So why all the cheating? Though I wasn’t able to find an iota of research studying cheating in business, politics, or sports, there is a plethora of polls and studies on cheating among students. The most robust finding is that cheating in school has been increasing steadily in recent years and is now considered an epidemic. Reasons offered by students who cheat include fear of failure, cheating as being an accepted norm, pressure to excel from parents and society, and a culture of “success at any cost.” These rationalizations could apply equally well to all walks of life in which cheating is prevalent.

One argument that we often hear is that cheating is a reflection of our culture’s moral decline. Respect, honor, integrity, and accountability just don’t mean much any more in a world where other “values,” such as greed, celebrity, power, have taken precedence over the traditional values that have provided our country’s moral compass for the past 230-plus years. Moreover, a search on line reveals many articles that indict our ever-more-invasive media as the cause of this moral decline.

These explanations offered so far are perfectly reasonable (and I welcome others that I haven’t thought of), yet I sense something much more…primal in understanding the causes of this growing culture of cheating in America (and I presume other countries). What lies at the heart of cheating in any avenue of life, whether personal, academic, or career, is self-interest, which most would argue is a particularly vile human attribute. At the same time, there may be nothing more fundamental to human existence than self-interest which, at its foundation, is an expression of our most basic instinct to survive.

Our ability to engage in moral reasoning (and presumably to resist that survival instinct) is one thing that is supposed to separate us from animals. The evidence does indicate that morality is both wired into us and learned from our culture. And there are many examples of people every day who appear to act morally and against their own self-interests. Yet, we are not as far from animals as many would like to think; we are still driven primarily by that survival instinct.

Thankfully, there is also evidence that altruism ,the opposite of self-interest, is wired into us and serves the role of helping us function within a social group. But even altruism can be interpreted as an extension of the survival instinct because when we place the interests of others ahead of our own, they are more likely to help us in the future, thus increasing our chances of survival (apologies for the somewhat cynical view of altruism). The reality is that, when push comes to shove, humans will likely choose self-interest and survival over doing what is morally right and helping others.

So what does this have to do with cheating? Our survival instinct (and the accompanying self-interest) exerts a greater influence over our behavior when our lives are threatened. But, let’s be realistic, it isn’t very often that our lives are directly threatened these days, for example, we are rarely confronted by sabre-toothed tigers or warring tribes on a daily basis (okay, never). However, our lives are indirectly endangered quite frequently, particularly our financial lives, where loss of income, savings, and other means of modern-day survival are put in jeopardy.

Self-interest, and the accompanying motivation to cheat, would likely increase during periods of economic crisis and instability, which we are experiencing these days in spades. And most of the cheating that goes on has a clear relationship with financial security, which translates into increased chances of survival in our modern world.

Cheating in high school means better grades and likely admittance into better colleges. Cheating in college provides admission to better graduate programs and more job opportunities. Cheating in graduate school results in better job offers. Cheating among athletes with performance-enhancing drugs provides a performance advantage on the field that can start as early as high school and continue into the professional and Olympic ranks. Cheating in the financial industry results in a bigger paycheck and faster and higher advancement. Cheating by corporations ensures continuing market share and profits (and survival) when companies are dying daily. In sum, cheating offers immediate and future rewards. In all cases, cheating is in one’s self-interest and increases one’s chances of survival (except perhaps when caught).

This threat to survival has become so great that even those in “virtuous” professions, as I mentioned, teaching, medicine, and the military, for example, feel compelled to cheat to get ahead in their respective professions. When those with high moral standing are cheating, well, that doesn’t speak well of our society. In every “jungle” these days, it seems, survival of the fittest rules.

My thesis can’t explain all forms of cheating, most notably marital infidelity, though it could be argued that men who cheat on their wives are, symbolically or in reality spreading their seed to at least ensure their genetic survival. But I digress.

If my theory about the relationship between economic uncertainty and cheating is correct, then we would expect cheating to be cyclic, with increases during economic downturn and decreases during economic booms. For example, was there a rise in cheating during the Great Depression and the recent recessions of the last decade? My intuition tells me yes, but science often discredits what seems intuitively clear. Cheating, for that matter, may occur more during economic high times because people feel invincible and entitled. Or there is no relationship between cheating and the economy, and cheating is just a part of human nature that may serve individual interests while disserving societal interests.

If cheating is so ubiquitous, perhaps it serves some societal need. Emile Durkheim, the French sociologist, argued that deviant behavior is necessary for a society to function because it shows citizens the boundaries of appropriate behavior and can also lead to necessary reforms. Yet, the costs to society for cheating are significant. Those who cheat rise unfairly in our meritocratic culture preventing those who are deserving from taking their rightful place. Cheaters who attain positions of power within a culture are less moral and less capable, thus their immorality spreads like a virus throughout the culture and the quality of that culture declines. Cheating also involves breaking the rules that govern and cohere society which can lead to public distrust and cynicism and to a breakdown in society itself.

