouble when paired with immaturity and laziness. Sure, it’s thrilling to contribute to massive conspiracy theories. It’s easier to believe than check the facts. It’s also easier to fear, cheer, and jeer than reason, research, and admit being wrong. But easier isn’t better. In fact, sometimes it’s a public health hazard, and pretty much always, it stinks. Of course, there will be people willing to tell you it doesn’t, but trust me on this one folks, it reeks.

 

Morality and Culture

Dr. Bossypants in disguise, exchanging ideas about ethics with Tibetan school counselors

talk-in-dharamsala-introductions-0-00-11-11-2

As a psychologist, professor, counselor educator, author, gardener, citizen, jogger, neighbor, mom, wife, sister and daughter, I have a lot of ethical and moral guidelines to pay attention to. These different identities matter to me, and I want to be considered a good representative of each group. (Cue applause from students, clients, spouse, children, readers, carrots and onions.) I also believe life itself is a gift, and we’re each meant to live good, fulfilled lives—authentic expressions of our unique selves.

Just as ethical practices and codes define a profession, moral rules define human culture. As soon as babies are born into their respective cultures, moral instruction begins. As children (and their consciences) develop, they become increasingly aware of the rules for conduct in their family, community, and society.

When I teach ethics, I ask students who taught them about right and wrong. Who taught them what to value, what to strive for, and who to strive to be? Some occasionally cite a religious authority, but the vast majority name parents, grandparents, siblings, or other family members. Sometimes, teachers or coaches make it on the list as well. These early figures are very influential.

Obviously, human morality intersects directly with multiculturalism. If behaving morally is part of the definition of being human, and at least some moral rules vary across cultures, cross-cultural encounters might be confusing or even disturbing. We may be tempted to dehumanize others or judge them as immoral. This brings us to this question:

Are there universal morals?

Humans are, to add a bit to the psalmist’s observations, fearfully, wonderfully, and diversely made. If there’s a Creator, it’s clear the Creator loves diversity. Cultures definitely have differing definitions of morality. But…if morality is intended to point us towards the best of what it means to be human, could we hope to find agreement across cultures regarding certain aspects of morality?

There are natural tensions between diversity and commonality that parallel the intellectual tension between relativism and absolutism. As someone once said, “Everything is relative, and of that, I am absolutely certain.”

Here’s what Dr. Bossypants thinks: As ethical grown-ups, we don’t need to deny our shared humanity in order to celebrate and honor diversity, and we don’t need to fear or minimize diversity as we recognize our commonality. This might seem contradictory, but that’s part of what it means to be fully human.

A moral life will encompass many uncomfortably paradoxical or contradictory situations, such as:

  • I excuse myself for not doing the right thing, but I don’t excuse others.
  • There are two “right” things to do, or none–the choice is between the lesser of evils.
  • If I do the right thing, I will hurt those I love.
  • The right thing to do will turn out to be wrong and harmful because of an inadequate judicial system or lack of funding.
  • If I tell the truth, I will hurt someone’s feelings or even endanger others.
  • Sometimes, something is the right thing to do in one culture, and the wrong thing to do in another. Thomas Jefferson said, “The same act, therefore, may be useful and consequently virtuous in one country which is injurious and vicious in another differently circumstanced.”

In moral matters, humans use both mind and heart. Some are inclined to set their moral compass by intuitions and a deep, gut level sense of morality. Eleanor Roosevelt said, “Do what you feel in your heart to be right—for you’ll be criticized anyway.” Others use the human gift of rationality. They reason their way to a moral choice. Either way, the human condition is such that we will never achieve perfect consistency. Walt Whitman wrote, “Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself.  I am large, I contain multitudes.”

In upcoming blogs, we’ll take a look at Dr. Bossypants’s shamelessly simplified take on various moral philosophies and how they might shed light on the task of being fully, wonderfully human.

For now, we’ll close with this great quote by Barry Lopez from his book Arctic Dreams:

“No culture has yet solved the dilemma each has faced with the growth of a conscious mind:  how to live a moral and compassionate existence when one is fully aware of the blood, the horror inherent in life, when one finds darkness not only in one’s culture but within oneself? If there is a stage at which an individual life becomes truly adult, it must be when one grasps the irony in its unfolding and accepts responsibility for a life lived in the midst of such paradox. One must live in the middle of contradiction, because if all contradiction were eliminated at once life would collapse. There are simply no answers to some of the great pressing questions. You continue to live them out, making your life a worthy expression of leaning into the light.”

northern-lights-2

Ethics 101

“Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.”          Franklin D. Roosevelt

p1040765-2

My favorite course as a professor was my Professional Ethics course—not necessarily an opinion shared by my students, at least initially. But many warmed up to it as the weeks went by. I’ve always been drawn to trying to understand right, wrong, and shades of gray. So, I’ve decided to blog about morals and ethics for a while because our current social order seems perilously bereft of basic moral or ethical understandings. I’ll be drawing from my ethics text, and though I doubt our publisher (Wiley) actually minds, I mention this so I won’t be accused of plagiarizing myself or John, my humble, handsome co-author.

