It’s not the economically inactive that puts growth at risk. It’s having an economy with jobs that are skewed against the distribution of skills in the population.
The following argument is sketchy, and it uses IQ as a crude indicator of skill levels. Key points: population average is 100 points, standard deviation is 15 points, and inter-test variation is 5. Lots of other personal qualities affect someone’s life-chances, as do the circumstances of their upbringing. People with high IQ’s can be a**holes or decent people, as can people with lower IQ’s. Differences of 3 or 4 points are meaningless, differences of 10 or more are real. The sweet spot for a business manager is around 115 (+/- 5). As a very rough guide, under 85 has a hard time fitting into the economy, and over 120 starts to have a hard time fitting into the social world. Moral character is entirely independent of IQ. Okay?
15% of the UK population 16-64 who are economically active (total 32m) has an IQ of 85 or less, which means there are a very small number of jobs in an industrial / knowledge-work economy they can do. That’s 4.8m people who aren’t quite up to the job requirements, training or not.
No matter how good the economy, there’s always what the economists call frictional unemployment due to firms moving, going broke, having hiring freezes and other such stuff. That rate varies with the health of the economy: it’s around 1m now. Also there are some jobs for people under 85, but I’m going to pull a number of 1.5m from the air.
This should mean we unemployment of around 4.8m + 1m - 1.5m = 4.3m. (1)
Instead it is around 1.5m. Which means the economy has something like 2.8m jobs being done by people who aren’t quite up to it, or even are a long way off being up to it. That’s slightly over one in eleven workers, and it will be spread across the ability levels and personal temperaments.
That’s where the feeling you’re talking to someone who doesn’t quite catch on to whatever it is they should be catching on to.
So this economy is doing a fabulous job of employing people. It has generated so many jobs that employers have to hire down to a non-trivial extent.
But, we have grown the complexity of the products, services, processes, laws, supply chains, finance, and so on, past the point where we have enough people to handle that much complexity.
So the real challenge for the managers and law-makers of the future is to simplify everything so that regular people can handle it.
And to do so without embedding the complexity in computer systems that can be hacked or disabled, and which will be un-maintainable by regular people.
You’re welcome.
(1) Sure we could adapt the figures for immigration, but it would not make a big difference. The 3m immigrants from the EU are skewed to the right, but there are 4m from elsewhere who aren’t.
Tuesday, 18 June 2024
Friday, 14 June 2024
Worklessness Risks Growth
In their 12th June edition, the Telegraph ran an article with the headline “Worklessness risks growth after hitting 13-year high”. The writer, Tim Wallace quoted Tony Wallace of the Institute of Employment Studies, and Alexandra Hall-Chen of the Institute of Directors, as saying that this was a Serious Issue the like of which had never been faced by the UK economy since, well, the last time.
Wallace should have told them, and the ONS (whose skills at data collection I don’t question, but who are no better than anyone else at providing interpretation and context), to hop on a bus.
For one thing, comparisons with previous highs some random period in the past are meaningless: there’s always a time when it was a) this bad, b) worse, c) better. Choose your year. I’ll choose 1995, because no-one was complaining about worklessness then.
Next, always check that the quantity they are talking about is what you think it is. “Workless” in this article means “economically inactive according to the ONS Labour Force Survey”. Its age range is 16-64.
Wait. 16? Aren’t they still at school? Indeed, isn’t half the population between 16 and 21 at school, college or university? Yep. Then, according to you and me, they aren’t “economically inactive” - they are doing what the economy needs them to do. Guess how many students there are in 9.5m “workless”? 2.65 million. So really, there are only 6.84m “really workless” people. In 1995, there were 7.16m “really workless” people.
In 1995, 2.87m people were looking after their family and home - which is work whenever I do it, so let’s correct for that as well. In 2024, that was 1.73m, so that in 2024 there were 5.11m “really workless” people and in 1995 there were 4.29 “really workless” people. The difference is a combination of long-term sick and “other”, as advertised by the press.
However… in 1995 there were 25.14m people employed, 2.47m unemployed, and 4.29m really workless. In 2024 there were 32.9m people employed (!), 1.42m unemployed, and 5.11 really workless. The number of 16-64 year olds went up by 16%, the number employed went up by 25% (!), the number unemployed went down in absolute terms, and the number of really workless went up by 19%.
So this economy, compared to the heady days of 1995, is employing 7.7m more people, has reduced unemployment, supports more students, has more women out at work, and someone thinks that 0.8m people being long-term sick is going to hold it back? I don’t think so. It’s 2% of the working population, which assuming they all worked and contributed average GDP / head, would be an increase in GDP that could be wiped out by one lousy decision in the Treasury or the City.