Sadly, much like “real” crime (which cheating can be), deterrence isn’t very effective. When you consider the ubiquity of cheating across the societal spectrum, it is clear that the rewards are sufficiently motivating, most cheaters don’t get caught, and the punishments aren’t severe enough to prevent it.

As a result, and even more sadly, if there is a way to get ahead more easily and with less effort, many people will open that door and, with little apparent deliberation or remorse, walk right through it to satisfy their own self-interests and ensure their survival.

Value of Vision Goal Setting

Vision goal setting (VGS) provides you with deliberate steps toward fulfilling your job responsibilities and career aspirations. It can increase your commitment and motivation to planning, preparation, and action. VGS can enhance your feelings of control over your work, which can improve your confidence, reduce stress, and help you focus. Because you have a clear idea of where you are heading and what you are doing, you can increase your efficiency, quality, and productivity.

The bottom-line value of VGS is that motivation is not enough to be successful in business. You need to be able to harness that motivation in the most effective means possible. VGS acts as the road map (or GPS navigation, these days) that guides to your career destination.

Goal Guidelines

Goals should be challenging, but realistic and attainable. You should set goals that can be reached, but only with time and effort. If you set goals that are too easy, you’ll reach them with little effort, so they will do little for your motivation. If you set goals that are too difficult, you won’t be able to achieve them no matter how hard you try.

Goals should be specific and concrete. It’s not sufficient to set a goal such as “I want to increase my sales numbers this year.” Goals should be measurable, for example, “I want to increase my sales numbers by 10% in the next 12 months.” This goal indicates the precise area to be worked on, the specific amount of improvement aimed for, and the time frame in which to achieve the goal.

Focus on degree of, rather than absolute, goal attainment. An inevitable part of goal setting is that you won’t reach all of your goals because it’s not possible to accurately judge what is realistic for every goal. You should be focused on how much of the goal you achieve (degree of attainment) rather than whether or not you fully reach the goal (absolute attainment). Though you won’t attain all of your goals, you will almost always improve toward a goal.

Goal setting is a dynamic and fluid process. Goal setting is a process that never ends. When one goal is achieved, you should set another goal that is higher or in a different direction to continually allow yourself to improve. You should review your goals regularly, compare them to actual progress, and adjust them as needed.

Team goals must have consensus. Goals established by your company (or division, department, or team within) will be most effective when they are created together, agreed on, and require collaboration to achieve the goals.

Prepare a written contract. Research suggests that goal setting is most effective when it’s prepared as a written contract comprised of explicit statements of your goals and the specific ways you will achieve them. This approach clearly identifies your goals and holds you accountable for the fulfillment of the contract.

Get regular feedback. One of the most important contributors to the effectiveness of vision goal setting is consistent feedback. You should get regular feedback about how you’re doing in pursuing your goals from bosses, colleagues, or mentors.

Types of Goals

Each type of goal described below should be set at every level of your organization. Vision goal setting should begin at the level of the organization and then progress downward to division, department, team, and individual. The highest level organizational goals become the targets for all lower-level goals. Starting at the individual level, attainment of lower goals should lead to achievement of higher goals.

Vision goals identify the long-term objectives of the organization, team, or individual, for example, market share and revenues for company, production numbers for a group, or sales numbers for an individual.

The mission statement delineates the values, identity, and philosophy. Mission statements, though often though of as company-wide declarations, have equal value for groups and individuals within the organization.

Yearly goals offer companies tangible and “within-sight” objectives toward which senior management and team can strive. Relying on the goal guidelines described above, these goals should be specific, concrete, and challenging.

Project goals provide detailed objectives about the entire timeline of a assignment. Essential components of project goals include preparation, process, completion, outcomes, follow-up, and evaluation.

Weekly goals provide the action plan for implementation of the project goals. In other words, they describe the specific steps that will be taken in any given week to achieve the project goals.

The time and energy invested in vision goal setting can pay off many times over. The value to individual and organizational functioning and performance can be substantial and measurable. And increased organizational support, collaboration, and cohesion is an often-unrecognized benefit that will further bolster productivity and profitability.

Let me introduce a term and then I’ll define focus for you. Attentional field is everything inside of you, such as thoughts, emotions, and physical responses, and everything outside of you, including sights and sounds, on which you could focus. Focus is the ability to attend to internal and external cues in your attentional field.

