Why “The Secret” Doesn’t Work and Why You Should be Glad it Doesn’t

In 2006, a DVD called The Secret was released. The DVD, which later spawned a book of the same name, purported to reveal the “law of attraction,” a so-called secret teaching that had been handed down through the ages. This secret, which has attracted the interest of Oprah Winfrey, Larry King, and millions of others, claims that there is a “universal intelligence” that will manifest our desires. In other words, our thoughts can create real world events.

The idea that God is a genie ready to respond to our whims is all at once seductive, juvenile, and almost immediately falsifiable. If you doubt the latter, buy a lottery ticket tonight, and see how far “the secret” will get you.

In Disneyland, from 1957 until 1993, there was a ride called the Motor Boat Cruise. You piloted a boat down a waterway. You never hit the rocks or other obstacles because you were not really steering. Sooner or later on the ride you made a wrong, even dangerous, turn; but the boat kept going in the right direction. Nonetheless, it would take children quite a while to realize that they were not steering.

Wayne Liquorman uses this ride as a metaphor for our lives. He asks,

Now, is it not extraordinary, that through this whole process, it never occurs to you, the thought never enters your mind, that this wheel isn’t connected to anything? Despite all the evidence to the contrary! You look at your life, all your intentions, all of the times that you were absolutely certain of what it was that you wanted to do. And then you worked so hard and diligently to do them. And your life went that way. Time and time again, your best efforts did not yield the desired results. And yet you say, “I’m the master of my destiny. I choose what I want to do.” But your wheel isn’t connected to anything! And yet you don’t see it! How is this possible?

I would like to take a stab at answering Wayne’s question, “How is this possible?” Chances are that most readers of this blog have a standard of living that is higher than most people who have ever lived on this planet. More often than not, things have gone reasonably well in our lives. And, as the boat ride story illustrates, it is natural to assume that this is the result of our efforts to control the world and prevent the myriad of unfavorable outcomes that are possible.

The ancients believed that the earth was the center of the universe. We laugh at them and then turn around and place our ego at the center. Desires to control our environment and events are somewhat shared by almost every ego. Let us be glad that reality is not controlled by our egos.

The runaway success of The Secret is predicated on the idea that we understand our own best interests. This idea is clearly absurd when looked at by any perspective other than our ego. To be sure, our ego has its particular view of what our best interests are. But at the top of the ego’s list is the desire that it be perpetuated. The ego wants to make sure that we will never take a good look inside and see that in each of us is another voice that we can listen too. That voice is not dominated by the ego’s petty aims and desires. That voice does not believe that happiness can be achieved by a new car or bigger house. That voice does not believe that God is a genie who will reward us for thinking “good” thoughts.

If you look back with honesty over your life, you can recall many events that—although when they occurred they seemed to be unfortunate—worked in your interest. Similarly, events that at the time they occurred seemed wonderful to you led to unfortunate outcomes further down the road.

Let me suggest an alternative to “The Secret”—become more spiritually receptive. This receptivity begins with interest, not in getting more of what our ego wants, but interest in being the highest expression of who we truly are.

To that end, George Barnard Shaw offered sound advice:

This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being a force of nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy.

The Next Leg Down in the Housing Market Has Begun

This may have happened to you. You are out car shopping and you notice a car that is clearly out of your price range. The automobile salesman comes over and asks if you would like to take it for a test drive. “Oh no,” you say, “I really can’t afford it.” The salesman responds, “what harm is there in a test drive.” Off you go, and you find yourself smitten by the car.

When you return to the dealership, the salesman encourages you to come back to his office and see what can be worked out. He asks you what sort of monthly payment you were looking to make. You respond and then fill out some financial paperwork. You name your payment and, to your surprise, he tells you that you’re qualified to buy the car. How can that be? Against your better judgment, you’re about to agree to a seven-year car loan.

If you express your doubts, the salesman reminds you much pleasure you will get by driving that car and how affordable it really is. The reality, of course, is different. The transitory joy your ego receives by having your fancy, new car is quickly outweighed by your first scratch, then repairs, and years and years of payments. Down the road, you may find that you are still making payments on a car with 100,000 miles.

