Graham W Price's Blog

Recent publicity on obesity highlights a study published in the British Medical Journal saying that the number of people undergoing surgery for obesity has increased ten fold over a seven year period. A worrying trend if this were to continue. Surgery is invasive and carries risks. The success rate is limited, the study itself suggesting surgery ‘can’ be helpful to ’some’ obese patients. Even ’success’ results in only partial weight-loss and still depends on following a healthy diet and fitness programme.  And even where surgery is successful, it’s only available on the NHS for the morbidly obese (BMI over 40; click here to calculate your BMI).  For everyone else, private surgery costs around £7,000 to £12,000. There surely has to be a better way.

Everyone agrees surgery should only be considered as a last resort after everything else has failed. The ‘everything else’  should include an effective weight-loss programme wherever this can be afforded. Whether we’re dealing with obesity or just a desire to lose weight, such a programme needs to cover the psychology of weight loss, not just guidance on nutrition and exercise.  Most people who want to lose weight will at some point try a slimming programme such as Weight Watchers or Slimmers World, if they can afford it. These programmes are generally strong on nutrition but weak on psychology, so they often fail. Even when they succeed, participants usually regain the lost weight when the programme finishes. It’s easy to see there are benefits to the provider that this is so.

For information on the psychology of weight loss, see my previous blog. The question I want to raise here is this. Why would anyone resort to surgery or an expensive weight-loss programme, neither of which provide any guarantee, when there’s a relatively low cost programme, that’s strong on psychology, that has always succeeded and that provides a full money-back guarantee, both for achieving the initial goal and sustaining it for a year? Click here for details.

Perhaps the NHS should consider a requirement that, prior to expensive and risky surgery, patients must engage in a psychologically-based weight-loss programme, paid for by the NHS. Selecting a programme that offers a full money-back guarantee would mean no expense to the NHS unless the goal succeeds and is sustained. Perhaps everyone else who wants to lose weight, and can afford some minor up-front investment, would be wise to follow the same course.  

Click here to preview the book that’s changing lives by teaching the psychology of resilience and achievement, for weight-loss or any other goal.

People find it difficult to lose weight and keep it off  because there’s far too little focus on the psychology involved. Key psychological factors include motivation, commitment and resilience.  The first two are reasonanably well understood. No-one succeeds in achieving a challenging goal unless they’re motivated by a clear focus on the benefits (though most perhaps don’t realise that one of the biggest benefits of weight-loss is that when we succeed in taking control of this aspect of our lives we can use the same tecniques to take control of every aspect of our lives). And most know that commitment is needed to get us through those inevitable times of weakness.

But few understand the role of resilience, let alone how to develop it. In the context of weight loss, resilience entails knowing how to deal with the emotions that often get in the way, how to generate self-acceptance (i.e. accepting ourselves despite being overweight …  the opposite might seem more motivating but in practice is generally debilitating and demotivating) and how to break through self-limitations, such as a lack of belief in our ability to succeed. All these skills are vital to achieving and sustaining weight-loss goals.

The key to resilience is acceptance. Not acceptance in the sense of inaction (we clearly need to take powerful action). Not acceptance in the sense of accepting the things we cannot change (we clearly need to change ourselves by losing the weight we want to lose). We’re talking about ‘accepting what is’, which means stopping wishing things were already different, ‘accepting what was’, including any past failings, and accepting any uncomfortable feelings, as long as we have them, while understanding we can always choose powerful actions despite whatever we may be feeling (‘accept the feeling, choose the action’).  www.whatisisbook.com

What would life be like if we could

• stop resisting what is, what was and what will be
• replace ‘resisting what is’ with ‘accepting what is’ … all the time
• focus only on changing the next moment or the future to the extent we want to and are able to
• accept any uncomfortable feelings, as long as we have them  …  no exception
• possess some powerful tools to change whatever we want to change and achieve whatever we want to achieve
• understand we live in a determined world …  and so replace blame with responsibility
• own our reactions
• choose the way we experience every moment

Might life be different? Few have experienced such a life so you’ll have to take my word for it. It’s very different. It’s amazing. Regret, worry, stress, disappointment, dissatisfaction, anxiety, frustration, irritation, guilt, feeling low, procrastination and blame all disappear.  