Prime focus involves focusing only on performance-relevant cues in your attentional field. In other words, only focusing on cues that help you to perform your best. Depending on the sport, performance-relevant cues can include technique, tactics, your opponent, the score, time remaining, and many other cues. Prime focus gives you the ability to adjust your focus internally and externally as needed during the course of a competition.

For example, a football quarterback first focuses internally to select the best play based on the current game situation. As the huddle breaks and he moves over center, he widens his focus externally to survey the defensive alignment.  When the ball is hiked and he drops back to pass, the quarterback focuses on the routes of his receivers until he finds one who is open, at which time he narrows his focus onto that receiver and throws him the football.

Poor focus, in contrast, involves focusing on performance-irrelevant cues in your attentional field. That is, focusing on cues that will hurt your performance. There are two types of harmful cues. Interfering cues are those that will directly hurt your performance such as negative thoughts, anxiety, and concern over who your next opponent will be if you win. Irrelevant cues are those that simply distract you from an effective focus including what you’ll have for dinner tonight or the project that you must finish by tomorrow.

Focus Style

One of the most important developments I’ve made in my work in recent years is in understanding the importance of identifying athletes’ focus styles. A focus style is a preference for paying attention to certain cues. Athletes tend to be more comfortable focusing on some cues and avoid or don’t pay attention to other cues. Every athlete has a dominant style that impacts all aspects of their sports performance. This dominant style will surface most noticeably when they’re under pressure. The two types of focus styles are internal and external.

Internal focus style. Athletes with an internal focus style perform best when they’re totally and consistently focused on their sport during a practice session or a competition. They need to keep their focus narrow, thinking only about their sport. These athletes tend to be easily distracted by activity in their immediate surroundings. If they broaden their focus and take their mind off their sport, for example, if they talk about non-sport topics with their coach during a practice, they’ll become distracted and will have trouble narrowing their focus back onto their sport.

External focus style. Athletes with an external focus style perform best when they only focus on their sport when they’re about to begin a drill in practice or begin a competition. At all other times, it is best for them to broaden their focus and take their mind off their sport. These athletes have a tendency to think too much, become negative and critical, and experience competitive anxiety. For these athletes, it’s essential that they take their focus away from their sport when they’re not actually performing.

External focus style runs counter to beliefs held by many coaches. They think that if athletes are not totally focused on their sport, then they’re not serious about it and they won’t perform their best. Yet, for athletes with an external focus style, they don’t want to think too much or be too serious because this causes them to lose confidence and become anxiousl. They’ll perform their best when they’re not thinking too much about their sport and they simply allow their natural abilities to emerge on their own.

Identifying Your Focus Style

With this understanding, you need to identify what is your focus style. Are you an athlete who needs to keep your mind on your sport constantly in order for you to perform well?  Or are you someone who thinks too much and needs to keep your mind off your sport until its time to perform?

Recall past competitions and practices when you’ve performed well. Were you totally focused on your sport or were you keeping your mind off your sport?  Also, recall past competitions and practices when you’ve performed poorly. Were you thinking too much or were you distracted by things going on around you?  If you’re like most athletes, a pattern will emerge in which you tend to perform best when you focus one way and you perform poorly when you focus another way.

Understanding your focus style is essential for you to be able to manage it effectively. This process involves knowing how you focus best and actively focusing in a way that is consistent with your focus style. This ability to manage your focus style well is most important in pressure competitive situations. There is a tendency for athletes under pressure to revert back to a focus style that will interfere rather than help their performance. For example, if you’re someone who performs best with an external focus style, you may find yourself turning your focus inward when the pressure is on. You may start to think too much and become anxious.

When you start to lose your prime focus style under pressure, you must become aware that you’re moving away from it and that you need to take steps to redirect your focus back to the style that works best for you. Continuing the previous example, when you realize that you’re focusing internally too much, you should actively turn your focus outward by looking around and taking your mind off your sport.

Mag-Lite® Focus

I’ve developed a useful tool to help you understand your focus style and to develop focus control. A Mag-Lite® is a flashlight whose beam can be adjusted to illuminate a wide area or to brighten a narrow area. Your focus can be thought of as a Mag-Lite® beam you project that illuminates on what you want to focus.

Athletes with an internal focus style want to keep their Mag-Lite® beam narrow at all times, only illuminating sport-related things during practice or competitions. If you have an internal focus style, your goal is to stay focused on necessary training or competitive cues and to block out unnecessary external distractions. To accomplish this, narrow your Mag-Lite® beam by keeping your eyes within the confines of the practice or competitive setting and avoid talking to others. Focus on important sport cues, for example, the proper technique for the next drill or your intensity for the next performance.