Wallace should have told them, and the ONS (whose skills at data collection I don’t question, but who are no better than anyone else at providing interpretation and context), to hop on a bus.
For one thing, comparisons with previous highs some random period in the past are meaningless: there’s always a time when it was a) this bad, b) worse, c) better. Choose your year. I’ll choose 1995, because no-one was complaining about worklessness then.
Next, always check that the quantity they are talking about is what you think it is. “Workless” in this article means “economically inactive according to the ONS Labour Force Survey”. Its age range is 16-64.
Wait. 16? Aren’t they still at school? Indeed, isn’t half the population between 16 and 21 at school, college or university? Yep. Then, according to you and me, they aren’t “economically inactive” - they are doing what the economy needs them to do. Guess how many students there are in 9.5m “workless”? 2.65 million. So really, there are only 6.84m “really workless” people. In 1995, there were 7.16m “really workless” people.
In 1995, 2.87m people were looking after their family and home - which is work whenever I do it, so let’s correct for that as well. In 2024, that was 1.73m, so that in 2024 there were 5.11m “really workless” people and in 1995 there were 4.29 “really workless” people. The difference is a combination of long-term sick and “other”, as advertised by the press.
However… in 1995 there were 25.14m people employed, 2.47m unemployed, and 4.29m really workless. In 2024 there were 32.9m people employed (!), 1.42m unemployed, and 5.11 really workless. The number of 16-64 year olds went up by 16%, the number employed went up by 25% (!), the number unemployed went down in absolute terms, and the number of really workless went up by 19%.
So this economy, compared to the heady days of 1995, is employing 7.7m more people, has reduced unemployment, supports more students, has more women out at work, and someone thinks that 0.8m people being long-term sick is going to hold it back? I don’t think so. It’s 2% of the working population, which assuming they all worked and contributed average GDP / head, would be an increase in GDP that could be wiped out by one lousy decision in the Treasury or the City.
Tuesday, 11 June 2024
Vote For Someone Who Didn’t Vote For Lockdown
July 4th.
Isn’t that a holiday in the USA?
It’s also a General Election here.
My MP will get returned because they have a majority as large as the population of Sweden, and under electoral law this constituency must return the Labour candidate.
So I’ve always been able to vote for whoever in the secure knowledge that it will make absolutely no difference at all.
But this time, I will append a silent protest.
I will not vote for anyone who voted for lockdown in March 2020.
All of them must lose their seats. It’s the only thing politicians understand.
Isn’t that a holiday in the USA?
It’s also a General Election here.
My MP will get returned because they have a majority as large as the population of Sweden, and under electoral law this constituency must return the Labour candidate.
So I’ve always been able to vote for whoever in the secure knowledge that it will make absolutely no difference at all.
But this time, I will append a silent protest.
I will not vote for anyone who voted for lockdown in March 2020.
All of them must lose their seats. It’s the only thing politicians understand.
Friday, 7 June 2024
The “Intimate Relationship”
Therapists mostly see ordinary people who are unhappy with their lives in one way or another that falls short of the distress needed for psychiatric treatment. One of the things these people must have in common (otherwise why would they see a therapist?) is the lack of anyone they can trust, feel comfortable and safe with, and can share their innermost thoughts, fears, hopes and dreams, without censure or judgement. Since that is what therapists say they provide(1), it seems reasonable to conclude that if they had such a friend, they would not need a therapist. Since the client isn’t going to carry on with therapy indefinitely, it makes sense to suggest that they find someone like this.
Hence the emergence of the idea of the “intimate relationship”, which provides “emotional intimacy”.
This represents a yearning many people have when going through periods of insecurity and doubt. The benefit is supposed to be that “a problem shared is a problem halved” and “misery loves company”, that, having unburdened ourselves, we will go forth and do something about it.
A number of observations.
These relationships require trust, and that’s earned, not given. Opportunities for people to show that they are trustworthy, or to see that someone else is, are few and far between. Not because this is a jungle of a world, but precisely because it isn’t: when everyone is well-behaved, watches their language to avoid offence, only expresses views that conform to the standards of the time and place, and otherwise goes-along-to-get-along, nobody has any idea what anyone really believes and hence if they can be trusted. The risks of badly-chosen trust can run from losing one’s job to being ostracised by one’s family, and those just aren’t risks worth taking.