If you have ever engaged in this foolishness, you probably learned a lesson. You didn’t go crying that you were tricked—you didn’t insist that somebody should bail you out. Your ego may have blamed the salesman for your own irresponsibility, but you had enough common sense to know that your version of events would not be shared by most—most people would laugh at the idea of bailing you out because you were “tricked.”

When it comes to home buying, similar foolishness is no laughing matter. Countless “name your own payment” mortgages were made during the housing bubble. These loans are going into default in increasing numbers. These defaults will result in new downward pressure on housing prices—and it will result in new demands that the government do something about it.

These “name your own payment” housing loans worked in a very similar manner to the “name your own payment” automobile loans. The homebuyer goes house hunting for a house that he clearly cannot afford. The realtor and the mortgage loan broker, playing the role of the automobile salesman, encourage the home buyer to purchase a home that they cannot afford.

Unlike the automobile loan where the term of the loan is extended, in the case of these “name your own payment” house loans there was no extension of term. These loans worked instead on the principle of negative amortization. Each month the homebuyer paid none of the principle and only part of the interest that they would with a conventional loan. The result was that their loan balance was growing each month.

If the homebuyer expressed concern over these insane terms, they were told not to worry. They were comforted that all the experts were forecasting that housing prices would continue to grow at a clip of 20% to 30% a year—the increase in home value would more than offset the negative amortization.

Millions of Americans chose to believe that money could grow on trees. Others were simply motivated by the desire to shelter their family and they were caught up in the housing frenzy.

However, unlike the foolish automobile buyer, many homebuyers have the temerity to expect the rest of us to bailout them out. Worse yet, mortgage banks and hedge funds continue to expect that the Fed will destroy the rest of the economy to save their own skins. Politicians continue to bend over backwoods to promise, in the words of the Wall Street Journal, “to save the guilty and punish the innocent.”

Many of their proposals—besides costing prudent taxpayers incalculable sums of money—will actually exasperate the housing crisis. For example, there are proposals in Congress that will allow bankruptcy courts to modify, or even wipe out, a portion of mortgage debt.

Such proposals, while protecting the imprudent, will make it more difficult for new homebuyers to get loans. Lenders will respond to the increased risk they face in making home loans. How? They will dramatically increasing interest rates. At its worst, housing debt will be treated like credit card debt. How many home buyers will be able to afford homes at interest rates of 22%?

According to the Wall Street Journal, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank wants a homebuyer to be able to “recover all the principal and interest paid over the entire history of the loan—as long as he can convince the court that he didn’t have a reasonable ability to pay at the time the loan was originated.”

If you’re like me, you may have to read that last sentence or two or three times. You may be thinking that no reasonable person could propose such an idea. Why stop at homes? Under such reasoning, imprudent automobile buyers should be able to recover their debt too.

Any market is very difficult to forecast, and I make no claims to having a stellar track record. However, it is very likely that housing prices have only just begun to fall. Bailout attempts will result in a transfer of money from taxpayers to imprudent banks, hedge funds, and homebuyers. The consequences of these bailouts will be more than the money that is transferred—for many, their dream of home ownership will be shattered forever.

The Horrors of Socialized Health Care

Imagine a modern, first-world country where there is such a shortage of dental care that patients are reduced to pulling their own rotting teeth. This country is the United Kingdom—where ordinary citizens encounter primitive and barbaric dental care practices and experience nightmarish ordeals.

You’re probably wondering how can this be? Before we explain, please read one Scottish man’s horrifying account of dental care in Scotland.

As you read the horrors that this Scottish citizen is going through, please remember that this is a national phenomenon he is describing. See for example this news account.

The United Kingdom provides public, socialized dental care. Socialized care creates shortages and reduces both quality and the rate of innovation.

One of the most basic principles of economics is that if you reduce the price of an item or service below its market price, a shortage of that item is created. In health care, we see this phenomenon in the emergency rooms of hospitals. It is commonplace for patients who are not paying for their care to show-up in emergency rooms with illnesses that do not require emergency medical attention and frequently do not require any medical attention at all. You can wait a long time in an emergency room—there is a shortage of emergency room services.

