Standing Up by Standing Down

Stanislav Petrov may have literally saved your life once, and he may figuratively save it again, if you let his example become your own.

Petrov was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Soviet military back in 1983, and was responsible for monitoring Soviet early warning satellite systems, designed to detect the launch of a nuclear attack against his country by the United States. While working a double shift one night, he was suddenly startled by loudly sounding alarms. Radar indicated that the United States had launched several nuclear missiles at the Soviet Union. To Petrov, it was not unrealistic to believe that the U.S. would be attacking the Soviet Union; it was the Cold War era, after all, and tensions between the United States and Soviet Union were high. So when the alarms sounded, Petrov was under a mandate to initiate communications that would launch a retaliatory response by the Soviets. At the time, the stance of both the U.S. and the Soviet Union was one of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD); a “we’ll all go down together” doctrine of military behavior that was, in theory, supposed to decrease the likelihood of nuclear war by ensuring that regardless of who launched the initial attack, the other nation would follow with an equal or more significant response of its own. But now Petrov stood in front of the banks of flashing red lights and wailing sirens, and he had to make a call; retaliate or not? Assume the worst or wait and see? He had his orders, but would he follow them? Could he trust what he was seeing?

So what about you? What if you were in Stanislav’s position? You see the signs; you hear the warnings. You are under attack. How far will you go? Will you retaliate? Will you ensure that everyone goes down together? Will there be no last man standing?

Don’t speak too quickly. As I read Petrov’s story, I couldn’t help but think how each of us face similar, but much less dramatic, choices on a daily basis. How many times have each of us felt unjustly attacked, challenged, or threatened, and have chosen to respond in kind? How many of us, if we are to be honest with ourselves, hold our own doctrines of Mutually Assured Destruction? How many of us live by the creed, “I may not have started it, but I’m going to finish it.”? Sadly, I know I adopt that stance far too often. I bristle at perceived insults and launch a counter-attack, ready to defend myself, even if it is harmful to the other person and me. 

Fortunately for the rest of us, Stanislav Petrov "stood down". And in doing so, he probably saved the world as we know it, because the alarm was a false one. There were no incoming missiles, just faulty radar and alarm systems. But had he followed his training and protocol, and informed those in charge that an unprovoked attack was underway and annihilation was imminent, the USSR may have responded with a nuclear “counter-attack”. Then the US (who had not actually launched any missiles in the first place) would believe that the Soviets had launched an initial and unprovoked attack and, as part of the MAD doctrine, would have responded with a strike of our own…creating a real war where none originally existed. The fact that you and I are here today may be largely due to the actions of Stanislav Petrov and his unwillingness to assume the worst.

Petrov was not lauded as a hero by the Soviet government. In fact, the public didn’t know about his actions until after the fall of the Soviet Union. After the initial incident, he took an early retirement and lived unremarkably on a retirement pension of about $200 a month. Finally, in 1998, a former colleague wrote a book in which he mentioned Petrov’s actions on that fateful day, and then the whole world knew what the Soviets hand known for over a decade: one lone man made a decision that may have saved the world as we know it.

There are two lessons here that are worth taking away from Petrov’s story:  

Examine your assumptions very carefully, for they tend to become your reality. Had Stanislav Petrov trusted that the alarms were real, he would have initiated a response with devastating results for all involved. A perceived demise would have become a real demise. This is a lesson that we all need to take to heart. Operating under false assumptions about another’s intent can lead to escalation of conflict in which no party wins. So, examine your assumptions, identify the course of action that will result in the least collateral damage, and proceed accordingly. Whether it is in the quantity of your years, or in the quality of your years, the life you save by choosing to “stand down” may be your own. 