(Better, perhaps, to go to someone who is bound by confidentiality, can be sued if they break it, and knows nobody you know. That’s what therapists really get paid for.)
The conversations may consist of one person venting while the other listens, and there’s no intention to solve the problem. At worst this allows the venter to remain in a situation they should really leave, so that the listener is put in the position of enabling some dysfunction in the venter’s life. Almost as bad is that the venting is a drama pay-off for the venter, putting the listener in the position of a passive one-person audience to what is really a soliloquy. Most people, if they suspect they are just there for the talker to vent, will get themselves out of it - sometimes with the remark that “it sounds like you need to see a therapist”.
The speaker may not be talking about what they need to be talking about, and do not know what they need to be talking about. We can usually sense this, even if we don’t know the details. It reduces the listener to being polite and helpless, which is not something people usually want to be, and the usual way out is to sympathetically admit that they can’t really help, and maybe the speaker should see a therapist.
Whoever we share with must understand what we are talking about, and we must know they understand. We need to know they have been through something like we are going through, or have been through, and also that their circumstances are enough like ours that whatever it was had a similar effect on their lives as it did on ours. Hence the phrase “you weren’t there, you couldn’t know”. Only those who were there, who have been through the same thing, can know, and so understand what our words mean. To everyone else, we may as well be speaking in Mandarin: they won’t know about the details, and it’s the details that matter.
For some people, such experiences create a sense of alienation: no-one who wasn’t there will ever understand them. Communication with people who weren’t there will never be much above the level of swapping mundane facts or talking about the weather. Even if we never meet other people who “were there”, the possibility of that conversation remains as the standard by which all others will fail.
Relationships are “for-something-together”: playing seven-a-side, raising children, installing double-glazing, cooking food, watching a movie, talking about a subject of mutual interest, baby-sitting each other’s children, spotting each other at the gym, and so on. Venting-and-listening might be on this list, but if it’s the whole relationship, we’re probably looking at a narcissist taking advantage of a co-dependent.
So the “intimacy” is only part of the relationship: in other words, it’s someone you have-to-do with for one purpose, and you also trust them enough to talk about whatever-it-is, and you think they will be sympathetic to such a conversation. It’s not the relationship that’s “intimate”, it’s some conversations you have as a consequence of the relationship.
If you have someone in your life like that, you’re lucky. Use the opportunity too often, and you may lose them.
(1) I’m not being cynical. If you reveal un-Islamic thoughts to your Islamic therapist, or un-liberal thoughts to your liberal therapist, you will be subject to ideological correction, because that’s what they think you came to them for. That’s not what you go to your “intimate friendship” for.
Hence the emergence of the idea of the “intimate relationship”, which provides “emotional intimacy”.
This represents a yearning many people have when going through periods of insecurity and doubt. The benefit is supposed to be that “a problem shared is a problem halved” and “misery loves company”, that, having unburdened ourselves, we will go forth and do something about it.
A number of observations.
These relationships require trust, and that’s earned, not given. Opportunities for people to show that they are trustworthy, or to see that someone else is, are few and far between. Not because this is a jungle of a world, but precisely because it isn’t: when everyone is well-behaved, watches their language to avoid offence, only expresses views that conform to the standards of the time and place, and otherwise goes-along-to-get-along, nobody has any idea what anyone really believes and hence if they can be trusted. The risks of badly-chosen trust can run from losing one’s job to being ostracised by one’s family, and those just aren’t risks worth taking.
(Better, perhaps, to go to someone who is bound by confidentiality, can be sued if they break it, and knows nobody you know. That’s what therapists really get paid for.)
The conversations may consist of one person venting while the other listens, and there’s no intention to solve the problem. At worst this allows the venter to remain in a situation they should really leave, so that the listener is put in the position of enabling some dysfunction in the venter’s life. Almost as bad is that the venting is a drama pay-off for the venter, putting the listener in the position of a passive one-person audience to what is really a soliloquy. Most people, if they suspect they are just there for the talker to vent, will get themselves out of it - sometimes with the remark that “it sounds like you need to see a therapist”.
The speaker may not be talking about what they need to be talking about, and do not know what they need to be talking about. We can usually sense this, even if we don’t know the details. It reduces the listener to being polite and helpless, which is not something people usually want to be, and the usual way out is to sympathetically admit that they can’t really help, and maybe the speaker should see a therapist.
