Overcoming self-defeating thoughts, developing one's talents

As I counsel my own kids, and as I work with other young (and not-so-young!) people who are struggling toward initial success--the experience that tells them, "This is where your talent lies! Walk in this path"--I have found many of us engage in a lot of self-defeating thought, the old "tapes" I have heard people say we play to ourselves: "You'll never amount to anything." "You can't do anything right." "Don't get too big for your britches." "Who do you think you are, [some successful celebrity in the field in which you are striving to excel]?"

Defeatism, defeatism, defeatism!

Buckingham and Clifton suggest we tend to focus on our weaknesses rather than our strengths because of fear: fear of failure and

• the internal anguish we feel when, or if, we fail at a task in which we think we are strong;
• the distress of being ridiculed in society at large--the ridicule that is reserved most caustically for those who claim strengths and then fail. (See Now, Discover Your Strengths pp. 125-126.)

They list these two issues in the order I have presented them here.

But I would think the majority of us fight, far more, the latter than the former fear because we never get to the point where we recognize--or are willing to recognize--our unique strengths.

Buckingham and Clifton don't quite come out and say this is a reason we tend to focus on our weaknesses rather than our strengths, but they strongly imply one additional reason for such behavior. They say that many of us are concerned about coming across egotistical.

However, they note, "Egotism is when you make claims to excellence, but your claims aren't tied to anything substantive" (p. 126).

"Yes," I would say. "But isn't that the rub? Most of us never get to the point--or are never permitted to get to the point or encouraged to get to the point or allow ourselves to get to the point--where we can know for sure whether there could be any substance behind claims to excellence in any field of endeavor."

But, say Buckingham and Clifton, "patching up your weaknesses will never lead you to excellence."

So what should we do?

One thing: recognize that

building on your strengths isn't necessarily about ego. It is about responsibility. . . . Your natural talents are gifts from God . . . [Y]ou had nothing to do with [acquiring] them. However, you have a great deal to do with fashioning them into strengths. It is your opportunity to take your natural talents and transform them, through focus and practice and learning, into consistent, near-perfect performances.

From this point of view, to avoid your strengths and to focus on your weaknesses isn't a sign of diligent humility. It is almost irresponsible. By contrast, the most responsible, the most challenging, and, in the sense of being true to yourself, the most honorable thing to do is face up to the strength potential inherent in your talents and then find ways to realize it. (pp. 126-127)

This is where I think Sarita has proven exceptionally wise while our kids were younger--in elementary and high school. She never permitted them to "sit around" and "do nothing" besides school work. She made sure they were involved in competitive sports, music, drama, art, chess, magic, something that required effort, practice, persistence for the child to sense s/he had succeeded.

And in so doing--by requiring these activities on the part of our children--Sarita and our kids discovered their areas of strength and weakness, areas of interest, . . . potential talents that they could develop.

I feel sad for those who have never been encouraged to persist the way our children have been encouraged to persist--to persist until they realized, "Hey! I'm good at this!" or, "Y'know, I'm never going to be good at this." --One can't make such discoveries in the space of moments, hours, or even a few days. It takes significant time and effort--in general, I'd say, at least one full season, three months or more. At full exertion. Then say whether you have "no talent" or "some talent" or, even, potentially, "a lot of talent"--even if that talent is yet to be developed.

Talents #3: The StrengthsFinder Test

I figure it's time I continue with my comments about Buckingham & Clifton's Now, Discover Your Strengths, first mentioned December 5th, and last mentioned December 7th.

*****

The book offers a free "StrengthsFinder" test supposed to "reveal your five strongest themes of talent" (p. 32) or "find where you have the greatest potential for a strength" (p. 78).

I took it a couple of weeks ago. You'll notice I haven't said anything about the test or its results.

Why not? Well . . .

Out of the 34 "themes of talent" StrengthsFinder deals with--Achiever, Activator, Adaptability, Analytical, Arranger, Belief, Command, Communication, Competition, Connectedness, Context, Deliberative, Developer, Discipline, Empathy, Fairness, Focus, Futuristic, Harmony, Ideation, Inclusiveness, Individualization, Input, Intellection, Learner, Maximizer, Positivity, Relator, Responsibility, Restorative, Self-Assurance, Significance, Strategic, and "Woo" ("Winning Others Over") * --my five themes were these:

Ideation: People strong in the Ideation theme are fascinated by ideas. They are able to find connections between seemingly disparate phenomena.

Input: People strong in the Input theme have a craving to know more. Often they like to collect and archive all kinds of information.

Learner: People strong in the Learner theme have a great desire to learn and want to continuously improve. In particular, the process of learning, rather than the outcome, excites them.

Responsibility: People strong in the Responsibility theme take psychological ownership of what they say they will do. They are committed to stable values such as honesty and loyalty.

Intellection: People strong in the Intellection theme are characterized by their intellectual activity. They are introspective and appreciate intellectual discussions.

I thought (and still think): "Oh. Great. --What am I supposed to do with this?"

Though I am sure these themes are correct, I don't think I learned a whole lot by having the test tell me these are my top strengths or talents. In fact, it depresses me a bit. Because I don't see how it will help me find where I want or need to go in the future.

Although, now that I think of it, maybe I should pay closer attention. What am I--or what am I not--doing right now? And how is that (what I am and am not doing) impacting me?

I look at four of the five themes--Ideation, Input, Learner and Intellection--and I think: "(Duh!) Scholarship. --Doing the work of a scholar."

And what have I--or have I not--been doing in the last year or more? One thing I have not been engaged in to any significant degree is . . . scholarship.

I've been involved in business, in marketing (which I love). But I have not been involved in the idea side of things so much. I haven't been discovering things, learning things that bring (what I consider) a nice shock to the system. And that has made for a rather "dull boy."

