Anyways, not withstanding the sequencing of this blog, this post is about optimal thinking - a term carved out from the title of a book that I have been reading intermittently over the last few weeks.
Before going deeper into the concept of optimal thinking, let me state that I am still in process of reading the book, let alone understanding it fully or mastering the topic.
So, what is optimal thinking all about? Prior to reading this book my understanding of the ‘reaction’ world comprised of two extremes:
- Positive thinking – as an individual, you try to be in a positive frame of mind, the underlying philosophy being a positive intent enhances the chance of a positive result
- Negative thinking – often as individuals, we get into the negative thinking groove. Though it sounds as simple as a crib, in my view, negative thinking is often used to dissociate oneself from the outcome/situation. In some ways, we either try putting the blame on externalities or take it all on ourselves and confide in a shell of our own making
- Both positive and negative thinking are not based on ‘reality’ or ‘sound assessment of current situation’ – a positive thinker would say all is great, superb, perfect, etc to have an aura of positive feelings around, while thinking negatively, we simply assume the worst and feel sad/stressed about it
- There is little action that results out of positive or negative thinking. Having eluded the truth, positive thinking would result in “all is great, do nothing” while negative thinking results in higher focus on emotions and stress, again leading to no constructive action – “the world is against me, I really can’t help it!”
This is where optimal thinking steps in. Optimal thinking is all about having a good assessment of the situation and then immediately focusing on two very important words – “what next?” – Sounds simple, but come to think about it, might be a bit difficult to practice. However, training one’s thought process around “the truth” and then thinking about “what next” repeatedly is all that is needed to start thinking optimally.
One key question remains to be answered though – How do we know in what frame of mind are we in? The following could help us estimate where we stand in terms of our thought process:
- If our immediate reaction to a situation is “that’s great”, “big achievement!”, “nothing to worry here and stay chill”, etc, then we are probably in the “fake” positive thinking mould
- On the contrary, if our reactions revolve around “I am very bad at this”, “The entire world is against me”, “Things always head the wrong way with me” or if we react to situations with anger and frustration, then probably we are wearing the negative thinking cap.
Whereas, thinking optimally, in the ideal world, the reaction should be “this is how things are” (with almost zero focus on emotions) and then immediately shift to “so, what next” or “what’s the best that I can do to …”
To sum it all up, I have tried to illustrate the optimal thinking process with flow chart in graphical format to make this post easy to understand. (see pic above)
Please do get back to me with comments and thoughts, while I will continue to research deeper into this rather interesting topic with a reasonable upside to making a difference we lead our lives.
7 comments:
Hey...
You could give some examples of the kind of reactions positive thinking and negative thinking people will have to certain real situations. The lack of real world examples is one thing i noticed in this otherwise well organised post. got the funda...chart was well made. good. :)
Regarding the examples, it would be cool if you could give some situations dealing with different spheres of problems...for e.g.
1. A problem dealing with emotions. hiccups in love for e.g.
2. A problem dealing with no emotions. A business decision about some money to spend for e.g.
3. A problem with both. Say when you are enroute to a very important assignment, someone is dying on the street...for e.g.
etc. etc.
@ Maharaj, great inputs, will surely do that - and let me give some thought to these examples. Infact, I was planning a 2nd part to this post anyways, so will incorporate in it - as of now, I plan to plug examples and discuss some fundamentals in part-2. Thanks, really appreciate the funds.
Know what ? This is exactly the kinda stuff I would want to talk about now heres my tuppence.
What you seem to be advocating is some sort of Buddhist forward looking middle-path (I dont want to trivialize the concept - its beautifully structured PPT incl.) But think about this - if I dont feel all the world is against me at some times in my life and if I dont feel superly irrationally elated at some other points in my life and maintain a calm and collective mood maybe I'll end up being James Bond at what I do but I shall cease to be human. What makes me human is the irrational emotion that builds up inside me as a response to each stimulus that I receive. If I react to each change in my external environment what am I but a machine with a closed form Laplace transform that given a situation will act in a predictable manner towards maximizing some tangible benefit to itself ?
Its alright to NOT want to be moody and swing between positive and negative thinking but without these there is no living... imho..
Firstly I like the diagram, diagrams/pics are much more expressive than plain words, infact could get the essence of your post by looking at that one pic.
I disagree with you when you say you should always be thinking optimally, sometimes there are situations when you cant help saying "Thatz great!!", "Nothing to worry about this". I mean sometimes somethings are getting done in the way that you neednt worry about them....
Creator and author of Optimal Thinking, Rosalene Glickman, Ph.D. describes Optimal Thinking as "the language of our best self." She describes how it differs from optimism (hoping for the best) because when we use it, we make the most of reality (what is the best thing I can do under the circumstances). She says that it is unrealistic to expect to think optimally all the time, but provides resources to think optimally more consistently.
About your diagram -- Optimal thinkers don't say "what's next?" We say "What's best?"
@Bulco: very nice comments and that gives me some more food for thought for part-2 of this post. Mebbe it didn't come across as clear, but optimal thinking is no middle path - it terms of emotional balance, may be yes, but in terms of actions, it is fairly aggressive - thinking of the best is not a compromise. However, I am totally in line with ur view to human vs. machines/robots... more on this is part-2. Thanks :-)
@Ninja: yep, point taken. Do agree. I was just trying to highlight as to how sometimes we get complacent ab't things. But yeah, you are right.
@Anonymous: Very crisp summary of what took me an entire blog to express :-) Looks like you have been a reader of Rosalene Glickman and more importantly, you must have had the book right next to you while typing the comment! Looking foward to ur views on this topic as you sound someone who has gone deep into this topic.
@Cathy: Totally agree, again looks like you are urself an optimal thinker/student of optimal thinking. So, please do keep pitching in, I am just a beginner at this. I used 'what next' to react to an achievement/ positive result while 'best' I could relate to more in a negative situation - almost the same thing, but just a subtle difference. I know the book and the concept says "what's best" all the time, but I corrupted the concept with my own views!
Post a Comment