Showing posts with label inner peace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inner peace. Show all posts

Friday, 19 June 2015

Lawyers Go Zen, With Few Objections

Soft winds of change are rustling through the legal profession.

You can see it on the cover of a recent Louisiana Bar Journal, which featured a photo of an empty bench against a burnt-orange sky.

It has swept through University of Miami School of Law, whose students this year completed a homework project by deliberately losing an argument.


And this spring it breezed past a verdant bluff above the Hudson River, where dozens of law professors, litigators and judges spent three days meditating and pacing trails under a blanket of silence and the tutelage of a Buddhist priest.

It wasn’t too long ago when attorneys were caricatured as Rambo types who scorched civility and professionalism to win at all costs.

But that was before the “mindfulness” movement.

A Zen-inspired blend of meditation, breathing exercises and focus techniques are in vogue in corporate America—championed by blue-chip employers like Google Inc. and General Mills Inc. as a simple but potent mind-sharpening tool.

Now, the movement is on the cusp of a more improbable breakthrough into the field of law.

Scott Rogers, founder and director of University of Miami’s “Mindfulness in Law Program” says looser vibes have touched a nerve with younger generations—some of whom are turned off by the perceived nastiness in the profession.

“People are yelling at each other all the time,” says Mr. Rogers, a former commercial litigator who remembers the moment 15 years ago when he realized it’s OK to recognize the humanity in opposing counsel.

Students who take his mindfulness courses earn up to three credits toward their law degree. They all have waiting lists, he says, including the one in which students are instructed to lose an argument. “It’s not about losing a fight or giving up at all,” says Mr. Rogers. “It’s developing greater insight in the ways we lose touch” with our impulses.

His law school is one of about two dozen across the country to incorporate mindfulness exercises into its curriculum.

Another one is nearby Florida International University College of Law, where students have bonded over an assignment requiring them to stare at themselves in the mirror for five minutes and say loudly, “I love me.”

As for more seasoned lawyers, the pressure to bill hours has never been more intense, the pace never more punishing. The result is high rates of attrition, depression and fatigue, according to some studies. The discontent has spawned a cottage industry of coaches bearing promises of relief.

Judi Cohen founded a mindfulness coaching firm last year after a 30-year career as a Bay Area real-estate lawyer. She named her company Warrior One, paying homage to the mystical warrior-kings of Tibet.

Her clients include the commercial law firm Fox Rothschild LLP and Facebook Inc.’s legal department, which invited her to stop by their annual retreat last fall in Half Moon Bay. She says Facebook’s rapidly growing legal team was keen on unlocking secrets that could help them communicate better with fellow Facebook lawyers.

During a typical workshop, she asks participants to break into pairs and have a conversation in which they suppress the desire to interrupt or even consider a retort until the other person finishes his or her thought. Lawyers are also discouraged from judging their partners during the session.

Some exercises aim to cultivate empathy and understanding. Those can be challenging, including one in which lawyers pick out three random people during the day and silently wish them well.

“ ‘I didn’t see anyone worthy,’ ” Ms. Cohen recalls a dejected senior attorney reporting back to her.

Most attorneys she trains walk in with an open-mind, even making a valiant, if not successful, effort to stow away their phones during training.
But there are exceptions, including one prosecutor at the San Francisco district attorney’s office—another one of her clients—who tried to poke holes in her philosophy. He posed questions like, “If mindfulness is just about paying attention, couldn’t that make you a good assassin instead of a compassionate person?”

Some skeptics of mindfulness, like Manhattan criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield, say they have nothing against stress relief but doubt that a regimen of meditation, daily affirmations and Qigong training will cure the ills of the profession.

Mindfulness, he says, “feeds the narcissism that being a lawyer should be fun, happy and pleasant.”


Jeena Cho, a San Francisco bankruptcy attorney who also teaches mindfulness, says lawyers have asked her if they have to shave their heads or dress like a monk. “This isn’t like joining a cult,” she assures them. She says she committed herself to meditation after she started losing clumps of hair from all the anxiety she was feeling about work.

For some lawyers who have given it a spin, it’s a way to clear their minds and find a new perspective.

Cari Rincker, a New York family and divorce lawyer, was among the more than 80 attorneys at a mindfulness retreat at the Garrison Institute, a Franciscan monastery-turned meditation sanctuary nestled on a hilltop near West Point on the opposite bank of the Hudson River.

Ms. Rincker spent hours walking back and forth in silence. “I forgot how nice it is to be outside and listen to birds chirp,” she says of the retreat, which was organized by UC Berkeley School of Law’s “Mindfulness Initiative.”

For a handful of sleep-deprived attorneys, the sessions led to drowsiness—with the occasional snoring reverberating in the stained-glass adorned meditation hall. A Zen Buddhist priest advised those drifting into the land of Nod to try meditating standing up.
“It was a bunch of lawyers in a room and no one was talking,” recalls Ms. Rincker. “I have to say it was quite refreshing.”

Written by: Jacob Gershman

Source


Sunday, 14 June 2015

The Secret to Making Yourself Happier? Give Your Money Away

According to the World Bank’s most recent estimate, more than one billion people live on less than $1.25 per day. UNICEF estimates that an average of 18,000 children die every twenty-four hours from easily preventable causes. That’s equivalent to losing a young life every five seconds.

Faced with these figures, it’s easy to despair. But that’s a mistake. The world is steadily getting better. The percentage of people living in extreme poverty has declined dramatically over the past twenty-five years. Compared with 1990, 17,000 fewer children now die each day. What’s more, you and I can each make a significant contribution to improving the lives of the world’s poorest people.

