happiness, then it made sense, first of all, to witness the problem at its purest.
Which is how I came to find myself rising reluctantly to my feet, up in a dark extremity of that basketball stadium, because Get Motivated!âs excitable mistress of ceremonies had announced a âdance competitionâ, in which everyone present was obliged to participate. Giant beach balls appeared as if from nowhere, bumping across the heads of the crowd, who jiggled awkwardly as Wham! blared from the sound system. The first prize of a free trip to Disney World, we were informed, awaited not the best dancer but the most motivated one, though the distinction made little difference to me: I found the whole thing too excruciating to do more than sway very slightly. The prize was eventually awarded to a soldier. This was a decision that I suspected had been taken to pander to local patriotic pride, rather than strictly in recognition of highly motivated dancing.
After the competition, during a break in proceedings prior to George Bushâs arrival, I left the main stadium to buy an overpriced hot dog, and found myself in conversation with a fellow attendee, an elegantly dressed retired schoolteacher from San Antonio who introduced herself as Helen. Money was tight, she explained when I asked why she was attending. She had reluctantly concluded that she needed to come out of retirement and get back to work, and sheâd been hoping that Get Motivated! might motivate her. âThe thing is, though,â she said, as we chatted about the speakers weâd seen, âitâs kinda hard to think these good thoughts all the time like they tell you, isnât it?â For a moment, she looked stricken.Then she recovered, wagging a teacherly finger as if to tell herself off. âBut youâre not supposed to think like that!â
One of the foremost investigators of the problems with positive thinking is a professor of psychology named Daniel Wegner, who runs the Mental Control Laboratory at Harvard University. This is not, whatever its name might suggest, a CIA-funded establishment dedicated to the science of brainwashing. Wegnerâs intellectual territory is what has come to be known as âironic process theoryâ, which explores the ways in which our efforts to suppress certain thoughts or behaviours result, ironically, in their becoming more prevalent. I got off to a bad start with Professor Wegner when I accidentally typed his surname, in a newspaper column, as âWengerâ. He sent me a crabby email (âGet the name right!â), and didnât seem likely to be receptive to the argument that my slip-up was an interesting example of exactly the kinds of errors he studied. The rest of our communications proved a little strained.
The problems to which Wegner has dedicated much of his career all have their origins in a simple and intensely irritating parlour game, which dates back at least to the days of Fyodor Dostoevsky, who reputedly used it to torment his brother. It takes the form of a challenge: can you â the victim is asked â succeed in not thinking about a white bear for one whole minute? You can guess the answer, of course, but itâs nonetheless instructive to make the attempt. Why not try it now? Look at your watch, or find a clock with a second hand, and aim for a mere ten seconds of entirely non-white-bear-related thoughts, starting ⦠now.
My commiserations on your failure.
Wegnerâs earliest investigations of ironic process theoryinvolved little more than issuing this challenge to American university students, then asking them to speak their inner monologues aloud while they made the attempt. This is a rather crude way of accessing someoneâs thought processes, but an excerpt from one typical transcript nonetheless vividly demonstrates the futility of the struggle:
Of course, now the only thing Iâm going to think about is a white bear ⦠Donât think