Athletes with an external focus style want to widen their Mag-Lite® beam between drills and performances to take their mind off their sport, then narrow their beam shortly before they begin the next drill or performance. If you have an external focus style, your goal is to direct your focus off of your sport between drills in practice and between performances in competitions. To do this, when you’re not actually performing, whether in practice or competition, widen your Mag-Lite® beam by looking around you and talking to your coach or other athletes. This will keep you from thinking too much and becoming anxious. Shortly before you begin the next drill in practice or next performance in a competition, narrow your Mag-Lite® beam, focusing specifically on something that will help you perform well.

Expediency is one of the most dangerous words in parenting. It means doing what is easiest for parents, what best meets their own needs rather than the needs of their children. Unfortunately, parental expediency and what is in the best interests of children don’t usually play well together. Instantly pacifying children may be the path of least resistance for parents in the short run, but it is not the best path for children’s development in the long run.

But let’s be realistic. Parents have done the expedient thing with their children to make being a parent easier for as long as humans have roamed the earth. Back when we had just become Homo Erectus, caveparents gave their cavekids a stick or bone to keep them occupied. As our species has evolved, so has the sophistication of parents’ strategies. There were dolls and toys of increasingly mind-absorbing design. With the discovery of electricity, a new era of parent expediency emerged. Dolls could now walk and talk. Toys moved, played sounds, and lit up. The radio helped, though without the visual stimulation it just couldn’t hold children captive for that long.

Then along came the real game-changing tool in parents’ expediency toolbox. Yes, folks, the television. Parents now had an infallible method for keeping their children entertained for hours without having to do anything more effortful than flip a switch (or later, press a button on the remote). But the television had its limited; it only worked at home. By the turn of the new millennium, the television started to become quaint and, well, so 20^th century as a tool for parental expediency.

But the march of technology is inexorable and the creative genius that has spurred this era of technological innovation stepped up to the plate and provided parents with increasingly sophisticated ways to pacify their children. Of course, there was the computer, video-game consoles, and DVD players that kept children occupied at home. But the call of the wild outside of the house beckoned and technology heard the call.

First came the portable DVD player followed closely by the portable video-game devices which enabled parents to be expedient in restaurants, on airplanes, and in cars. But even that wasn’t enough to make parents’ lives easier. automobile manufacturers got into the act, providing built-in DVD, video-game, and music players and screens in cars, mini-vans, and SUVs, making those long (or short) car rides a breeze for parents and children alike.

But the piece de resistance is the iPhone and its myriad of child-mollifying apps. It is truly the Swiss Army knife of parental expediency offering children video games, music, movies, and even drawing. Now, no matter where parents are — in a car, in the woods, at a park, during a family gathering — children can be entertained or quieted by that small, yet hypnotic screen.

Don’t get me wrong. There is a place for expediency; it’s a necessary part of parents maintaining their sanity in the crazy world of raising children in the 21^st century. Parents have the right to some time of their own to do important grown-up things such as talk to another adult, bathe, or have a martini.

My concern is when 21^st century expediency becomes the default mode for dealing with bored, cantankerous, or annoying children. Instead of talking to or playing with the children or helping them find something to do on their own that might allay their current state, parents just pull out their iPhone and hand it to their children.

What are the ramifications of children who aren’t left to their own devices (no pun intended) when they don’t have anything to do? First, based on my observations of children who appear “addicted” to their parents’ iPhones, I would speculate that the frequent use of iPhones by children triggers the same neural pleasure-inducing activity in the brain as do drugs, sex, and gambling.

The inability to be bored may also have serious implications later in life. Let’s face it, many jobs, in the factory, store, or office, are boring. And if this new generation was weaned on the iPhone to entertain them, where you do you think they’ll turn when they get bored at work (and how do you think that will impact their productivity and job performance)?

Technology-dependent children may also lose their initiative. If, when children get bored, cranky, or bothersome, their parents immediately given them their iPhone, the children are deprived of the opportunity to ask themselves how they might get out of their stimulus-deprived doldrums on their own. As I’m sure you can see, lack of initiative will present real problems in adulthood.

Patience, or the ability to delay gratification, is one of the most significant predictors of positive behaviors in adolescence, including higher grades, less alcohol and drug use, and less sexual activity. The immediate gratification of parents giving their iPhones to their children to appease them may interfere with their learning to put off rewards until a later time.

Lastly, children whose parents ensure that they are immediately entertained may have a harder time developing respect for others. Children may not learn that other people’s time is valuable and that parents have other responsibilities beyond their children. Children may also not learn that sometimes they have to be respectful of others and need to just sit and wait until their parents finish what they are doing.

