"...Ultimately goals can't protect us from ourselves."

I'm from the school of thought that finds goals essential to life. From everyday to-do lists to Five Year Plans, I've always considered goal setting to be a crucial piece of success. If you're not working towards something, then what's the point?

I came across Ready aim... fail: Why setting goals can backfire while perusing the Boston Globe website, or Boston.com. The Ideas section of the Sunday Globe always has some really interesting pieces, but I thought it best to cancel my subscription a few months ago because the mere existence of newspaper in my apartment was a major point of contention for my roommate. Oh well.

Anyway--goals. This article explores the idea that goals are not always the profound agents of motivation and productivity that they are always purported to be. In fact, some goals are very destructive and bad.

For example, take the "notoriously combustible" Ford Pinto. Stop laughing, this is serious!

In the late 1960s, Ford CEO Lee Iacocca, determined to take back the market share the company was losing to smaller imports, announced a crash program to create a new car that would be under 2,000 pounds, under $2,000, and would go on sale in 1970. Desperate to meet the conditions and the deadline, company executives ignored and then played down questions about the safety of the car's design. As a result, the Pinto, with a fuel tank just behind the rear axle, was uniquely prone to igniting upon impact, and 53 people died in such fires.

Clearly, putting a fuel tank in the rear of a car is hardly a good idea considering the high number of rear end collisions that occur EVERYDAY. Cars are not supposed to immediately ignite upon impact, unless you live in the movie Speed, or some equally explosive action film.

But who in the Ford corp voice their concern? Who halted production? Apparently, nobody. Executives at Ford were so goal-crazed that they opted to forgo reinforcing the rear end (at a cost of $121 million) because the projected payout to victims was less ($50 million). See The Ford Pinto Case: A Study in Applied Ethics, Business and Technology if you want to get the full story.

The Pinto catastrophe is a super extreme example of goals gone awry and exemplifies the evil-ish nature that lurks beneath the corporate surface of such things as "cost analyses" and other business tools I only vaguely understand. Now, how does this model of corporate greed relate to individual goal setting?

A professor at the University of Toronto is quoted as saying, "You know how Shakespeare wrote that the fault is not in our stars but in ourselves? Well, the fault is not in our goals but in our values."

Hmm... looking at goals as a reflection of our values, eh? That is an interesting way of thinking about it. This is probably an exercise that few people consciously engage in, but seems like a good way to check in with yourself and make sure you don't value Greed, Gluttony or any of the other Deadly Sins. Here is a possible dialogue to get started:

"Hey self! How u been?"
"Oh not too bad. And you?"
"Well thanks for asking! I've been alright, although that blueberry muffin I ate yesterday was sort of nasty. I might be off muffins for awhile."
"Really? I didn't think it was too bad. Maybe below-average for a muffin, but still edible."
"Yeah, well maybe you should raise your muffin standards. Hey, by the way, what are my goals?"
"Oh you know...." *Thoughtful consideration of various goals*
"Great! Now what things do I value that made me select these goals?"
"Wow, that's a toughie! I'd say..." *Thoughtful consideration of values*

End.

The Globe article doesn't go into the details of personal goal setting too much, but I think the lesson learned from Ford, Enron and possibly our entire banking system is this: Set goals, but be sure to re-evaluate them from time to time to make sure your efforts are going towards a reasonable, worthy cause. It seems like the re-evaluation part becomes increasingly important as you work to attain "life goals".

But really, what do I know? I wouldn't consider myself the poster child for goal setting in any capacity. My latest goal (which was conceived this morning) is to write a screenplay for the Juno-ish version of this movie, which frankly, looks awful but is a good concept. I expect Fox Searchlight will buy it for $5 million, at which point I will quit my temp job and move to Mexico (post-Swine Flu). At quarterly intervals, I will fly my friends and family down to visit me so they can learn Spanish, eat the most delicious food in existence, and get sunburned.