In the United Kingdom, teeth are still routinely filled with poisonous mercury amalgams. To a citizen of the United Kingdom, innovations, like laser dentistry or one-step dental implants, would be possible only in a science fiction story.

As I read accounts of United Kingdom dental care, I felt compassion for those who go without basic necessities. Be it food, shelter, or medical care, there are still too many deprivations all over the world.

The economically illiterate believe these deprivations can be solved with more government involvement. As I read accounts of UK citizens queuing-up for substandard dental care, I remembered accounts of citizens in the former Soviet Union queuing-up for substandard food.

I thought of our own socialized educational system. We usually don’t think of it as socialized—instead, we call it public education. But the same principles operate. We pay through the tax system and then, except if you are fortunate enough to have extra income to buy your child private education, you’re forced to use the public school no matter how low the quality is.

Consider inner-city families whose public school doesn’t even provide a basic level of safety for the children. Telling the parents that they should send their children to private schools is an inconceivable possibility.

Similarly, for poor or middle class United Kingdom citizens, private dental care is just not possible. The gentleman whose account you read earlier is clearly thoughtful and caring. I have exchanged views with him on his blog and on my own. Despite all of the suffering that he is experiencing, he still seems to believe that the failures of socialized care are due to to failures in implementation. He does not see that the failure of socialized care is due to a faulty concept.

This is not unlike the former Soviet Union, where the answer to their food problems was always a new five-year plan. It is not unlike the United States, where the answer for the failures of the public schools is always seen to be more money.

In this rush toward socialized services, many imagine that they will get top-notch care while paying less than they do right now. Nothing is further from the truth. For most, the “price” will go up in many ways—new taxes to fund a new healthcare bureaucracy, shortages of services, stagnation of innovation, and reduced quality of care.

Kazakhstan’s “Glorious” Neighbor Kyrgyzstan

In his movie Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, comedian Sacha Baron Cohen plays a fictional television journalist from Kazakhstan touring and reporting from America.

Borat has a crush on actress Pamela Anderson. In the movie Borat drives to California to meet his “love.” Near the end of the movie, Borat tries to kidnap Anderson by throwing her in a “traditional Kazakhstan wedding sack.”

If only this was just a silly story. Unfortunately, it is more than that. Kazakhstan is in an area of the world that Richard Maybury has called Chaostan. Maybury explains that because of their lack of respect for basic human and economic rights, the area is a source of conflict and strife.

One of the countries that borders Kazakhstan is Kyrgyzstan. Each year, in a scene right from Borat, more than half of Kyrgyzstan’s new brides are kidnapped on the street by their husbands in a custom known as ala kachuu. Roughly translated, this means “grab and run.”

According to the New York Times, Kyrgyz men “say they snatch women because it is easier than courtship and cheaper than paying the standard ‘bride price,’ which can be as much as $800 plus a cow.”

The custom, according to the Times, is respected, encouraged, and perceived as practical. “Every good marriage begins in tears,” a Kyrgyz saying goes.

The interesting thing about this custom is that it is widely practiced and accepted. The men who engage in it are looked upon as fulfilling their manly obligations.

If you told the average citizen of Kyrgyzstan that they were violating human rights in a primitive and barbaric way, they would be insulted and puzzled.

Of course, the people of Kyrgyzstan want the same things we do; they want a happy and prosperous life for themselves and their children. They just have no idea of the principles that help a people realize a peaceful and prosperous society.

Kyrgz customs are centuries old. Ala kachuu is illegal, but the law is not enforced because there is no societal will that the law be enforced. The culture of a nation takes generations to change.

Private commercial transactions between American and Kyrgz citizens expose Kyrgyzstan to another way of living and help to end repression. In contrast, political alliances help to support repressive regimes. The United States, for strategic reasons, keeps a military base in Kyrgyzstan and lends political support to a regime that violates basic stated values of our own country.

As for the future; we can see it all too well. The CIA has a name for the consequences of our foreign policies that prop up repressive regimes—they call it blowback. Blowback occurs when the citizens of a country perceive, either correctly or incorrectly, that one of the sources of their repression is the United States.

There is no cure for blowback. There is only a prescription for prevention: Stay away from alliances with countries that do not share our values.