I think back to how Sarita and I used to walk and talk for hours. Or, rather, I used to talk for hours. I'm afraid she mostly listened. (She's a good listener. I mean no slight by that.) She'd let me babble--or not. (And what I mean by that is that I'm sure, sometimes, my talking was little more than the ravings of a lunatic. But other times, I'm sure, I was saying some things that were very profound.)

So I was happy, satisfied, when I was learning new things, discovering new things about my world, about history, . . . about the subjects listed at the top of this blog: "History, Religion, Epistemology and Communication with a little Politics, Economics and Legal Theory thrown in for good measure."

I have enjoyed--and still enjoy, and probably always will enjoy--learning about marketing. After all, marketing is a form of communication. And I love to think and theorize and learn about all forms of communication. And I am delighted to see that--and when--my ideas and theories actually work, in practice. (I.e., so I am delighted to have my ideas and theories applied.)

But.

I sense I need something more. I'm not sure just what right at the moment. (Is it more "Intellection" and "Ideation"? More diversity of subject matter? . . . More . . . ?) I don't know. But I think I need to find out.

Sarita and I, it seems, haven't had a whole lot to talk about recently. And I feel like I'm dying inside. Shriveling up. (Is that where some of my fear of declining mental powers might be coming from-- . . . why I am experiencing some of the symptoms that lead to my fear? I don't know. But I'd like to find out.)

* The authors comment: "You will notice that the theme names are not all the same 'type.' Some refer to the person (e.g., Achiever, Activator). Some refer to the category (e.g., Discipline, Empathy). Others refer to the quality (e.g., Adaptability, Analytical). We chose this approach because attempts to standardize the type yielded increasingly clumsy and unfamiliar terms" (footnote, p. 81).

Talents #2

Reference, once more, Buckingham & Clifton's Now, Discover Your Strengths.

Some of my natural propensities or "talents":

• Ask questions! Lots of questions.
• I'm curious about everything.
• I love to "tell the story" . . . or, I should say, "retell" the story. Once I have discovered something, I like--I really enjoy--telling others.
• I don't create stories. But I enjoy telling them. Real stories, that is. I'm not at all good at fiction.
• I love to edit. It's fun. I feel like I'm playing the sleuth: "How can I make this communicate more effectively?"
• I love communication. I love engaging in it. I love thinking about it, theorizing about it, working on it.
• I love (future post!) Fierce Conversations. (Reference to a book by Susan Scott and, far more, for my purposes, to a concept.) So I'll engage in such conversations. Naturally. I will either start them, whenever possible, or I will gravitate toward them when I hear one occurring.
• I want the truth. I hate pussy-footing around tough subjects. Let's just "wade right in" and "mix it up" intellectually. (I detest physical combat. I am talking about a form of intellectual battle.) Speak the truth. Live the truth. Tell me what you really think, because you may be sure I will tell you what I think. . . . Hopefully "seasoned with grace," as it were (Colossians 4:6). But I'd rather get the truth and apologize later for having hurt someone's feelings than, out of concern for feelings, never get the truth! Yes,
• I'll "step in it," "put my foot in my mouth," say something less than perfectly gracious, etc. and then later apologize . . . just to get the conversation moving. It's the communication that counts. Not being considered "a nice guy."
  • I want to be a nice guy, too. But conversation first. Let's talk. Apologies, groveling, forgiveness, "please forgive me," etc. can come later. Avoid the costs associated with apologies and groveling, etc., and the conversations likely will never come. . . .

More later.

Strengths & Talents: Finding one's life mission or purpose

Some meditations, now, inspired by Marcus Buckingham & Donald Clifton's Now, Discover Your Strengths.

We should probably note the title: Now, Discover Your Strengths. Buckingham and Clifton focus on that word strength or talent. You are strong in an area, they say, if you can produce "consistent near perfect performance" (p. 25) and you "can fathom yourself doing [that activity] repeatedly, happily, and successfully" (p. 26). "The acid test of a strength is that you can do it consistently and near perfectly" (p. 56).

The authors define talent not significantly differently from how they define strength. Talents, they say, are "naturally recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior that can be productively applied" (p. 48). They make a big point of the idea that these are naturally recurring patterns.

Put talent and strength together and you begin to see that they are somewhat like "handedness": you are "talented" or "strong" in one hand or the other; you are either "right-handed" or "left-handed."

And while it is possible to compensate for the loss of one's dominant hand, if you have both hands, why not use the one whose competence comes naturally?

Similarly, while it is true that with enough practice almost anyone may be able to acquire a certain skill, that doesn't mean they can do it naturally, repeatedly, near-"effortlessly."

So, Buckingham and Clifton urge us, pursue your talents: "Look inside yourself, try to identify your strongest threads, reinforce them with practice and learning, and then either find or . . . carve out a role that draws on these strengths every day. When you do, you will be more productive, more fulfilled, and more successful" (p. 21).

They make two additional, and pertinent comments:

• "[Y]ou do not have to have strength in every aspect of your role in order to excel. . . . [E]xcellent performers [are] rarely well rounded. On the contrary, they [are] sharp" (p. 26).

And,

• "[Y]ou will excel only by maximizing your strengths, never by fixing your weaknesses. This is not the same as saying 'ignore your weaknesses.' [Successful people do] not ignore their weaknesses. Instead, they . . . [find] ways to manage around their weaknesses, thereby freeing them up to hone their strengths to a sharper point" (p. 26).

Well. With this in mind, I began to try to figure out my strengths and talents. What are my natural propensities--my natural habits that, as Buckingham and Clifton say, "can be productively applied"? If the authors are correct--and I believe they are--these should help me become more "productive, fulfilled, and successful."