Huh. It sounds like it has Pinto potential. Maybe I'll only ask for $1.5 million, so I have to stay domestic. We'll see.

FYI: "The Measure of America"

Madeline Drexler's op-ed in today's Boston Globe, The need to combine social and health policy, discusses a report by the Social Science Research Council called "The Measure of America". At $24.95, I was not about to order and read the entire thing, but information about the report can be found here.

Drexler explains that "The Measure of America" applies the United Nations human development model to the United States, which until now had never been done before... and for good reason. The results are less than flattering. Drexler says,

Underscoring how far we lag in our promise, the report documented how the roughly $5.2 billion we spend every day on healthcare yields a pitiable return on investment. For example, US life expectancy ranks below that of Chile, Costa Rica, and nearly every European and Nordic country. The US infant mortality rate is on par with that of Croatia, Cuba, Estonia, and Poland. Within the United States, stark health inequities persist along socioeconomic and racial/ethnic lines.

Yikes.
Drexler goes on to explain how most of the countries ranking above the USA provide universal health care, weighing the health consequences of policies in "taxation, business development, transportation, housing, agriculture, and so on". She considers a lack of health care the primary reason for the disparities.

The op-ed ends with this quote:

As Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, told me during the group's annual meeting last month: "I would love Barack Obama to declare that he wants America to be the healthiest nation in the world - in a generation. Americans need to rally around the idea of grappling not only with healthcare, but with health."

Interesting point. Right now the health care industry is exactly that--an industry. As in, for profit. When you consider in that way, its no wonder that our national health sucks.

Last thing--Along with "The Measure of America" report, the website offers some "Tools" to play around with. One is called the Well-O-Meter. The introduction says,

The formula used to calculate the American HD Index for large population groups cannot be used for individuals. However, you can get a general sense of your own human development level by using our well-o-meter.

I answered the 25 questions, but the results mean very little to me. If you can't use the test for individuals, why are they using it for individuals? It makes no sense.

Improved mental health in only 2 minutes!

Psychological studies have demonstrated that expressive writing, or "writing therapy", can have positive effects on a number of mental and biological disorders. This kind of therapy offers curious insight into the relationship between mental and biological health.

While expressive writing is know to help to sort through emotions and improve optimism, it has also been found to increase immune function, accelerate recovery from illness and decrease the severity of asthma and arthritis symptoms.

But how much expressive writing is necessary to reap the benefits? Do I have to compose a memoir after a crap day to feel better? If that's the case, then I'd rather watch Office re-runs for the 432nd time with a pitcher of gin & tonics.

Fortunately, a new study suggests that you can achieve results in as little as 120 seconds a day! That's right... just TWO minutes!

The study, mentioned in the Boston Globe's Sunday column Uncommon Knowledge: Surprising insights from the social sciences, explored the lower boundary necessary to garner the health benefits of written emotional expression.

College students were given just two minutes on two consecutive days to write about a traumatic experience, a positive experience, or a prosaic topic. A month later, the students were asked to report symptoms of ill health. Students who had written about emotionally charged experiences -either positive or negative - reported fewer health complaints than the others.

Personally, I don't think these results are that surprising. Anyone who has done any journaling or similar activity knows that you don't have to re-cap the events of your ENTIRE day in order to feel better.

Sometimes I have sat down to write when I am particularly upset and I end up just scribbling a few sentences that would seem incoherent to the average reader. Then I get distracted and move on with my life. In college, when classmates would say obnoxious or strange things during a discussion, I learned to write them in my notes with a little "WTF?!" next to it so I could make fun of it later, and save my attention for the issues at hand.

So! Consider writing down your thoughts if you need to get something off your chest. Sure, its easier to talk about a stressful situation if you've got someone around to listen, but I think its also important to take a little time to be quiet and introspective. It might be good to practice in the event that there isn't anyone around to yell at.

*Disclaimer: It should also be noted that writing therapy does not benefit everyone, particularly sufferers of PTSD. You should seek medical attention if you suspect you are at risk!