Senator Kennedy Helps to Teach Why Health Care Costs Are So High

America seems to moving inexorably towards more government involvement in our heath care system. Last week, Senator Ted Kennedy provided a graphic example of one reason why health care costs are so high—and are bound to go even higher with more government involvement.

Last Friday morning, Kennedy had surgery to clear a blocked artery in his neck. By that same afternoon, the Senator’s surgeon, Dr. Richard Cambria was holding a press conference to explain that Kennedy had a “very high-grade blockage” in the artery and that “the senator (was) eating ice cream and drinking ginger ale.”

Dr. Larry Ronan, Kennedy’s personal physician said, “his overall health is excellent” and “his diet is very, very good.”

Clearly, Dr. Ronan is either a hired enabler, or he knows nothing about nutrition. Does his description of Kennedy fit that of someone who has emergency surgery for a blocked artery, who is overweight, and who has a drinking problem? More than that, is it responsible behavior to be eating ice cream immediately after surgery for a condition at least partially caused by eating too much fat?

But why, you might ask, is that our business? Why single out Ted Kennedy? After all millions of Americans have had heart and/or arterial surgeries created by poor diets, and a sizeable percentage go right back to eating the same poor diet.

Indeed, that is precisely the point. Senator Kennedy is just a very visible example of a larger problem.

Suppose your homeowner’s insurance covered everything in your home. By everything I mean painting your home, changing light bulbs, buying new appliances if the old ones broke, etc. If this was the case, how much preventive maintenance would the average homeowner devote to their home? The answer is, of course, much less than they do right now. Why? If homeowner’s insurance covered everything, they would have no incentive to invest in preventive maintenance. They would not have to pay for the consequences of their lack of preventive maintenance.

Similarly, how much preventive maintenance would the average automobile owner devote to their car if their automobile insurance paid for any problem? If automobile insurance paid for new tires, how often would you rotate your tires? If insurance paid for a new transmission, how diligent would you be in changing the transmission fluid?

Our current health care system has created a crisis where many Americans take almost no responsibility for their health. They understand very little about the functioning of their own body, they know little about the basics of good nutrition, and they do not engage in responsible exercise habits. They are full of excuses for their lack of responsibility. And as with Kennedy’s Dr. Ronan, our health care institutions help to enable these poor choices.

I feel some discomfort as I write this post. Some are dealt a difficult hand in life, one they did not necessarily create through choices they made. We have a genetic makeup, we are born into a certain family at a certain time, and events occur that are not under our control. In other words, no matter how conscientious we are about health maintenance, there are no guarantees in life. There is no perfect program that will guarantee that you will not have a health problem. Yet, taking responsibility for your health means that you maintain a sense of possibility that your choices can make a difference.

I have no problem with an owner of a car who never changes their oil and needs a new engine at 30,000 miles. That situation is literally none of my business; no one has asked me to pay for that owner’s folly. Indeed, we have not heard of a crisis in automobile repairs; nobody is calling for more government involvement. Bearing the consequences of your behavior creates powerful incentives to engage in responsible behavior.

I have raised more questions than I have answered. As I mentioned, in spite of exemplary behavior, most of us will have health issues in our life. Yet, poor diets, lack of exercise, and morbid obesity all have serious consequences for our health. In an earlier blog post, I pointed out the role of the AMA in raising health-care costs. Now, our own behavior in raising costs cannot be ignored.

Taxol Doesn’t Work For Most: Why the War on Cancer Can’t Be Won

According to new research published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, the very “widely used chemotherapy drug Taxol does not work for the most common form of breast cancer and helps far fewer patients than has been believed.” See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225760 for more details.

Like all chemotherapy drugs, Taxol has common side effects; it frequently causes neurological symptoms, including numbness in extremities.

It looks like Taxol is another sad chapter in the decades-old war on cancer. The “war” was declared by President Nixon in 1971.

In 2004 Clifton Leaf wrote an essay in Fortune “Why We’re Losing The War On Cancer.” Even after making age adjustments for the population, Leaf reports that, “the percentage of Americans dying from cancer is about the same as in 1970 … and in 1950. The figures are all the more jarring when compared with those for heart disease and stroke–other ailments that strike mostly older Americans. Age-adjusted death rates for those diseases have been slashed by an extraordinary 59% and 69%, respectively, during the same half-century.”