Doing good does not necessarily result in admiration and praise from others. Do good anyway. Petrov chose to stand down because he believed it was the right decision at the time. No one initially gave him an award or party for doing so, and you will not always be praised for doing good either. In fact, doing good may cost you friends, disrupt your career, and make you vulnerable. So, you alone must decide if you will live a life based on conviction or one based on convenience. Will you do the easy thing, or will you do the right thing? If you choose to do the right thing, be prepared to stand alone. A life lived in the pursuit of excellence is not for the faint of heart. 

If you are standing in a conflict today, and are choosing to do what is right rather than what is tempting, I congratulate you. If you have chosen to follow your conscience rather than the path of least resistance, I applaud you. And if you are focusing on controlling your impulses rather than on controlling other people, I admire you. 

As it turns out, we often stand tallest when we choose to “stand down”.

When Talk Isn't Cheap

I will admit to being a political cynic, but I don’t believe that I am alone in thinking that there is something strange going on in our nation’s capitol these days. It seems that no matter whom we elect and from what political party they arise, we end up with the same people – they just have different names and faces. They still make the same empty promises while pursuing the same personal and political agendas. They make lots of promises and keep very few. They talk a lot and accomplish a little. Actual problem-solving seems to be trumped by talking about problem-solving. And this is troubling, because contrary to popular opinion, talk is not cheap. 

Language is an amazingly powerful tool. It offers us the means to make understood that which can’t be seen or touched; to share our knowledge and wisdom with others. It allows us to express our joys and our sadness, our pleasures and our pain. We use language to make a friend; to comfort and console one another; to encourage and uplift. We use it to warn others of danger and to bring calm in a crisis. Our words allow us to accurately represent our intent and our mission, and when freely exchanged in good faith with others, they allows us to problem solve and collaborate for the betterment of many rather than the advancement of a few. What a treasure, this thing called language! 

But what happens when we use language to gain unfair advantage, to mislead or provide false comfort, to misdirect and misinform? What happens when we start using language to hide who we are, rather than to reveal who we are? Does talk get cheaper then? I suspect than anyone who has ever believed something that turned out to be a lie, or has been hurt by gossip or criticism, will tell you that the cost was very high indeed. And what about the personal cost to the liar, the gossiper, and the critic? What is the true value of the respect and trust that has been lost? Is it even measurable? When we lose our credibility, we lose our ability to successfully participate in the economy of relationships, and that’s not an incidental expense. 

Again I repeat: Talk is not cheap. What you say matters. 

Parents, your children will gain confidence through your praise or lose heart through your criticism; so teach, don’t preach.

Spouses, you have made promises to one another to love, honor and cherish; so keep them. 

Senators, Congressmen and other leaders: you speak for us, so speak carefully. Stop all the verbal posturing and let your word be your bond. We’re listening.

You see, every word we speak is either a deposit into, or a withdrawal from, the account of our character, so I repeat once again: Talk is not cheap. 

Please don’t misunderstand. I am not proposing that words hold more sway than actions, because they do not. If you mistreat someone, contrary to popular opinion, you cannot balance the books by saying “I’m sorry”. If your words and your actions don’t line up, I can assure you people will give more credence to what you do than to what you say. I’m not advocating “talking a good line” over "living a good life”. But, what I am saying is that words must not be treated as incidental. They have weight. They have import. They have consequences.  

When we cheapen our words by using them as a substitute for action we are diminished, and when we use our words to diminish others we are cheapened; because words are the currency of trust. 

And you can take that to the bank.

Who Decides if Criticism is Constructive?

Raise your hand if you like to be criticized.

Yeah…me neither.

Webster's dictionary defines criticism as "Disapproval expressed by pointing out faults or shortcomings". But, I doubt you need a dictionary to tell you what criticism is any more than you need a dictionary to tell you what pain is. You know it when you feel it.

Perhaps in some (and by "some", I mean very few) cases criticism is warranted, but even then, the likelihood of it bringing about the effect the criticizer was hoping for is going to be on the low side (and by "low", I mean almost non-existent). Why is that? Because people don't like pain and criticism is painful; therefore, as a way of shielding ourselves from the pain, we disregard the validity of the negative things being said about us. This isn't an intentional, conscious, decision. It is the ego protecting itself, and we all do it.  This is what makes the concept of "constructive criticism" so highly unlikely.

