[www.nysun.com]

The Happiness Scam

BY NICK GILLESPIE
July 6, 2005
URL: [www.nysun.com]

Let's just agree it's all Thomas Jefferson's fault. The writer of the Declaration of Independence inscribed "the pursuit of happiness" into the very DNA of America by asserting that such a right was every bit as inalienable as those of life and liberty. It's been downhill ever since, as we desperately strive to get too rich and too thin - all while blaming toxic parents, codependent spouses, abusive bosses, and total strangers for every problem, big and small, in our endlessly tortured and continually disappointing lives.

Or so says Steve Salerno in his immensely entertaining and occasionally overwrought polemic "SHAM" (Crown, 263 pages, $24.95).The title is an acronym for the Self-Help and Actualization Movement, now an $8.56 billion industry. Its stars include such baloney-slinging culprits as Tony Robbins, who got his start teaching people to walk over hot coals at $50 a throw before counseling Bill Clinton and other big-wigs; Tommy Lasorda, the tubby former Los Angeles Dodgers manager and Slim-Fast pitchman who tells banquet audiences "Ya gotta want it!"; Dr. Laura Schlessinger, the tough-love radio host whose insistence on traditional values is belied by her spotty love life and widely circulated nudie shots; and Dr. John Gray, the relationships expert whose book "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus" spawned not only innumerable sequels, but also a board game and a Las Vegas musical revue.

What unites these emotional bunco artists, writes Mr. Salerno, is a willingness to exploit our self-doubt and pocketbooks as we desperately seek satori in all the wrong places. He notes that the self-help genre is one of America's longest-lived, starting in 1732 with Ben Franklin's "Poor Richard's Almanac," which was stuffed with "tips for better living" and taking in such "classics" as Dale Carnegie's "How To Win Friends and Influence People" and Napoleon Hill's "Think and Grow Rich." While those books were relatively benign (if banal), he argues that the 1967 publication of Thomas A. Harris's Me Generation blockbuster "I'm OK - You're OK" ushered in a new era of particularly destructive - and financially lucrative - SHAM products.

A seasoned business writer and editor whose work has appeared everywhere from Playboy to Reader's Digest, Mr. Salerno is the perfect guide to the open-air gulag of continuous self-improvement. Whether exposing the shady backgrounds of key players ("Dr." Gray's Ph.D. is from Columbia Pacific University, a notorious diploma mill eventually ordered to shut down by California's attorney general) or casting a cold eye on quack claims (defying all known science, Mr. Robbins insists that foods have different "energy frequencies" that can be measured in megahertz), Mr. Salerno rarely misses an opportunity to stick it to experts whose real genius is for making money, not helping people. Discussing Dr. Phil McGraw's "brand extension" from psychology into dieting, Mr. Salerno notes, "McGraw describes obesity as a 'disease of choice' that 'can't be cured, only managed.' Such reasoning encourages his overweight followers to buy his book, but it also gives him an ironclad excuse should his weight-loss plan fail to deliver the hoped-for results."

Mr. Salerno excels at puncturing the self-aggrandizing rhetoric and foggy logic at the heart of SHAM, but he goes on to argue, not entirely convincingly, that the self-help industry is a motive force in all that is wrong with contemporary America. "It may be impossible to calculate the full cost of [SHAM's influence], taking into account both money actually spent and revenue lost to decreased productivity and other problems," he writes. "But without question, SHAM's overall societal impact resides in the trillions of dollars."

Along the way to this conclusion, he indicts self-help gurus as responsible for everything from increased divorce rates to lowered educational standards to President Bush's hick-style pronunciation of "nuclear" to the continuing electoral success of crack smoking Washington, D.C., pol Marion Barry. Any theory that tries to tie together such disparate phenomena seems every bit as dubious as New Age maven Marianne Williamson's post-September 11 call for "angels to surround the country" and form a "mystical shield" to protect the United States from future terrorist attacks.

More to the point, Mr. Salerno never fully answers a nagging problem he raises throughout the book: "Why America buys in ... now that's the question." It's not that 50 million Dr. Phil fans can't be wrong - God help us if they can't be - but Mr. Salerno doesn't seem capable of explaining why we suck up SHAM like so much "Chicken Soup for the NASCAR Soul" (to quote a recent title from the nauseating best-selling series).

Daniel Nettle supplies at least part of the answer in "Happiness: The Science Behind Your Smile" (Oxford University Press, 216 pages, $21). Discussing new research in social and evolutionary psychology in a short, dense, and highly accessible account, Mr. Nettle, a lecturer at England's University of Newcastle, fingers nothing less than evolution as the enabler of Dr. Gray, et al.