Apart from dramatic increases in survival rates for a few less common forms of cancer, five-year survival rates have hardly changed since the war on cancer was declared. The truth about five-year cancer survival rates is that, where there are improvements, many of the improvements are a function of earlier diagnosis. Leaf writes “when you break down the Big Four cancers (lung, colon and rectal, breast, and prostate) by stage—that is, how far the malignant cells have spread—long-term survival for advanced cancer has barely budged since the 1970s.”

Can this be? There is constant hype about the latest “miracle” cancer treatment or drug. As in the case of Taxol, frequently this hype turns out to be unwarranted. Yet, many in the public believe that the only thing that stands in the way of a cure for cancer is more government funding for cancer research.

Due to the nature of government funding, much of the money has been and will continue to be wasted. Leaf writes of “a dysfunctional ‘cancer culture’—a groupthink that pushes tens of thousands of physicians and scientists toward the goal of finding the tiniest improvements in treatment rather than genuine breakthroughs; that fosters isolated (and redundant) problem solving instead of cooperation; and rewards academic achievement and publication over all else.”

Yet, as Tom Bethell points out, these conditions—created by government funding—are the opposite of conditions that foster scientific progress. Bethell writes that “a competition of theories has been the driving force behind scientific progress…Just as a competitive market system forces innovation into private enterprise, so the competition of theories drive science to investigate new approaches.”

Consider for instance the computer industry. Every year there is a wide range of new software and new hardware that entrepreneurs seek to sell. In a competitive market, only some of these products are successful. Is this wasteful? Hardly! It is only through the process of competition itself that we discover which software and hardware products best serve the consumer. Without this process of competition, there is no way for the industry to advance.

Many new products challenge dominant ideas. When Amazon was first conceived, almost all experts predicted they would go out of business very quickly. Instead, Amazon changed the internet as we know it.

Government does not like to fund competitive and radical theories. Instead of promoting trial and error and investing in a wide range of ideas, government agencies form peer review committees that by their nature are conservative and tend to invest only in status quo ideas. Leaf observes that cancer “research has become increasingly narrow, so much so that physician-scientists who want to think systemically about cancer or the organism as a whole—or who might have completely new approaches—often can’t get funding.”

It is very likely that major breakthroughs in treating and preventing cancer will continue to lag—as long as the major source of funding is government or charities that closely cooperate with government. As Bethel points out, “the committees at the National Institutes of Health that decide which projects shall be funded are inevitably run by scientists who are at peace with the dominant theory.”

Clearly the numbers say that the dominant theory is wrong; it is time for a change.

Derek Jeter’s Leadership Meltdown

Success in baseball, as in all sports, is not just about ability; as importantly, it is a function of mental toughness. Derek Jeter, the great Yankee shortstop, has exhibited that mental toughness many times, but he has never exhibited great leadership ability. Friday night, during the Indians vs. Yankees playoff game, his failure to lead may have cost the Yankees the game.

The type of mental toughness that I am talking about is exhibited by someone who practices hard, but then is quiet and focused during the game.

During the game, such a player is in what is called the “zone.” The “zone” is characterized by the absence of mental chatter. Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi uses the term “flow” for being in the “zone.” He explains that flow is “being completely involved in an activity for its own sake. The ego falls away. Time flies. Every action, movement, and thought follows inevitably from the previous one, like playing jazz. Your whole being is involved, and you’re using your skills to the utmost.”

Bill Russell, the legendary center for the Boston Celtics described how it felt when he was in the “zone”: “I could almost sense where the next play would develop and where the next shot would be taken, I could feel it so keenly that I’d want to shout to my teammates, ‘It’s coming there!’ except that I knew that everything would change if I did.”

Back to Jeter. In 2003, Jeter was named the Yankees’ captain—only the 11^th player in history to hold that storied post. Despite his post, reports persist about Jeter’s inability to get along with teammate Alex Rodriguez.

Friday night the Yankees were ahead 1-0. Their rookie sensation Joba Chamberlain was on the mound. Almost out of nowhere, Jacobs Field was infested with seemingly millions of bugs called Canadian Soldiers. These bugs are a nuisance, but they do not bite.