We all need to rid ourselves of the notion that we can give someone constructive criticism. We cannot. If constructive criticism exists at all, it exists only at the discretion of the receiver - never the giver - because criticism can never be truly constructive until it is received and acted upon. It is only the receiver that has the power to transform the message, no matter how true or well-intentioned, into something useful or constructive. If the person being criticized doesn’t choose to positively interpret and apply what you have said, then the criticism isn’t constructive at all, regardless of your intent.

Let me offer an example that may help to illustrate the point. I used to have a dog that was incredibly good at leaping into the air and catching anything I threw at him; balls, Frisbees, sticks…he could catch them all. He would launch himself gracefully into the air, arc his body, adjust for the flying object's trajectory, and land gracefully back on all fours with the thrown object proudly gripped in his mouth. Success! Big fun! What a game! However, when I launched the stick at my husband's head his response was less agreeable. As it turns out, he was not as enthused about the “catch-the-stick-in-your-mouth” game as my dog was. One was primed to receive, the other was not. And so it is with criticism.

If there is any other way to make a point about something (and there usually is) avoid using criticism as the delivery method. Unless your receiver is already willing and prepared to deal with the sharp-pointed sticks you’re throwing at his head, he’s unlikely to see the value of the exchange. 

There are alternative approaches with a much better track record, and they are worth learning. Some of the most effective, in my experience, are presented in Marshall Rosenberg's books, Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life, and Speak Peace in a World of Conflict: What You Say Next Will Change Your World . Whether you use these books or other resources, the point is to identify and adopt approaches that have the greatest chance of success, and to discard those which are likely to lead to hard feelings and resistance. 

On the very rare occasion when we must point out another's faults or shortcomings, we would be well advised to follow the advice of newspaper columnist Frank "Parson" Clark, who wrote: "Criticism, like rain, should be gentle enough to nourish a man's growth without destroying his roots."

I still, on occasion, act more like a hurricane than a gentle rain, but I’m learning. How about you?

When Quitting Makes Sense

Not too long ago I joined a support group for people dealing with chronic health issues. My membership lasted about two weeks and I quit. I couldn’t take the seemingly endless litany of complaints, narcissism and defeatist attitudes that dominated the conversations. I tried to offer an alternate view, one of taking control of our disease and focusing on what we have rather than what we don’t have, but I was, for the most part, ignored. It turns out that misery not only loves company - it demands it. So, the support group folks will have to go on worrying, complaining and picking their scabs without me. I have bowed out, and I make no apologies. Sometimes quitting is the right thing to do.

Tenacity is a virtue that often walks hand-in-hand with success, but when we cling to things that are harmful, tenacity ceases to be a virtue and becomes a vice; a parasite that drains us of health and peace of mind. No one doubts the wisdom of quitting abusive relationships, smoking or other obviously self-destructive behaviors. But not all quitting behaviors are quite that straightforward. Sometimes, vices masquerade as virtues. Sometimes our tenacity causes us to cling to sharks we have mistaken for life rafts. 

I have found that if something hurts, emotionally or physically, it's probably a good idea to stop doing it. I'm not talking about the soreness that comes from moderate exercise or the emotional ambivalence we feel when confronting difficult truths about ourselves. Those are normal and expected components of growth and development. The kind of pain that I'm talking about is the searing pain that develops in your knees every time you go out for a run or the debilitating emotional distress that comes from arguing with and lecturing someone who is obviously not going to change. If it hurts, I mean really hurts, don’t do it. Find a new exercise, a new approach or a new friend. Give yourself permission to quit. Quitting is a source of embarrassment only when it is rooted in laziness.