"Evolution has given us a strong implicit theory of happiness," writes Mr. Nettle. "We come to the world believing that there is such a thing as achievable happiness, that it is desirable and important, and that the things that we desire will bring it about." Alas, he notes, "It is not self-evident that any of these are true." Indeed, that's an understatement. It turns out that our "pleasure system" and our "system of desire" often work at cross-purposes, either leading us to pursue the wrong things or leaving us unsatisfied if we attain them.

While this dynamic serves an evolutionary purpose - in direct and indirect ways, it helps our genes to be fruitful and multiply - it doesn't make our lives one long Tuesday with Morrie. Yet, as Mr. Nettle makes clear, the best research shows that most of us, regardless of circumstance, are more happy than unhappy. What's more, our general level of happiness seems to be set fairly early in life and, with the exception of short periods following both good and bad events, remains relatively stable until we shuffle off our mortal coil. Suckers that we are, most of us do think we'll be happier in the future, which leaves us open to the predations of SHAM.

Although highly skeptical of self-help, Mr. Nettle does offer up his own "design for living." Following William James, John Stuart Mill, and others, he counsels readers not to worry too much about happiness per se. Rather, we should strive to live a productive, interesting life. He ends his book with a quote from Nathaniel Hawthorne: "Happiness is a butterfly, which, when pursued, is always beyond our grasp, but which, if you will sit down quietly, may alight upon you."

Leave aside the fact that Hawthorne was a haunted, gloomy sort, wracked by historical guilt, and even more annoyed at "the damned mob of scribbling women" who sold better than he did. His advice about happiness seems right on - and in any case, far cheaper than a $6,995 Life Mastery Seminar from Tony Robbins.

Mr. Gillespie (gillespie@reason.com) is editor in chief of Reason magazine (www.reason.com).

Quote
Cosmophilospher
http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=16523

More to the point, Mr. Salerno never fully answers a nagging problem he raises throughout the book: "Why America buys in ... now that's the question." It's not that 50 million Dr. Phil fans can't be wrong - God help us if they can't be - but Mr. Salerno doesn't seem capable of explaining why we suck up SHAM like so much "Chicken Soup for the NASCAR Soul" (to quote a recent title from the nauseating best-selling series).

I too have wondered about this. Ever since I first travelled outside the US, and discovered that this buy-in isn't universal -- it seems to be a particular feature of the American landscape.

I've had a couple of theories over the years:

1. America does not have the same sense of community that exists in, for example, European countries. People tend to live long distances from one another, any trip outside the home requires a car, and there don't tend to be places where people regularly meet their neighbours (ie as in pub where everyone knows one another). The US was also founded in the spirit of individualism, people looking after themselves and not depending on others. This lack of community causes a sense of isolation and loneliness, and so people go searching for things to plug up that hole of despair.

2. The US is materially wealthy. Humans are aspirational creatures I'm told -- we're built to struggle and achieve. In the US, a lot of the struggle is gone. It's pretty easy to have a cushy lifestyle (compared to people in other countries). Without the struggle, people are left thinking, "What does it all mean?" (and then see above).

3. The US is almost like a huge island. It doesn't have a lot of inputs from the outside -- so the scepticism that might otherwise be encountered never got a chance to filter in. Think Australia and its unique wildlife (or pretty much any island -- you get all sorts of strange things emerging that would never survive outside an island environment).

Rather than quoting your entire post, Savernake, I'll just add my 2cents that IMHO you are completely correct.
USA culture is very fractured and individualistic. This can create lonely people. Homo Sapiens are a social mammalian species.
When we are in a vulnerable time of life, easy group answers can be appealing.

I think that since the 80s, maybe before, once the whole codependency movement got rolling, people have been duped by the psych industry to believe they need fixing. What started as a definition for people who live with an addict has morphed into including anyone with parents. The psych drug industry invents new conditions, forms support groups to support the use of their drugs (usually old drugs with new names), but the underlying meaning is that if you're shy, you're diseased and there is even a drug for it.

I hear the argument about lack of community, but there are closely knit communities everywhere, even in metropolitan NY. My town, 15 minutes west of Manhattan, has been dubbed Mayberry, and I'm surrounded for miles by similar towns. Around the more urban areas of NJ are ethnic enclaves, and talk about community! It's like stepping back in time.

I don't think the struggle for personal wealth is gone either, as only a small percentage of the population have achieved that. This is why those selling access to "abundance" are so successful. The notion that one can create their own wealth or success has been twisted by the abundance people to mean that if you're not comfy, it's your own fault and you need their help.

I think there are several factors at work:

-A cynical and fearful society. Fear in the media is simply out of control. It wasn't like this 20 or 30 years ago. More channels and more competition mean stories are repeated endlessly now days. Fear of school shootings, airplane crashes, terrorism, crime, robbery. Yet in actual numbers, most crime is way down. The reporting doesn't match the statistics.