Chamberlain was clearly rattled. The Yankees trainer repeatedly came out of the dugout to spray him with bug spray. Rather than helping the situation, the bug spray seemed to provide a sticky surface; the bugs landed and stuck to Chamberlain.

Where was Jeter during these repeated stoppages of play? Was he talking to his rookie pitcher and helping him get back into that inner flow that is so necessary for success?

No, Jeter was busy spraying himself. As New York Times correspondent Joe Lapointe writes, Jeter “constantly waved his hands in front of his face and to the sides of his head. He brushed the front of his uniform shirt rapidly and repeatedly. He looked like a third-base coach giving signals on video tape fast-forwarded.”

Again, these were not biting bugs. They were a nuisance. My family and I once sat on top of a mountain and ate lunch while surrounded by these bugs. I’m not telling you it is pleasant, but I can report that the battle of the bugs is a game to be won only in the mind. I would expect a rookie to be distracted; but I would not expect the captain of the Yankees to be. And I would expect him to put the needs of the team before his own need to spray himself.

A leader “shows the way by going first.” On Friday night, Jeter failed to remind himself that the real distraction was in his mind and not in the world. Returning to the “zone” he could have helped others return too.

I am not advocating a mindless exhortation that simply tells someone to buck up and not be bothered. If you believe something external is having an effect, exhortation will only go so far.

Instead, a leader demonstrates a deep and profound understanding of their ability—and the ability of others—to make another choice. First, by making their own choice, they provide a living example for others. Then, sometimes, a gentle reminder of the choice to be made is necessary. If this is done with respect for the person who is having a hard time, often there is immediate relief.

Friday night, Jeter did neither. He was of no help to the rookie Chamberlain. It is a mystery to some why talented teams sometimes do not succeed. Often it is a simple failure of leadership.

After the Ban on Children’s Cold Medicine: What You Can Do

Last week Food and Drug Administration (FDA) experts recommended that all infant cough and cold products be removed from the market. The New York Time reports that the ban would apply to hundreds of popular medicines such as Toddler’s Dimetapp and Triaminic Infant. The ban would apply to the use of decongestants for children under the age of two, and the use of antihistamines for children under the age of six.

If you are a parent, first realize that if the ban goes through, you are not giving up anything of value. These products only suppress symptoms; they do not cure coughs or colds. The ban has been proposed because these products can have serious side effects. Over 100 deaths of children have been attributed to these drugs.

According to Linda White, M.D., although these drugs do make children drowsy, they have little effect on cold symptoms. Even when they had a little effect, they only suppress symptoms. They do not allow the body to restore health, so they are not desirable to use.

When you suppress symptoms, you set up a potential rebound effect: The illness is temporarily suppressed and then returns with increased severity at a later date. The mucus that should be eliminated during a cold is helping to cleanse the body. Indeed, infected secretions urgently need to be expelled rather than dried up by antihistamines.

It is important to have respect for the body’s capacity to heal and to have tolerance that the process may take a few days. The few days may be a good opportunity for you and your child to slow down. Most colds do not require consultation with a physician.

Realize too that this is an opportunity to get reacquainted with traditional remedies that will help relieve your child’s discomfort. These remedies include steam vaporizers and steaming bowls of home made soup. For safety, if you use a steam vaporizer, be sure it is safely out of the reach of your child.

Begin to rely more on preventative care and less on trying to fix health problems after they arise. No matter what you do, your child will catch colds; but there are steps that you can take to decrease both their frequency and severity. These steps include:

• Reducing the use of sugar. Sugar suppresses the immunological system. According to U.S. News and World Report, in one year, the average American consumes approximately 142 pounds of sugar and another 61 pounds of high fructose corn syrup. Some of this is consumed in the form of soda of which the average American drinks 52 gallons per year. In the same year, the average American eats only 8 pounds of broccoli. Here then is one small step to improve your family’s health—work toward having your family’s consumption of broccoli exceed their consumption of sugar.
• Reducing the consumption of diary products, especially milk. Diary products produce mucus. Americans have been hypnotized to believe that their children can’t grow up healthy and strong if they don’t drink cow’s milk. Cow’s milk is indeed a perfect food if you are a calf. There are foods other than milk that are rich in calcium and other nutrients. In order to increase calcium consumption, as well as many other vital nutrients, eat more green vegetables from the crucifer family. These vegetables include broccoli, kale, cabbage, cauliflower, collard greens, and mustard greens.
• Drinking more water. Soda, milk, juice, etc. are not substitutes for water. Some physicians, including the late Fereydoon Batmanghelidj, believe that chronic dehydration is a major factor contributing to many illnesses. There is no substitute for plain water.