I’m not trying to demonize iPhones; they just happen to be the most ubiquitous and egregious example in our technological landscape. Nor am I suggesting that parents who use their iPhones periodically to assuage their children are abusing them (the title was just intended to get your attention). At the same time, I would argue that parents who use their iPhones as the default means of occupying their children are, at best, doing a disservice to them and, at worst, may be doing some real harm to their long-term development.

This post is not some tree-hugging plea that is intended to pit the environmental activism of the Left against the business-friendly skepticism of the Right. This post is about our children and the Earth that they will inherit. My plea is to hand the keys to our planet over to our children in reasonable condition so that Earth will have many more miles around the sun ahead of it and our children can enjoy its many wonders as we have.

The tragedy is that no one loves Mother Earth more than children. Kids really do hug trees. They care in the purest and sweetest way for birds, flowers, plants, and animals. To see children smell a flower, climb a tree, and jump with joy at seeing a hummingbird are just a few of the ways that children express their connection, love, and awe for Mother Nature. They wouldn’t want to do anything to harm it. And they would be really mad at their parents if they learned what was being done to their Earth.

The sad reality is that our children will be inheriting an environmental mess. Even more sadly, by the time they grow up, most of them will become a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution. In our voraciously consumptive culture, many if not most children are being brainwashed into continuing the environmentally destructive legacy of their parents.

The only hope our planet has is if parents decide otherwise and choose to raise green children. Parents can connect that wonderful feeling that children have for nature with a sensitivity to the impact they have on the Earth and how they can help protect it. Parents can instill in their children a sense of ownership of Mother Nature.

Being the stereotypical Northern Californians that we are, my wife and I have been doing our best to raise our two daughters to be green. Don’t get me wrong, we aren’t exactly living off the grid (and, no, we don’t drive a Prius), but we are trying to send the right messages to them about taking care of the Earth. Whenever a situation arises where a lesson about nature or conservation can be taught, we point it out and say our catchphrase for thinking about the environment, “We’re a green family.”

When our daughters were very young, my wife and I created rituals that taught them about conservation and environmental stewardship. When our girls are doing something wasteful, such as leaving the bathroom faucet running too long, we point out that this makes the Earth sad. When our eldest daughter was around two and a half, she surprised my wife and I while we were recycling by saying, “Are the trees happier now?” Our girls understand that our admonitions to, for example, turn off the lights, are tied to a larger message — caring for the Earth — about which they cared deeply.

My wife has a wonderfully productive vegetable garden that has been a great “classroom” for teaching the girls about nature. They also help me empty our newspaper, glass, and plastics into the large recycling bins outside and roll them out to the curb on recycling day. After we have our usual after-dinner orange, the girls take turns carrying the rind into the kitchen and place it in our compost container under the sink and they help my wife to empty its contents into the compost bin near our vegetable garden.

Depending on where parents live, there are many things they can do to create environmental awareness and responsibility in their children. A simple Internet search for “raise green children” will provide many suggestions.

The point of my post is this. Regardless of our political or environmental views, we all love our children and want them to have bright futures. A part of that bright future should be the condition of our planet that we pass on to them. If parents can send the right “green” messages to their children, then perhaps they will care enough about Mother Earth to work to undo the damage their parents caused to it.

Now compare my daughter’s milk spill to the massive economic and environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico known as the BP oil “spill.” Almost two months after the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, oil is still pouring out of the still uncapped well. Do you notice the absurdity here? Unlike the milk spill, this is one spill worth crying over. And our national reaction? Not the same as that over the spilled milk. Definitely not “Oh well, accidents happen.” How about shock, anger, frustration, and despair?

As someone whose work is based on the use — and power — of words, I have been amazed and appalled at the ongoing use of the word spill to describe what is, in reality, the antithesis of a spill as we normally think of it. What word better describes the yet-to-be-halted flow of millions upon millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf waters that support marine life, the fishing industry, and tourism? How about gusher, torrent, outpouring, spewing, or deluge for starters.

I’ve asked a number of people about this distinction and several have said, “who cares what word is used, it’s simply semantics.” But whenever I hear that rationalization I say that the difference is not just semantic because words represent substance and meaning. Words shape our perceptions of the world and how we think about and react to the world. And to call what happened a spill is to trivialize it and fail to accurately describe the disaster that it clearly is. That minimization may also reduce the severity of how we interpret it. And for something of this scale, diminishing this tragedy will only interfere with our efforts to respond to it.

What should we call what is happening in the Gulf? Disaster, tragedy, catastrophe, devastation, cataclysm? I don’t think there is a word that does it justice. Perhaps we need to come up with a new word, maybe a portmanteau. Mmmm…let’s see. How about Oilgate or Fuelishness (no political innuendo intended)? Okay, I admit that I can’t come up with anything off the top of my head. Can you do better?