Life becomes easy, enjoyable, satisfying and fulfilling. We become more motivated, energised and achieving … and more emotionally expressive in a positive way. Nothing is lost; everything is gained.            www.abicord.com/what-is-is

Many are shocked by the selfish actions of the BA strikers. Shocking their behaviour may be as they seek to satisfy their own self-interest at just about everyone else’s expense. But climb inside their heads and we’d no doubt find they consider their actions fully justified. Selfish behaviour is always justified by the perpetrator no matter how distorted that justification may be.

Such distortions are eased by pack mentality. The strikers are no doubt reasonable individuals. Most people are. But reasonableness can quickly disappear in favour of self-interest when we’re part of a group with shared motives. Pack mentality brings out the baser instincts of otherwise reasonable people, for the BA strikers a self-interested belief in their right to maintain generous pay and conditions despite their employer struggling to compete in an increasingly competitive market. 

And packs are all too easy to manipulate by power-motivated individuals who understand how to bring out those base instincts.  

All this is part of the ‘determined’ world in which we live. The strikers believe they’re right and are unquestionably doing the only thing they could be doing with the awareness they have  … an awareness at least partly determined by the influences I’ve mentioned. So there’s no point thinking they should have acted differently, if we’re using ‘should’ in a blaming way. They quite simply couldn’t have acted differently.

But they’re still responsible for their actions. And in a harsh world, responsibility takes little account of our actions being fully determined by our awareness at the time.  Blame is pointless as it thinks the past and present should have been different when it couldn’t have been. Responsibility is about the future. Society will hold the strikers responsible and accountable for their actions and they’ll no doubt suffer for it.

Many years ago I drove into a Tesco petrol station in Hammersmith that had no prices displayed on the leader board. I foolishly filled up without checking the price on the pump and then discovered it was 3p a litre above competition. I paid with no animosity as I knew they’d acted in the only way they could with the awareness they had at the time. But I held them accountable for their deception. I’ve driven past that station hundreds of times since and have never ventured onto the forecourt. They made £2.00 extra profit from me all those years ago and have since lost thousands of pounds worth of my business as a result.

I’ll never employ a BA striker. Many will probably eventually be made redundant by a contracting BA, damaged by their actions. They’ll receive no job from me. No doubt thousands of other employers will think the same. And they’re likely to be socially ostracised by many for years to come. They may try to hide their history. It won’t be that easy.

Genuinely selfish behaviour has its consequences which can be ruthless and inescapable. And in a determined world, none of it could be otherwise.

The strikers will probably come to regret their actions. They don’t need to. They should know they acted in the only way they could with the awareness they had at the time. But they’ll hopefully in time come to acknowledge responsibility for their actions. And part of that responsibility will need to be to accept the consequences, including any retribution their employer and society may vent on them.                         www.abicord.com/what-is-is

The Children’s Commissioner is saying Venables and Thompson, James Bulger’s killers, should not have been prosecuted for murder. She says a child of 10 is too young to know the difference between right and wrong, so they should have received therapy to teach them that difference. “Reparation, not punishment”, she says, “is the fairer treatment for children”.

As a psychologist with experience of child crime issues, I have to disagree. Any parent will know that if they ask their 10 year old child whether it’s right or wrong to torture and kill a 2 year old, they’d know. And I hope most would share my view that the interests of James Bulger’s parents and of a society horrified by the murder are just as important, and probably more so, than the best interests of the killers.

An argument that reparation, not punishment, is fairer for the perpetrators of crime could be applied to any criminal. Both children and adults do at each moment only what their awareness allows them to do.

For those who haven’t read my earlier posts … we all do only what our awareness allows us to do at any moment. In this context ‘awareness’ means our ways of thinking, our attitudes, beliefs, values, abilities, knowledge, subconscious programming and any other characteristics that make up who we are at any moment.  We make choices of course, but the choices we make are determined by our awareness at the time.

Anyone committing a crime is acting from their awareness at the time. That awareness may well be unproductive, selfish or dysfunctional but our awareness is what it is and at any moment it’s simply a product of our life history up to that moment.