You may be thinking, “This will take too much time. My child will complain.” Indeed it does take more time—but see it as an investment in both the health of your child and in a more balanced family life style. You will be teaching your child healthy habits that can last a lifetime.

The Ultimate Secret of Delivering a Memorable Presentation

This is the third of a three part series. In the first post in this series on delivering effective presentations, I examined why you have to put your audience before your ego’s concerns. In the second post, I examined why scripting your presentation is a terrible idea.

Scripting is a sign that you do not trust your Self or your audience. By definition, you have separated yourself from both. No matter how many times you practice your presentation, separating yourself from the audience is a fearful place in which to be. In this final part of my series, I examine the issue of separation.

As long as you believe you are separate from your audience, you will not be fully responsive to what the moment asks of you. Once you understand the illusion of separateness, you will be able to connect with your audience on the deepest possible level. This connection is forged when you are prepared to speak in an authentic and genuine way.

The approach that I will explain does not depend on positive thinking—such as thinking that your audience wants you to do well. Although this is usually true, it is not always the case for everyone sitting in the room. In any case, positive thinking will only partially mask, but not remove, your fear.

The approach that I am suggesting does not depend upon convincing yourself that the audience is no better, or even worse, than you. This premise seems to be what is behind the poor advice that you should “picture your audience naked.”

The more profound way to remove fear and to relax is to forge a deep relationship with your audience. Grady Jim Robinson put it this way: “A speaker does not walk to a microphone and give a speech. The speaker ignites an event within a context of relationships.”

There is literally nothing to fear; what we fear is in our minds. Can a wave be frightened of the ocean? Can a leaf be frightened of the tree? These are absurd questions. But once we understand that the essential nature of human beings is that they too are part of a whole, than it is equally absurd to ask the question, “Can a speaker be frightened of his audience?”

Physicist David Bohm calls this whole, with which we are all connected, the “implicate order” where “everything is enfolded into everything.” Bohm’s work has very practical implications. Although our physical senses tell us that we are separate bodies and separate minds, on a deeper level, our physical reality is fundamentally illusory. We are connected to all of life and not separate from it.

Each wave is fundamentally connected to the ocean. It is made of the same substance and it is not separate from it. If the wave had consciousness and saw itself as separate, from our vantage point, we would laugh at the wave.

Albert Einstein observed that our belief in separateness creates an illusory prison from which we must free ourselves:

A human being is part of the whole, called by us ‘universe’, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affections for few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison.

Human beings have the gift of consciousness. We sometimes don’t use it wisely. We walk into the room to give our presentation and we notice the individual who is slumped in his chair in boredom. We can choose to feel separated and annoyed, or we can choose to laugh at our thinking and drop it.

How about the person in the audience who is talking to his neighbor? How about the hostile questioner? These too are opportunities to feel separate or opportunities to recognize our illusion. In front of us, our audience is a slice of humanity. They have gifts and foibles not unlike our own. We are just seeing ourselves reflected in their faces. Once you understand this, a big inward smile will wash over you, and tension will vanish.

It has been said that a great speaker could read the phone book to an audience and be successful. What is meant by this is that there exists in the speaker a connection to the whole that is so vibrant and strong that their mere presence helps others make the same connection. It is this profound connection to their audience that is the real secret of their success.

All human beings are yearning to remember that Wholeness is reality and separateness is an illusion. When you remember that you are not separate, you help your audience remember, and you connect with them on the deepest possible level.

There is no need to strain, there is no need to impress, and there is no need to resist anything in the moment. You are just meeting yourself. When you remember this truth, you are allowing the audience to participate with you on the deepest level. Your audience will reciprocate. They will connect with you, with your authenticity, and with your message.