Whoever we share with must understand what we are talking about, and we must know they understand. We need to know they have been through something like we are going through, or have been through, and also that their circumstances are enough like ours that whatever it was had a similar effect on their lives as it did on ours. Hence the phrase “you weren’t there, you couldn’t know”. Only those who were there, who have been through the same thing, can know, and so understand what our words mean. To everyone else, we may as well be speaking in Mandarin: they won’t know about the details, and it’s the details that matter.
For some people, such experiences create a sense of alienation: no-one who wasn’t there will ever understand them. Communication with people who weren’t there will never be much above the level of swapping mundane facts or talking about the weather. Even if we never meet other people who “were there”, the possibility of that conversation remains as the standard by which all others will fail.
Relationships are “for-something-together”: playing seven-a-side, raising children, installing double-glazing, cooking food, watching a movie, talking about a subject of mutual interest, baby-sitting each other’s children, spotting each other at the gym, and so on. Venting-and-listening might be on this list, but if it’s the whole relationship, we’re probably looking at a narcissist taking advantage of a co-dependent.
So the “intimacy” is only part of the relationship: in other words, it’s someone you have-to-do with for one purpose, and you also trust them enough to talk about whatever-it-is, and you think they will be sympathetic to such a conversation. It’s not the relationship that’s “intimate”, it’s some conversations you have as a consequence of the relationship.
If you have someone in your life like that, you’re lucky. Use the opportunity too often, and you may lose them.
(1) I’m not being cynical. If you reveal un-Islamic thoughts to your Islamic therapist, or un-liberal thoughts to your liberal therapist, you will be subject to ideological correction, because that’s what they think you came to them for. That’s not what you go to your “intimate friendship” for.
Tuesday, 4 June 2024
Happy Birthday To Me
I was 70 last month. I celebrated on the day itself by having a blood test (at 08:00!) to make sure I still had the necessary hormones and chemicals in the right proportions. Seems I do.
The month was filled with dentistry, osteopathy, and having my garden hard standing re-surfaced, so I was too busy to linger long on the symbolism of passing 70.
When I was a young lad, there weren’t many men over 70. Men died pretty briskly after retiring, mainly because they had been doing jobs that left them physically depleted and, as we now know, stuffed full of asbestos and other such damaging substances. For men, 75 was old, 80 was almost un-heard of, except amongst the very well-off and some Chelsea Pensioners.
70 doesn’t have any significance. It’s just one more post-retirement year marked by a slow decline in one’s energy levels. 80 is the new 60 - the age at which one can expect to live five more years (or not).
Ten years. When I was twenty, that was a lifetime.
Maybe it still is.
The month was filled with dentistry, osteopathy, and having my garden hard standing re-surfaced, so I was too busy to linger long on the symbolism of passing 70.
When I was a young lad, there weren’t many men over 70. Men died pretty briskly after retiring, mainly because they had been doing jobs that left them physically depleted and, as we now know, stuffed full of asbestos and other such damaging substances. For men, 75 was old, 80 was almost un-heard of, except amongst the very well-off and some Chelsea Pensioners.
70 doesn’t have any significance. It’s just one more post-retirement year marked by a slow decline in one’s energy levels. 80 is the new 60 - the age at which one can expect to live five more years (or not).
Ten years. When I was twenty, that was a lifetime.
Maybe it still is.
Friday, 31 May 2024
Relationships as Identity (or Not)
If there’s one thing everyone in the psychology business agrees on, it’s that people really benefit from being in relationships. We are happier, feel more connected, feel that our lives have more purpose and direction, we are healthier, less stressed and more relaxed.
(That is not a factual statement, and isn’t meant to be. It is aspirational, a statement about what the consequences of relationships should be. A relationship that doesn’t have some of those consequences is “un-healthy” or “toxic”, “abusive”, “exploitative”, and other words meaning“bad”.)
Writing this, it struck me that the Big-Name philosophers don’t write much about relationships. They focus on the individual (morality) and the institutions that govern individuals (politics). They might have talked about one’s “relations with other people”, but that was about how well one dealt with, got along with, and otherwise had-to-with others. One could be arrogant in one’s relations, or too meek, or well-judged, or many other qualities.
The current idea is a tangle of different things: it refers to a kind of informal implicit contract: I expect this and that from you, and you expect this and that from me; it refers to how we behave with others; it can also refer to the possibilities for the future, and the lost opportunities in the past; the history of how and when we met, treated each other, and felt about it at the time and afterwards; it is the current condition of our dealings and feelings; it may also have institutional or social significance, such as being part of the feudal hierarchy of an organisation, or “significant others”, or “sworn enemies”. “Relationships” make up a large chunk of our biographies, and hence in some sense, our so-far realised selves.