Anyone who commits murder will justify their actions to themselves at the time. Misguided though that justification might be, it’s still a product of their awareness at the time. So it could always be argued that the fairest treatment for murderers is reparation not punishment.

Two points worth making. First, while our actions at any moment are always determined by our awareness at the time, we’re still responsible for our actions. That responsibility is at least partly reflected in the consequences we bear for our actions, including any punishment.     

Second, the perpetrators of crime are not the only people who matter. Victims matter too. In my view they matter more. To me the best interests of James and his parents matter more than the best interests of his killers. That’s the reason I believe it was wrong to release his killers after only seven years in prison. It took too little account of the interests of the most important people involved at the time, James’s parents. And that’s why it would have been wrong not to have punished James’s killers for their appalling actions.    www.abicord.com/what-is-is

I’ve been asked why it isn’t a cop-out for Tiger and Tony, and the rest of us, to understand that everything we’ve ever done is the best we could have done, indeed the only thing we could have done, given our awareness at the time?  It’s not a cop-out because we’re still responsible. 

So what’s the difference between blame, in this case self-blame, and responsibility? 

Blame is always focused on the past. It involves wanting the past to be different, which is crazy because the past can never be different, or thinking the past ‘should’ have been different, which is just as crazy because the past couldn’t have been different. All the choices we’ve ever made were the only choices we could have made, given our awareness at the time. 

Blame, including self-blame, is both futile and a nonsense. 

Responsibility on the other hand only impacts the future. Sure it involves recognising we’re responsible for our past actions … nobody else can be … even though it was the best we could have done, indeed the only thing we could have done, given our awareness at the time. Responsibility only impacts the future because it involves considering whether there’s anything we can or should do now or in the future to make up for what we’ve done … apology, recompense, etc … and whether there’s anything we need to change in our behaviour now or in the future to make sure it doesn’t happen again. 

Blame is about the past. Responsibility is about the future. If we use our understanding of the ‘determined’ nature of life to eliminate self-blame, but don’t take responsibility where appropriate, such as when we’ve wrongly hurt others, then to me that is a cop-out.  

We know Tony missed an opportunity by not apologising, or at least expressing some sadness, to the families of Iraq victims, both British and Iraqi. No doubt he knows it too. He probably blames himself for the oversight, though likely not as much as he blames himself for the aftermath of the war. He needs to know that neither were avoidable. In both cases he did the only thing he could have done, given his awareness at the time. And that awareness at each moment was simply the product of his life history up to that moment. 

If he wants to follow Tiger’s lead and take responsibility now, it’s never too late. 

I let go of regret, guilt and self-blame many years ago, replacing it with responsibility. I’ve had an easier, more satisfying and more productive life for it. Letting go of blaming others is just as powerful, but that’s another story.   www.abicord.com/what-is-is

The Observer today carries a front-page article about Tony Blair’s depression as the aftermath of the Iraq invasion unfolded. No surprise there. The unfolding story was indeed horrendous. Tony no doubt felt some sense of guilt.  Guilt and depression feed on each other like two … (simile deleted as suitably distasteful).

We might be curious whether Gordon feels similarly depressed over Britain’s poor recession performance … thanks at least in part to high government spending and lack of control over the banks.  Not much evidence of it. Maybe he’s putting on a brave face as Tony did. Maybe he’s more resilient. Maybe he knows the dual truths  of  ’accepting what is’ and the ‘determined’ nature of life … see my previous post  Tiger’s lament . His apparent fortitude suggests he just might know. If he does, he’s a rare bird indeed. Pity he didn’t share it with Tony.

Clients pour into my clinic struggling with guilt or regret about past actions, resentment over the actions of others, from parents or partners to bosses, or depression fuelled by the challenging circumstances of their lives.  When they arrive, none know about the dual truths. By the time they leave, they know them well and their lives are dramatically changed by it.

Couples come in droves for relationship counselling  . There’s lots I can tell them, exercises that help, but none more potent than the dual truths that Tiger and Tony apparently don’t know and other skills that flow from those truths such as ‘owning our reactions’ (the situation we’re reacting to is the only situation that could have existed right now, given the awareness of everyone involved at the time), self-acceptance (if we’ve always done the only thing we could have done given our awareness at the time, then who we are right now is the only person we could have been right now) and taking total responsibility for our interactions (others are doing the only thing they could be doing, given their awareness right now and we’re the only person who can change that awareness).  So relationships too are transformed. None need fail except by choice.