Thus, people are looking for a sanctuary and a retreat. Tony Robbins & Co. fill the void.

-Quick fix, easy mentality. Our attention spans have gotten shorter and shorter. We need answers to all our problems in 3 easy steps.

-Failure of schools and education. No one learns about money and finance in high school (thus, Suzy Orman). The gurus are taking the place of our educators.

Quote
Savernake

Quote
Cosmophilospher
http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=16523

More to the point, Mr. Salerno never fully answers a nagging problem he raises throughout the book: "Why America buys in ... now that's the question." It's not that 50 million Dr. Phil fans can't be wrong - God help us if they can't be - but Mr. Salerno doesn't seem capable of explaining why we suck up SHAM like so much "Chicken Soup for the NASCAR Soul" (to quote a recent title from the nauseating best-selling series).

I too have wondered about this. Ever since I first travelled outside the US, and discovered that this buy-in isn't universal -- it seems to be a particular feature of the American landscape.

I've had a couple of theories over the years:

1. America does not have the same sense of community that exists in, for example, European countries. People tend to live long distances from one another, any trip outside the home requires a car, and there don't tend to be places where people regularly meet their neighbours (ie as in pub where everyone knows one another). The US was also founded in the spirit of individualism, people looking after themselves and not depending on others. This lack of community causes a sense of isolation and loneliness, and so people go searching for things to plug up that hole of despair.

2. The US is materially wealthy. Humans are aspirational creatures I'm told -- we're built to struggle and achieve. In the US, a lot of the struggle is gone. It's pretty easy to have a cushy lifestyle (compared to people in other countries). Without the struggle, people are left thinking, "What does it all mean?" (and then see above).

3. The US is almost like a huge island. It doesn't have a lot of inputs from the outside -- so the scepticism that might otherwise be encountered never got a chance to filter in. Think Australia and its unique wildlife (or pretty much any island -- you get all sorts of strange things emerging that would never survive outside an island environment).

How about a few more:

1. Sociologists have noted how in more collectivist cultures if an individual is not acting all "happy/positive/in attunement" the group will tend to give that individual the benefit of the doubt and conjecture that s/he simply isn't feeling well or has financial or other problems. It strikes me as a far more humane approach than here in the West.

Whereas in more individualstic countries, like here in the West, the group tends to automatically ascribe personal shortcomings to such an individual whose not acting as "happy/positive/in attunement" as they *THINK* s/he should. The kicker is that when the Western inviduals who sat in judgement of that individual behave similarly, such Westerners will far more often make a wealth of excuses and justifications for their own less-than-ideal behavior. I think that's the illustrated-dictionary version of hypocrisy. Some may be more polite though and merely call it a dichotomy.

Conclusion: Such hypocrisy dovetails very well with the create-your-own-reality game that LEC likes to play.

2. Ever notice how so many of us in the West would rather pay an "impatience fee" than simply wait and/or save up for something that will be far cheaper and/or just as enjoyable even just a few weeks or months later. That's why the credit weasels rule the world. When people are willing to pay over $500.00 simply to be the *first ones* to see the latest Star Wars movie, in my opinion, there is something seriously wrong with this country.

Conclusion: LEC effectively panders to this by implying that you're entitled to peace and happiness ***NOW(!)*** no matter how much it costs, for such, in their bizzaro world, is being creatively "unreasonable."

3. Ever heard the the following: "Happiness is not a destination; it's a way of traveling." And yet try telling that to many Western commuters on their rush to work/play weekly freeway road race. A little observation and reflection suggests that perhaps their more real albeit unconscious philosophy may be more similar to "Happiness is a destination, and &#*! anyone/anything that gets in my way!"

Conclusion: It is far easier to condemn/shun those who don't/won't "agree with you "if one can feel justified in judging, labeling and condemning them all in the name of "higher consciousness." I find that so ironic, sick and twisted.

And then we can feel smug and feel assured that we are right because one psychological study showed, when we label someone as "beneath us," suddenly, no matter what they say/do, all of their behaviors become a "symptom" of their perceived substature.

CNFT

Quote
Coldnosesandfluffytails
1. Sociologists have noted how in more collectivist cultures if an individual is not acting all "happy/positive/in attunement" the group will tend to give that individual the benefit of the doubt and conjecture that s/he simply isn't feeling well or has financial or other problems. It strikes me as a far more humane approach than here in the West.

Whereas in more individualstic countries, like here in the West, the group tends to automatically ascribe personal shortcomings to such an individual whose not acting as "happy/positive/in attunement" as they *THINK* s/he should.