The older I get, the more I realize that time is short and my efforts must be spent on those activities that provide the greatest chance of being successful and making a positive impact in my life and the lives of others. If it is of little benefit, I have given myself permission to discard it. No harm, no foul. 

As you have heard me say before, your life is the sum total of your experiences. If you fill your life with negative experiences, it logically follows that your life will be less than pleasing to you. So, what are you doing that you need to stop doing? What are you currently hanging on to that you need to cut loose? Why are you afraid to let go? Knowing the answers to these questions is the first step in empowering yourself to get on with your best life. 

I am disappointed that my foray into the support group arena didn’t pan out. I had high hopes for it. We all need the occasional dose of encouragement, some good advice and a coping strategy or two. I am lucky that I still have wonderful people out there who take the time to offer those things to me, and I hope that this blog offers that to you. If it does, I'd really love to hear from you. Feel free to post a comment to this blog or send me an email at dmccall139@gmail.com.

The Eye of the Beholder

This weekend was the Twilight Zone Marathon; two days of non-stop episodes from the original series. I was mesmerized for hours. I love The Twilight Zone. It is social commentary at its best. Who needs PBS documentaries and social psychologists when you have Rod Serling to remind you of how fragile individuals and societies are? Each episode brings to light the ramifications of our own fears, greed, and prejudices. Each one is a thirty minute crash course in social psychology.

To me, one of the most poignant episodes is the one entitled “The Eye of the Beholder”.  The episode opens with a woman lying in a bed, her face completely bandaged. She is distraught, having undergone repeated medical treatments in an attempt to make her face “acceptable” to society. She desperately pleads with the nurse, begging her for details of when they will remove the bandages and will be able to determine if the treatments have been a success. She tells the sympathetic nurse that, all her life, all she has wanted was for people not to turn away in horror when they saw her. Who can’t relate, on some level, to that type of pain? The twist, of course, is when the bandages are removed to reveal a stunningly beautiful young woman. As the camera pans out, we see that all of those around her are hideously ugly; deformed and pig-like. She, in her youthful beauty, is the aberration. 

While this episode says a lot about the cultural pressures to be physically attractive, its real social import comes in the words of the snout-faced leader seen delivering a political speech at the end of the episode:

“We know now that there must be a single purpose! A single norm! A single approach! A single entity of peoples! A single virtue! A single morality! A single frame of reference! A single philosophy of government! We must cut out all that is different like a cancerous growth! It is essential in this society that we not only have a norm, but that we conform to that norm! Differences weaken us! Variations destroy us! An incredible permissiveness to deviation from this norm is what has ended nations and brought them to their knees! Conformity we must worship and hold sacred! Conformity is the key to survival!”

Do you agree with him? Don’t be so quick to say no…

Too many of us have fallen victim to the insidious message of the snout-faced leader, and we aren’t even aware of it. While there are many of us who would quickly denounce the idea that we would discriminate against someone because of their looks, race or physical handicap, we look at ourselves in a mirror and feel ashamed of what we see there: we are prejudiced against our own faces, our own skin, our own body shape. We are hypocrites, each of us. Differences are fine as long as we’re not the ones being “different”. 

In many ways I wish I could get back my younger years. Not because I want fewer wrinkles, better muscle tone and a trim figure, but because I feel like I was too unforgiving to the girl that I was. I wish I could give her a chance to live free of the unrealistic pressure I put her under. I wish I could go back and have a second chance to focus on the things that really matter; to live free of the pursuit of someone else’s idea of perfection. But I can’t go back, and neither can you. Time flows in one direction. The attitudes we hold today, toward ourselves and others, are the only ones we can change. If we are serious about personal growth and excellence, we have to begin rooting out our prejudices, and we have to start with the ones we hold against ourselves.  

If you want to see your true beauty, you are going to need to look into the eyes of someone you have made feel accepted and loved, just the way they are. A mirror will only be helpful if the grateful eyes you happen to gaze into are your own. Beauty is, after all, in the eye of the beholder.