The struggle to define the rightly lived life and the best ways to live together as a human community is an ancient one. The Rig Veda, the Torah, the Greeks and Romans, the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Confucius—some of these dating many centuries B.C.—are examples of thoughtful people wrestling with how to be good, fulfilled human beings, functioning within a healthy community. As Robert Wright notes in his book, The Moral Animal, we are social beings. Psychologically, spiritually, and physically, our survival depends on getting along with other humans to some extent. Customs or rules for how to best treat each other are evident in even the most loosely defined communities.

In case you were wondering, the terms morals and ethics have similar origins; the word “morals” is derived from the Latin word, mores, which means manners, morals, or character.  The word “ethics” comes from the Greek word, ethos, which means character, or custom.

Although there is overlap in meaning, in general, morals and morality have become more closely associated with values and matters of conscience, while ethics has come to be more linked to the professional world. For example, professions have codes of ethics, but not codes of morals. Also, academically, ethics is the study of morality, much like political science is the study of politics, or theology is the study of religion. Thus, college courses in ethics are common, but you might do a double-take if you were required to take Morals 101—or even worse, Morals for Dummies. Then again, this might not be a bad idea.

Morality is the story of what it means to be fully human, realizing all that is good and true in human potential. Moral knowledge is essential for the healthy functioning of any community.

When you study to become a professional, you learn the skills of the trade. Dentists study medicine and then learn all about teeth. Teachers study their subject area and specific skills for teaching others. (Wouldn’t it be nice if political leaders were required to learn all about effective governance?) But beyond the skills, professionals also learn the ethics of their profession. That is, what is the best, highest, most effective way to use the knowledge that defines the profession? Usually, these ethical rules are determined by the professionals themselves, and express the heart of the professional endeavor and identity. There are codes of ethics for attorneys, architects, chemists, counselors, dentists, nurses, scientists, zoologists, engineers, and many more. Some argue that without a code of ethics, a profession has not yet fully come into being.

If professionals decide to ignore or violate their particular ethics code, they run the risk of being shunned, sanctioned, or removed from their profession. And I would argue that when basic morality is ignored or violated, a human has lost an essential aspect of what it means to be human.

Ah, but here’s the rub: How do we define what’s moral? What rules, guidelines, codes, or ways of being do we collectively endorse for the good of the community, and for the good of each individual?

Well, tune in next time. I’ll offer my own Bossypants-style summaries of how some very smart people have approached those questions. And in the meantime, feel free to consider how you, your very own self, might have come to believe whatever it is YOU believe about right, wrong, fulfillment, happiness, and the best ways to get along with each other.

p1040577-2

“I am an example of what is possible when girls from the very beginning of their lives are loved and nurtured by people around them. I was surrounded by extraordinary women in my life who taught me about quiet strength and dignity. “        Michelle Obama

Choices

p1040398-2

In my last Bossypants blog, I wrote about Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). Persons with NPD and assorted other personality disorder don’t think they have a disorder. Instead, they blame everyone around them for their troubles, and for the ubiquitous misery they cause.

Remember this old joke? How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, but the light bulb has to really want to change.

If the light bulb has a personality disorder, this is highly unlikely.

As co-authors of a Counseling and Psychotherapy Theories text, and some other psychologically fascinating books, my far less bossy husband (https://johnsommersflanagan.com/) and I engage in endless speculation about how to alleviate suffering and facilitate human growth and development. True, people rarely change for the better if they don’t want to. But people can and do change.

Most of us like to believe in free will, the human capacity for conscious choice. But we are finite beings. Biologically, we’re limited to the attributes we were born with, and whatever we might add surgically or medically to those basics. Broadly, this is referred to as “nature.” We are also shaped by the external world—by those who love us, feed us, admire us, or abandon us. And this is referred to as “nurture.” Nurture. Nature. Together, these two 1) account for a very large percentage of who we are, and 2) heavily influence–or even limit–our choices.

Further, some argue that free will is an illusion because we’re genetically programed to reproduce. Behaviors (and choices) are thus dictated by the biological mandate to successfully reproduce with the best partners as often as possible. The more offspring carrying forth our genes, the better—so the argument goes. Of course, no one has yet successfully interviewed a gene, so a lot of these “selfish gene” explanations remain theoretical, and exceptions to the rule are as interesting as the supposed rule. But we’ll leave this discussion for another day.

Here’s what Dr. Bossypants believes. We are sentient, conscious beings, and we do make choices. These choices are influenced by many factors, including:

  • our parents, first grade teachers or that coach we had in seventh grade
  • our biological attributes or needs
  • our desire to successfully reproduce
  • the drugs we take, repeated blows to our heads, and difficulties in our lives.

But even with those forces in play, choices are still to a large degree our own.

Making good choices is more difficult for some people than others, but having the ability and the right to make choices remains a defining feature of what it means to be human. Choices can be loving or hateful, constructive or destructive, selfish or generous. We can choose to be honest or to lie. We can choose to work for our own gain, regardless of what it costs others, or we can choose balance, keeping ourselves and our neighbors equally in mind.

From the perspectives of Alfred Adler, certain feminists, the Dalai Lama, Carl Rogers, Jesus, and many other highly educated and thoughtful people, humans are happiest and healthiest when they choose to be compassionate, generous, honest, and constructive. For what it’s worth, I concur.

And yes, that’s me, second to the last on the right. Whoa.

group-photo-with-hh-the-dalai-lama-2