But my main point is this: Please, stop calling it a spill!

As the saying goes, “out of the mouths of babes,” I was struck by the unadorned profundity of my daughter’s pronouncement of the importance of gratitude in our lives. And by how this notion is so relevant to all of us in this world where for many enough is never enough while many others don’t have enough.

Gratitude is such a simple, yet powerful emotion. In fact, one of the most surprising and robust findings of the growing body of research on happiness is that expressing gratitude has on one’s basic level of happiness. In a nutshell, when people express gratitude, they feel happier for several days. And, not unexpectedly, the recipients of that gratitude feel pretty darned good too.

Unfortunately, gratitude is not highly valued in our culture. We regularly see business leaders, professional athletes, and entertainers who are entitled and ungracious for all they have received. They expect to get what they get and see no reason to thank those who gave it to them. Simple expressions of gratitude, for example, “Thank you,” “Your support means a lot to me,” or “I really appreciate the opportunities you have given me” are quite alien in today’s culture.

There are also three forces that make it difficult for us to feel gratitude in our lives. First, we are a comparative society in which individuals base their happiness on how they stack up to others. The research on happiness suggests that we judge our well being in part on our most immediate comparison group. That group used to be the people we interacted with in our communities which, in general, were comprised of people similar to ourselves. So our comparisons indicated that we were in about the same place as those around us and so could be grateful to have what we had. But the explosion of technology in recent years has brought thousands of TV channels and the Web into our homes, the result of which is a new and vastly larger community to which compare ourselves. How can we be grateful for what we have when so many seem to have so much more (plus they seem so much happier to boot)?

Second, we live in an aspirational society in which we are constantly searching for the BBD (Bigger Better Deal). Why settle for a 30″ flat-panel TV when we can have a 52″? How can a $25,000 car be good enough, when we can have a $45,000 car? And for our children, good grades and a good college are no longer sufficient; only straight A’s and the very best schools will suffice. The recent financial crisis was driven by Wall Streeters who didn’t think that earning millions of dollars was enough, so they invented newer (and riskier) ways to make even more money. The mistaken belief is that if we finally get more, bigger, and better we will be happier. How can we be grateful when what we have isn’t as good as what we could have?

Third, to quote Madonna, we live “a material world” in which popular culture has brainwashed many into believing that our self-worth is derived from what we have rather than who we are. There is always the next cool thing to buy (did someone say iPad?) that we fully expect will make us feel the way we want to feel but haven’t been able to because what we had wasn’t quite good enough. How can we be grateful when there are so many amazing products that we absolutely must have for us to be happy?

The problem is that, by never being satisfied with what we have, we can never be grateful for what we have. And, by extension, in always wanting more, more, more, we feel unsatisfied and inadequate about who and where we are now. We need to step back and gain perspective on what we have. Compared to about 99% of the world, we have so much. We should feel fortunate, not wanting, for all that we have.

There are load of upsides to gratitude. Aside from the happiness boost you get, gratitude has also been related to higher energy, a more optimistic attitude, and greater empathy toward others. And you make the people to whom you express gratitude happy. Gratitude also has survival value. When you express gratitude toward others, they’re more likely to help you in the future, thereby increasing your chances of survival.

Our family makes gratitude part of our dinnertime ritual in which we hold hands, close our eyes, take a deep breath, and silently express gratitude to whomever we wish. Also, once a week, we share to whom we are grateful with each other.

So next time you start feeling jealousy and envy for of all that you don’t have, stop for a moment and recognize all that you do have and just be grateful.

Finally, thanks to my eldest daughter, “Get what you get and don’t get upset” has become a mantra in our family that we use with our children and that, turnabout is fair play, they use on us too. Now if we can just our youngest daughter to buy in. Maybe when she’s four!

It is safe to say that these New Jersey denizens hold very high opinions of themselves as expressed in just about everything they say and do. But here’s the problem: that so-called self-esteem that makes them seem so self-assured has all the makings of a Potemkin village. In other words, that high regard in which they hold themselves doesn’t seem to have any basis in reality. Not only do they not seem particularly nice or likable or intelligent or mature, but as far as I can tell, they have never actually accomplished anything in their lives. Yet, in the best tradition of Stuart Smalley (“By gosh, I like myself”), they seem to think that they are truly special people because either they have been told they were special all their lives (by their parents?) or they have mastered the art of magical thinking and convinced themselves that they are special, all evidence to the contrary. Here is where Jersey Shore is a microcosm of how many of America’s children have been raised (and their self-esteem lowered) the last several decades.