I agree with this statement, but why should it be so? Why does being part of an individualist culture mean that occasional unhappiness is unacceptable or an indication of a personality flaw?

as an aside: This is something I've often complained about within my own family -- and something that until recently I thought was a common American affliction. I always felt like my parents were MCs for a "happiness contest". And of course, whichever child performed least favourably in the happiness contest was shunned and ignored until they became "happier" (the theory I think being to teach us that there was no positive benefit to be derived from being unhappy). There was a lot of pressure to be happy in my family. Perversely of course, I think it had the opposite effect to that intended. If you grow up thinking that you are always failing and that your thinking is fundamentally flawed, it's bound to have adverse consequences (sadly, my brother was the most frequent loser in the happiness contest -- he is now over 40 and still lives with my Dad, has never been married, has never had a job that my father didn't give him, and is pretty much the most miserable and neurotic person I have ever met. Oh yes, parenting the EST way definitely is the way to go).

Self-help movement needs advice:
Critique slams gurus motivated by profit;

Jenn Labrecque. Calgary Herald. Calgary, Alta.: Jul 16, 2005.

REVIEW
SHAM: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless by Steve Salerno

Self-help books usually only have devoted followers or caustic critics. Author and investigative journalist Steve Salerno unquestionably falls into the latter category. In his new book SHAM - - a fitting acronym for the Self-Help and Actualization Movement -- Salerno examines how the SHAM movement is further divided into the victimization sect and the empowerment sect, although the same end result is to excuse inaction. His critique of the self-help movement runs the gamut: from the big name gurus to what he calls "Sportsthink" to Alcoholics Anonymous.

Salerno effectively divides his book into two, first examining the gurus of the movement, in particular highlighting their qualifications and credentials or lack thereof. Included are stars such as John Gray, Dr. Laura, Marianne Williamson and Suze Orman while Dr. Phil and Tony Robbins are both are awarded their own chapters. That these gurus "can make sweeping remarks in the absence of context is irresponsible," he writes. Salerno also exposes how the SHAM gurus' own financial well-being is tied to not helping individuals with their wide-ranging problems.

Indeed, it's the repeat buyer who keeps the $8-billion industry going. Certainly if one reads a self-help book and was truly helped there would be no need to follow up. Salerno attests that the genius of the SHAM industry is that it is built on offering easy outs (if you weren't helped, did you really apply yourself?). And both the empowerment camp and the philosophy of the victimization camp convince readers it wasn't their fault for the program's ineffectiveness. Rather, it was their mother, father, boss or husband.

The book's latter section examines how the SHAM dogma has inundated society at large including relationships, education, medicine and the work environment. Salerno takes particular aim at the widespread acceptance of AA (and the many other support groups it inspired) despite any scientific evidence of its effectiveness and the damming effect it has had on the perception of individual responsibility.

He takes on the concept of "Sportsthink" -- the widespread and lucrative industry where sports celebrities tour the corporate circuit with no relevant material, solely loaded with inspirational talks and stories -- as well. While corporations often spend tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars booking a big name, there has been little evidence of its success at motivating employees.

It's hard to argue that what drives the many SHAM gurus is profit and not their deep need to help people, especially when they squeeze more money out of their readers for companion workbooks and coffee mugs,

T-shirts and calendars. Often the "seminars offered are designed as extended sales pitches for the plethora of product."

While Salerno acknowledges that the self-help movement is not the sole cause of society's ills, he does offer convincing proof that it is a contributing factor and makes a compelling argument that the SHAM industry has contributed to a decline in social wellness. For example, since the industry has exploded there has been a growing dependence on chemical modification. He writes: "It's not the thousands of seminars or millions of books with their billions of uplifting words that Americans seem to count on to get them through the day. It's the drugs."

SHAM delivers a swift blow to the best-known SHAM gurus and Salerno convincingly demonstrates how it has done harm through its influence on relationships, schooling, work and health care, which make it an important book for the believer and skeptic alike.

Jenn Labrecque is a Calgary-based freelance reviewer and regular contributor to Books.

To Savernake and All,

Don't kid yourself that the USA is alone in this SHAM.

Australian's consume this nonsense too, in a big way. All the LGAT's and spin doctors you mention have bases here, from Depak to John Gray, Dr Phil, Landmark, CO$ etc etc etc... All this stuff thrives here as it benefits from our egaliterian cultural makeup and a bouyant economy with tougher defaming laws that ironically protect the SHAMsters.

New Zealand is also a soft target, remembering that Landmark Education refers to NZ as it's most successful country with the highest per capita enrolment in the world.

The UK also has an apetite for these matters.

So is it something the English speaking world is more susceptible too?

Oz

The first place my sociopathic naturopath did his first seminar was South Africa. I subscribed to a holistic health newsletter for a short time from there and it was loaded to the rafters with all kinds of gurus and guru-wannabes.