These things, and other skills that flow from the dual truths, are not complex. They can be, and hopefully one day will be, learned by Tiger, Tony and everyone else.  www.abicord.com/what-is-is

Tiger’s rambling apology, and his apparent failure to get it previewed by his PR, serve only to highlight how thrown he’s been, and still is, by the events that have caught up with him. (I assume he has a PR and if it was previewed by said PR, I suggest he finds another).

To be fair he’s in a tough position. His wife on the verge of dumping him. His previously enviable celebrity status diminished. His sponsors in retreat. No more flings!

But hold on … aren’t there thousands of stories of greater hardship … survivors of natural disasters losing their entire family; soldiers with limbs blown off. Don’t we hear or read impressive stories of resilience in horific circumstances far worse than Tiger’s. Shouldn’t we expect a greater show of resilience from him.

Not at all. Expecting anyone to be different from who or what they are is expecting the impossible. The criticism the media has levelled against Tiger for his performance, whether sexual or apologetic, ignores a truth the media always ignores, because they’re totally unaware of it. If they were aware of it, I’ll be the first to admit, their stories might make less enthralling reading.

Ironically, the understanding the media is unaware of is the same understanding that would give Tiger the very resilience he appears to be lacking.

This truth is that we live in a determined world. There’s simply no way Tiger could have avoided his affairs. There’s no way he could have given a more impressive apology. There’s no way he could have consulted his PR, assuming he has one and that he or she wasn’t consulted.

Sure we make choices … all the time . The question is why do we make the choices we make. The answer is always … because of our awareness at the time (everything that makes up who we are at any moment … our beliefs, attitudes, ways of thinking, unconcsious programming, abilities, knowledge, etc).

The truth is that everything Tiger or you or me have ever done, thought or felt at any moment is the only thing we could possibly have done, thought or felt at that moment, given our awareness at the time. And as our awareness at any moment is simply the result of our entire life experience up to that moment, there’s no way our awareness at any moment could have been different either.

If Tiger knew this and how to use this knowledge, he like everyone else would be able to breeze through any hardship life may put in his path.  What’s more, he’d be able to take  control of events, or at least his experience of events, and total control of his future.

If everyone knew this truth and how to use it, everyone would be able to deal easily with any challenge life may present and be able to take control of how we experience events and total control of our future.

If this sounds like a huge cop-out from all the wrongs we ever do or have ever done, you’ll need to find out about the difference between blame and responsibility. It would be a very different world is we could eliminate blame, including self-blame, and replace it with responsibility.

And if you think living in a determined world suggests we have no control over the future, nothing could be further from the truth. Sure what we do in the future will be determined by our awareness at the time. The question is … how can we take control of our awareness. 

It’s long been known that the human mind is determined. There’s now practically no disagreement  among those who’ve been involved in thousands of discussions on the subject. Yet few until now have seen the link between this basically obvious and well documented truth and the powerful tool of  ’accepting what is’ (very different from the generally weak concept of  ’acceptance’) that lies at the core of resilience.  That too is the only thing that could have happened given the awareness of everyone involved at each moment.  www.abicord.com/what-is-is

You’ve heard about the seven habits of highly succesful people. Here are seven tools for taking control of the future:

• Positive Acceptance
• Accept the feeling, choose the action
• Stop playing the when-then game
• Commit
• Focus on contribution
• Act as if
• Take bold action

Everyone can use these tools to take control of their lieves and achieve the future they desire.  www.abicord.com/what-is-is

‘Accepting what is’ is a way of thinking, a skill, that everyone should develop. It’s the secret of happiness. Few know about it. Even fewer practice it.

Positive Acceptance is a technique for learning to ‘accept what is’ and for combining ‘accepting what is’ with taking action to improve the future. It’s a technique everyone should use. It’s the secret of living a powerful, successful life. Few know about it. Everyone who knows about it practices it.

If you don’t yet know about it, you could try Googling it.   www.abicord.com/what-is-is