This idea emerges with the development of a line in psychology that defines an individual’s identity as much or more by their relationships, than their personal qualities and abilities - and this makes sense, as after all, many of our personal qualities refer to our behaviour around other people. However it often turns into the implicit claim that people with very few relationships are not fully people, but rather just a collection of ingredients waiting to be made into a person by mixing and baking them in the heat of “relationships”. (There is no doubt that children do not develop into functioning adults unless they have parents, teachers, and peers, but after reaching adulthood that ends. Adults without much interpersonal contact may become eccentric - or do other people avoid them because they are already slightly eccentric?)
If there is a definition of an “ordinary person”, it is one for whom their relationships form the principal part of their biography and identity.
One may be “un-ordinary” in many ways, perhaps by having a goal or skill to which one is dedicated, and which one’s relationships either enable, or are subordinate. Athletes, performing artists, research mathematicians, entrepreneurs, politicians, and similar, are good examples. They may also have partners, children and an extended family life, but they fit around the central purpose (especially in providing excuses for getting out of unwanted purpose-related engagements). That’s where their identity comes from. If those people use therapists at all, they will use therapists who specialise in whichever type of un-ordinary they are.
Faced with a generalist, ideological psycho-therapist used to dealing with ordinary people, the un-ordinary person should apologise for being an introvert. This is a Magic Word that therapists must respect. They will usually adapt their “go out and meet more people, and join a local club or association” advice accordingly.
(That is not a factual statement, and isn’t meant to be. It is aspirational, a statement about what the consequences of relationships should be. A relationship that doesn’t have some of those consequences is “un-healthy” or “toxic”, “abusive”, “exploitative”, and other words meaning“bad”.)
Writing this, it struck me that the Big-Name philosophers don’t write much about relationships. They focus on the individual (morality) and the institutions that govern individuals (politics). They might have talked about one’s “relations with other people”, but that was about how well one dealt with, got along with, and otherwise had-to-with others. One could be arrogant in one’s relations, or too meek, or well-judged, or many other qualities.
The current idea is a tangle of different things: it refers to a kind of informal implicit contract: I expect this and that from you, and you expect this and that from me; it refers to how we behave with others; it can also refer to the possibilities for the future, and the lost opportunities in the past; the history of how and when we met, treated each other, and felt about it at the time and afterwards; it is the current condition of our dealings and feelings; it may also have institutional or social significance, such as being part of the feudal hierarchy of an organisation, or “significant others”, or “sworn enemies”. “Relationships” make up a large chunk of our biographies, and hence in some sense, our so-far realised selves.
This idea emerges with the development of a line in psychology that defines an individual’s identity as much or more by their relationships, than their personal qualities and abilities - and this makes sense, as after all, many of our personal qualities refer to our behaviour around other people. However it often turns into the implicit claim that people with very few relationships are not fully people, but rather just a collection of ingredients waiting to be made into a person by mixing and baking them in the heat of “relationships”. (There is no doubt that children do not develop into functioning adults unless they have parents, teachers, and peers, but after reaching adulthood that ends. Adults without much interpersonal contact may become eccentric - or do other people avoid them because they are already slightly eccentric?)
If there is a definition of an “ordinary person”, it is one for whom their relationships form the principal part of their biography and identity.
One may be “un-ordinary” in many ways, perhaps by having a goal or skill to which one is dedicated, and which one’s relationships either enable, or are subordinate. Athletes, performing artists, research mathematicians, entrepreneurs, politicians, and similar, are good examples. They may also have partners, children and an extended family life, but they fit around the central purpose (especially in providing excuses for getting out of unwanted purpose-related engagements). That’s where their identity comes from. If those people use therapists at all, they will use therapists who specialise in whichever type of un-ordinary they are.
Faced with a generalist, ideological psycho-therapist used to dealing with ordinary people, the un-ordinary person should apologise for being an introvert. This is a Magic Word that therapists must respect. They will usually adapt their “go out and meet more people, and join a local club or association” advice accordingly.
Tuesday, 28 May 2024
It Is About The Nail
A lot of work goes into theories of how the patient / client came to have their problem. The answer is invariably something that happened in the past, and therefore cannot be changed.(1) It’s the same with a viral infection: does it really matter where or from whom you got it? What matters is whether there’s an available affordable antidote or if you have to sweat it out.
Here’s a simpler approach.