Self-esteem is commonly thought of as how we feel about ourselves, our appraisal of our own self-worth. But real self-esteem is a complex attribute that has become one of the most misunderstood and misused psychological characteristics of the last 40 years. Sometime back in the ’70s when the “self-esteem movement” started, a bunch of parenting experts said that raising well-adjusted children is all about self-esteem. And I couldn’t agree more.

This is also when America’s self-esteem problem began because parents and other influences on self-esteem (e.g., teachers and coaches) got the wrong messages about self-esteem from those experts. Instead of creating children with true self-esteem, our country has created a generation of children who, for all the appearances of high self-esteem, actually have little regard for themselves (because they have little on which to base their self-esteem).

Where did our society err in our failed attempts to build true self-esteem in our children? These same experts told parents that they could build their children’s self-esteem by telling them how smart and talented and beautiful and incredible they were (“You’re the best, Johnny!”). In other words, parents were led to believe that they could convince their children how wonderful they were. Unfortunately, life has a way of providing a reality check and children learned the hard way that they weren’t as fabulous as their parents told them they were. Parents were also told to praise and reinforce and reward their children no matter what they did. The result: lower self-esteem and children who were self-centered  and spoiled.

Schools and communities accepted this misguided attempt at building self-esteem by “protecting” children from failure and feeling bad about themselves. For example, school grading systems were changed. I remember between sixth and seventh grade, my middle school replaced F for failure with NI (Needs Improvement); god forbid I’d feel bad about myself for failing at something!

Youth sports made the same mistake. They eliminated scoring, winners, and losers in the belief that losing would hurt children’s self-esteem. My ten-year-old niece came home one day from a soccer tournament with a ribbon that said “#1-Winner” on it. When I asked her what she did to deserve such a wonderful prize, she said that everyone got one! Children are being led to believe that they are winners and can feel good about themselves just by showing up. Definitely not the way the real world works

American popular culture exacerbates our self-esteem problem by sending messages to children that they can find success, wealth, and celebrity without any capabilities, effort, or time (“By gosh, I deserve it right now just for being me”).

So, here we are back at Jersey Shore. These newly minted celebutantes are victims of a self-esteem movement that, instead of developing self-esteem, creates young people who are narcissistic, immature, unmotivated, entitled, and arrogant. The sad reality (and this is reality TV, isn’t it?) is that soon a new crop of New Jerseyites, OCers, and Survivors will come along and their 15 minutes of fame will pass. And they will be left with their inevitable descent from B-list to C-list celebrities to off-the-alphabet has-beens. Kind of sad, don’t you think? Well, at least, they’ll still have their “high self-esteem.”

And where does that leave America? Well, if Snooki, The Situation, and JWOWW are any indication of the state of America’s future, it isn’t looking too bright. While this Jersey-Shore generation is moving through life feeling so darned good about itself (while accomplishing little), this generation in other countries is actually doing what it takes to build real self-esteem (and accomplishing a lot).

Welcome to the mixed martial arts cage matches of our modern political culture in which, on television, radio, the Web, and in the once hallowed halls of government, it is no-holds-barred and anything goes. Where the focus is on self-interest, ideology, and demonization of those with whom we disagree. And where the tone is angry, mean-spirited, dogmatic, insulting, and profoundly disrespectful.

The question is whether this decidedly uncivil form of discourse is truly harmful to our political system.

Several commenters on previous posts have contended that, historically and internationally, such raucous exchanges have been the norm and our current tone is no different. But to equate the exchanges found in, say, the English Parliament, with our present tone is akin to likening a slingshot to an atomic bomb, given the vehemence, volume, and sheer number that are a part of the current politicosphere.

Some commenters have maintained that this tone is the price we pay for more ways to express our First Amendment right to freedom of speech; more people have a soapbox to stand on than ever before. Certainly, when more people have a voice, there will be more engagement by citizens and that makes for a more open and vibrant democracy.

I agree that the new media has been a boon to sharing ideas in the politicosphere. Ideally, much like a volleyball game, the goal should be to receive ideas and then volley them back until one side can’t return them. Unfortunately, the ever-expanding universe of new media has given rise to an industry of misinformation and anger, the goal of which is to repel ideas that conflict with one’s own and lob ideological hand grenades back with the intention of destroying the enemy. Passionate debates have morphed into fierce battles bent on ideological domination.

Others make the case that anger is healthy because it is motivating and can catalyze political change. That is hard to disagree with if you look at the civil rights and anti-war movements. The current anger expressed by the Tea Party movement has already had an impact on American politics. And, as one commenter noted, better an enraged rant on a blog than a gun or bomb. But fury that is unfocused and misdirected, as much of the current anger is, can do more harm than good, acting to polarize people and sever lines of communication.