Inspired by this idea, a growing number of people are choosing to donate a significant fraction of their income to the most effective developing world charities. I’m one of them. I am the assistant director of Giving What We Can, an international society whose members pledge to give at least ten percent of their earnings to whichever organizations do the most to help others. More than a thousand people have signed our pledge and our membership is growing every day.

Is giving really for me?
You might think this is admirable, but not for you. You’re a good person, but there are limits to what you can be asked to do for others. The idea of giving away as much as ten percent of your income might seem impossible. Wouldn’t this mean taking on a significant burden?

Well, would it? It’s worth thinking seriously about this question. After all, it would be extraordinary to be able to look back on your life and know that you had saved the lives of hundreds of people. What’s more, the answer to this question isn’t as obvious as it might seem.

How much you can afford to give depends ultimately on your personal circumstances. It’s something you have to decide on your own terms. However, it’s important that you be aware of the fallibility of your own intuitions. You are worse at making predictions about your own future happiness than you might think.

We don’t know what makes us happy
A significant body of work in social psychology shows that we systematically overestimate the impact that various life-changes will have on our sense of happiness, especially for those life-changes we expect to make us unhappy. Psychologists express this by saying that our affective forecasts (that is, our predictions about our future happiness) are subject to an 'impact bias'.

A person’s level of happiness is more stable and resilient than we expect. For this reason, people overestimate the unhappiness of individuals with disabilities, academics overestimate how bad it will feel to be denied tenure, and voters overestimate the negative impact of having their candidate lose the election. The impact bias works with money too. Studies show that people significantly underestimate the happiness of people earning lower levels of household income.

So if your gut tells you that giving a lot to charity would be a serious burden, it’s very likely that you’re wrong. It will cost you less than you think. Your expectations about the extent to which your happiness hinges on enjoying a certain level of income aren’t as trustworthy as they seem. Don’t let the impact bias fool you.

So does giving actually make us happy?
If we can’t trust our intuitions, how can we know what it would be like to give away a significant fraction of our earnings?

One thing we could do is to ask people earning different levels of income how happy they are, giving us a sense of how much income really matters for personal well-being.


Surveys of this kind have been carried out in many countries. They generally find that the richer you are, the more likely you are to report being happy or very happy. Even so, the differences between people earning different levels of income tend to be slight. The correlation between income and happiness is small and much smaller than most people expect. In his bestselling book Happiness:

Lessons from a New Science, economist Richard Layard estimates that lowering household income by one third means a fall in happiness of just two points when happiness is scored between ten and one hundred. It turns out that the effect of income on happiness is overshadowed by many other factors, such as health and personal relationships. These are the things that really matter.

When you give, you’re spending money, not losing it
Here’s something else to consider. Why assume that giving a significant fraction of your income to charity is like earning less? In reality, you won’t have a lower income, just one that’s spent differently. Otherwise you’d be just as happy (or sad) giving money to charity as you would be simply throwing that money away. But that doesn’t really make sense – if you’ve read this far, you presumably care about the welfare of people in developing countries and would be glad to know that their lives are being improved as a result of your actions.

So if your income doesn't affect your happiness all that much and we know you’ll gain some amount of life-satisfaction from the knowledge that your donations are improving people's lives, the key question is: how much?

There is evidence to suggest that spending money on others can make us happier than spending on ourselves. To start, we can point to some striking correlational data. One recent study examined survey data gathered from one hundred and thirty-six countries. The authors wanted to see whether donating to charity was correlated with greater feelings of happiness, even when controlling for household income. They found that, in almost all countries, those who gave to charity were happier. If fact, donating to charity had a similar relationship to individual happiness as a doubling of household income.


Of itself, this doesn’t prove that spending money on others is what causes greater happiness. However, there are experiments which suggest that this is in fact the case.

Imagine the following scenario. You are given an envelope containing a small sum of money, which you are asked to spend within 24 hours. You can spend the money on yourself (paying a bill or buying yourself a treat) or you can spend the money on others, giving it to charity or buying a gift for a friend. Which would bring you greater happiness: spending the money on yourself or on others?

When a group of scientists carried out an experiment like this, most participants thought they’d be happier if they could spend the money on themselves. They were wrong. The people who were asked to spend their money on others ended up happier as a result.

This wasn’t an isolated result. The same researchers conducted a long-term study of employees at a Boston-based company who received a profit-sharing bonus. They found that those who devoted more of their bonus to prosocial spending experienced greater happiness later on.

Giving to others > spending on ourselves
We should obviously be cautious in trying to extrapolate from these results. Even so, these findings lend weight to the idea that giving our money to help others can be a source of personal satisfaction that outweighs whatever minor frustrations we might experience from having less money to spend on ourselves.

Anecdotally, that same idea is borne out when I talk to the members of Giving What We Can. Far from feeling like a sacrifice or a burden, most people say that joining Giving What We Can is an incredibly positive experience. Certainly, that’s been my own story. Given the evidence that income itself doesn’t matter all that much and that helping others often makes us happier, it wouldn’t be surprising if the same could hold true for you.

Ultimately, of course, it’s not about you or me. It’s about helping others who are malnourished, or suffering from terrible diseases like malaria, through no fault of their own. As it turns out, we can each afford to give a lot more than we might have thought. I can, and so can you. So let’s do it.

Written By: Andreas Mogensen
Source