You’re doing something DoublePlusUnGood. The next time you get an urge to do it - don’t. Even if it means you have to stand under a cold shower, run a mile, or bang your head against the wall. You’re allowed to do anything (except self-harm) you need to do to stop yourself doing it. You can give the bathroom a thorough clean, or finally sand down and varnish those shelves. Whatever it takes.
Start by removing yourself from as many of the temptations as you can. Alcoholics stop going into pubs, bars and off-licenses, and stay away from the booze shelves in the supermarket. If you only ever see Eddie and Frank to have a drink, stop seeing Eddie and Frank. Nobody said this was easy. Other people with other addictions can take relevant pre-emptive avoiding action.
You’re going to think about doing whatever it is. That’s okay. This isn’t about the chaos inside your head - yet - it’s about what you do.
Just don’t do it.
Rinse, repeat, until it becomes easier.
It’s AA in disguise, of course. What the Floundering Fathers recognised was that giving up drinking (or enter your vice here) for ever was too much to contemplate. Not having the next drink is way, way, easier. So is focusing on what you need to do today, and not worrying about tomorrow or yesterday.
That’s the advice that the addict / screw-up needs to get them started. Happiness and all those other good things will follow as a consequence, once the noise in their heads has quietened down, and they have some confidence that they can get through a bad patch without giving way to the wrong temptation.
However, addicts have Meetings. Meetings don’t always work for everyone, and nobody knows how they work for the people they work for. There’s just something about being in a group of people being honest about whatever is The Problem. You’re not alone. It can be done, because others are doing it.
Meetings are for things one wants to stop doing.
The idea doesn’t work for things that one wants to start doing. Underearners Anonymous is the closest to that, and I’ve been to those meetings. It helped me, but I’m not sure it helped many of the other people. The reference book is pretty good though.
I think psycho-therapy can be useful in helping the client understand what may be getting in the way of doing the things they need to do to achieve the things they want to achieve. In the end, it comes down to a programme of practical action, and that’s either the Steps or it’s some kind of self-improvement (take a class, go to the gym, say “hi” to one girl a day, whatever). It’s not the essentially reflective and exploratory process of psycho-therapy.
Because, in the end, it is about the nail.
(1) However, knowing what that historical something is will help you see its consequences as put there by someone else and so that can be removed or ignored in the future.
Here’s a simpler approach.
You’re doing something DoublePlusUnGood. The next time you get an urge to do it - don’t. Even if it means you have to stand under a cold shower, run a mile, or bang your head against the wall. You’re allowed to do anything (except self-harm) you need to do to stop yourself doing it. You can give the bathroom a thorough clean, or finally sand down and varnish those shelves. Whatever it takes.
Start by removing yourself from as many of the temptations as you can. Alcoholics stop going into pubs, bars and off-licenses, and stay away from the booze shelves in the supermarket. If you only ever see Eddie and Frank to have a drink, stop seeing Eddie and Frank. Nobody said this was easy. Other people with other addictions can take relevant pre-emptive avoiding action.
You’re going to think about doing whatever it is. That’s okay. This isn’t about the chaos inside your head - yet - it’s about what you do.
Just don’t do it.
Rinse, repeat, until it becomes easier.
It’s AA in disguise, of course. What the Floundering Fathers recognised was that giving up drinking (or enter your vice here) for ever was too much to contemplate. Not having the next drink is way, way, easier. So is focusing on what you need to do today, and not worrying about tomorrow or yesterday.
That’s the advice that the addict / screw-up needs to get them started. Happiness and all those other good things will follow as a consequence, once the noise in their heads has quietened down, and they have some confidence that they can get through a bad patch without giving way to the wrong temptation.
However, addicts have Meetings. Meetings don’t always work for everyone, and nobody knows how they work for the people they work for. There’s just something about being in a group of people being honest about whatever is The Problem. You’re not alone. It can be done, because others are doing it.
Meetings are for things one wants to stop doing.
The idea doesn’t work for things that one wants to start doing. Underearners Anonymous is the closest to that, and I’ve been to those meetings. It helped me, but I’m not sure it helped many of the other people. The reference book is pretty good though.
I think psycho-therapy can be useful in helping the client understand what may be getting in the way of doing the things they need to do to achieve the things they want to achieve. In the end, it comes down to a programme of practical action, and that’s either the Steps or it’s some kind of self-improvement (take a class, go to the gym, say “hi” to one girl a day, whatever). It’s not the essentially reflective and exploratory process of psycho-therapy.
Because, in the end, it is about the nail.
(1) However, knowing what that historical something is will help you see its consequences as put there by someone else and so that can be removed or ignored in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)