In sum, though these points all seem reasonable, they do not, I believe, justify the current direction we are heading in our politicosphere.

In my discussions advocating civil political discourse, I am often accused of encouraging timid or politically correct discussion, people to surrender their beliefs in the name of accommodation, or to just be more agreeable; that is how many people interpret ‘civil.’ But civility, for me, involves treating others with dignity (“Do unto other…”) and engaging in substantive discourse that is, at the same time, vigorous and honest, and respectful and reasoned. As I noted in a previous post, my basic rule of discourse is that if you wouldn’t say it to someone’s face or in front your grandmother, don’t say it.

I draw the line between civil and uncivil political discourse when someone moves from a focus on substance to a focus on the person. I also draw the line when passion for an issue turns into anger and insult directed at the person (think of all the name calling that goes on in the politicosphere). The current politicosphere has lost respect, reason, and tolerance. Can a civilized culture remain so in their absence? I don’t think so.

I suppose it is (and they do) if that world after high school includes college. But, despite the fact that high school graduates are going onto college more than ever, that number is much lower among minorities and those who attend low-performing schools. Add to that the current economic climate, higher college tuitions, and fewer scholarship and student loan opportunities, and it’s not unreasonable to assume that many students will not be entering higher education in the next decade. For those young people, the market for jobs that offer a living wage isn’t a much better option than college because they leave high school with few if any practical skills. So, in essence, a large proportion of graduates are leaving high school thoroughly unprepared to compete in the increasingly competitive job market.

We’re already seeing many students struggle with completing high school (about one third of all students and nearly half of all Hispanics and Blacks). The reasons why are myriad including poverty, poor early preparation by parents, a subculture that doesn’t value education, and low-performing schools. Another contributor to this equation lies in the students themselves who either have little interest in a typical high school curriculum or who see no practical value of a diploma to them. Because many high school students believe that most of what they learn in high school has little or no use in the real world, it’s not surprising that they demonstrate little motivation to aspire to a diploma.

But what if high school students who weren’t capable or motivated enough to go to college wanted to have a career after graduation. Don’t they deserve a chance to get ahead? With this perspective, I believe that high schools should provide two tracks to a diploma, one that readies students for college and the other for a career that offers a reasonable wage and opportunities for career advancement. I realize the idea of high schools offering paths to both college and a vocation is not new; some sort of vocational training has been a part of some high school curricula for years. But given the efforts at public education reform that are currently being made, this oh-so-practical approach to high school education would seem worthy of serious consideration.

But this two-track path to high school education is actually losing steam because the so-called industrial arts, otherwise known as shop class, have been the first casualties of school budget cuts. Yet, high school dropouts will cost the U.S. almost $320 billion in lost wages (add in ill-prepared high school graduates and that number soars). That sounds short sighted to me.

When students learn about carpentry, metal work, automobile repair, wood working, electronics, etc., they are laying the foundation for a career in the trades, historically stable and decent-paying jobs that are usually in reasonable abundance because they can’t be outsourced. They can  enter the work force with some degree of preparedness which not only increases their chances of landing a good job, but, just as importantly, gives them confidence in themselves and hope for a better future.

As the product of a liberal arts education, I often tell people that I had a “worthless” major, psychology, because it offered me no real skills upon graduation. Yet, I value liberal arts education immensely because of the broad range of ideas and knowledge to which students are exposed allowing them to become well-rounded and engaged citizens. But a liberal arts education, which is what the typical high school curriculum offers, is a luxury that many young people can ill afford. Let’s get real. Even if unmotivated students learn about the classics, political science, and philosophy (and they likely won’t), that knowledge won’t pay the bills.

I also spent my summers working as a carpenter through high school and college and learned to work on cars. Not only did I gain some practical skills, but I also learned about the satisfaction of making something from nothing and the pride of fixing something that was broken. I was fortunate that I didn’t need to use those skills to support myself later in life, but I still value (and use) them to this day. High school students who aren’t on an academic track can gain the same career and psychological benefits that they can put to immediate use following graduation.

And my argument for a vocational track in high school is not intended to push students down a particular path in high school or to limit the options available to them. To the contrary, when our public education system offers two educational paths in high school that actually meet the needs of a diverse range of students, it will give students more choices and more opportunities for gainful employment after they graduate. Perhaps just as important, it just might motivate a large swath of high school students who are either heading toward dropping out or will graduate with no useful skills to apply themselves in high school. Why? Because, quite simply, they will see that what they learn will actually help them get ahead in life.