Don McMinn

Oh that the gods, the gift would give us, to see ourselves, as others see us. Robert Burns, Scottish poet 

I enjoy select Latin and Greek words and phrases because they say a lot in few syllables. They’re even more condensed and succinct than poetry. Here’s a term I recently learned that’s provided food for thought: ekstasis. 

From the Ancient Greek, έκ-στασις (ex-stasis), it means to be or stand outside (from ex-: out, and stasis: stand). In philosophy it means being outside of oneself—to see oneself from the outside. To be self-aware.

Self-awareness is an indispensable skill for developing emotional and social intelligence. Without it we are unaware of how our lives affect other people. 

One way to see ourselves as others see us is to have trusted friends who will honestly and candidly tell us what they observe about our behavior in social settings. 

But we should also develop the skill of self-observation. Let’s learn how to have an out-of-body experience in which we’re observing ourselves in particular situations with the same objectivity that an uninvolved bystander would have. We then “hear” what and how we’re speaking. We “see” ourselves in the context of time and space, observing ourselves from a factual, nonemotional perspective. When we get “outside of ourselves” we’re able to see ourselves more clearly.

• Recently, I was unkind to a Firestone service advisor because I thought he was being unreasonable. Later that day, I mentally went “ekstasis” and tried to visualize what that scene must have looked like to others who were present. I was embarrassed at what I “saw.” 
• Recently, I took the time to visit with a member of our custodial staff at the church. We had a good conversation in the hallway. I later heard that those few minutes meant a lot to him. I had been unaware of how my words encouraged him so much. Later, a moment of ekstasis helped me understand the positive impact of spending a few minutes with someone who is outside my normal sphere. 

Action item — Think of a time in the recent past when “going ekstasis” would have helped inform and temper your behavior. 

Discussion question — How could this skill be taught to other people? To children?

In religious art, saints are often portrayed with halos, and the devil and demons have horns. Through the years, these contrived images have worked: when we see a halo, bathed in heavenly light, we think that the figure is good and pious; horns suggest the opposite. 

Psychologists use these two symbols to illustrate an interesting phenomenon we often fall prey too. The halo and horn effects are cognitive biases that cause us to allow one trait, either good (halo) or bad (horn), to overshadow other traits, behaviors, actions, or beliefs.

We tend to create an overall impression of someone or something based on one, unrelated trait. This bias can cause us to think too highly of someone or something (halo effect) and cause us to think poorly of someone or something (horn effect) because of a single characteristic or trait.

The halo and horn effects bias our assessment of people.

• We may assume (wrongly) that physically attractive people are more informed, intelligent, or competent. 
• We may think someone who is disheveled and untidy is struggling in life and lacks acumen.
• We may think someone with a complicated-sounding name—Stephan Lewandowski—is more debonair than someone named John Smith. 
• Someone who is winsome and engaging may be thought to be insightful or competent. 
• One research study found that jurors were less likely to believe that attractive people were guilty of criminal behavior. 

The halo and horn effects will prejudice our thinking in other areas of life.

• A car dealer will place its fanciest car in the middle of the showroom (fully realizing that the average buyer cannot afford it) because it enhances what customers think of the other models.
• A restaurant will list a $900 bottle of 2014 Penfolds Grange wine on their menu, (knowing that no one will probably buy it) because having it on the list makes customers think more highly of the entire restaurant. (I often wonder, do they even have a bottle of that wine? Perhaps they did, and sold it, but continue to list it.) 
• A law firm will maintain high-dollar offices to perpetuate the appearance of success and expertise. (I wonder who is paying for those fancy offices. Hint: you, the client.) I thought we paid attorneys for their wisdom and experience, so why be swayed by mahogany desks on the 20th floor of a downtown office building? 
• When consumers have an unfavorable experience, they may allow that one negative experience to influence what they think of the entire brand. (When eating at a restaurant, if the bathroom needs servicing, I may unfairly dismiss the entire restaurant even though all other factors are good.)

How can we guard against these unproductive and misleading tendencies?

1. Think holistically. A comprehensive approach recognizes that there are many parts to a whole entity and that the whole should not be judged on one part. One characteristic cannot adequately or fairly define an entire entity. 
2. Be skeptical of advertising and marketing because they often intentionally use the halo effect to promote a product and the horn effect to demean the competition.  

Action item — Identify situations in which you have been tricked by the halo and horn effects.

Discussion question — How can we develop an immunity to these two biases?

I have a friend who thinks clearly and is very organized, competent, and productive. Amazingly so. These are commendable strengths; but sometimes these strengths cause stress in his relationships. His view of the world is so tight that he’s often impatient with people and vague processes. He’ll comment on the tiniest departure from his ideal. Mistakes are unacceptable. At home and work, perfection is the standard. While his strengths are notable, they come with drawbacks.

The principle I want to discuss is: Strengths often have an inherent downside; the advantage they bring is accompanied by a disadvantage. Most strengths have a corresponding weakness.  

A similar challenge exists with virtues. Every virtue must be balanced by another, different virtue or it can get out of balance. The Stoic philosophers had a term for this—anacoluthia—the mutual entailment of the virtues; no virtue is a virtue by itself. For instance, notice how each of these virtues needs to be balanced by another virtue: confidence/humility, caution/boldness, patience/urgency, passion/detachment, openness/discretion, generosity/thriftiness, self-control/spontaneity. 

Perhaps you are:

• Confident but lack humility.
• Generous, to a fault. 
• Cautious, but stymied by passivity.
• Logical but often emotionally insensitive.

Sometimes we have difficulty seeing where we’re out of balance. Ask your spouse or friends to list your strengths and corresponding weaknesses. 

Here are some practical applications of this discussion:

1. While functioning in your strength, be careful to avoid the corresponding weakness.
2. Affirm other people’s strengths and extend grace to them relative to their weaknesses. 
3. I’m not suggesting that you disavow your strengths or sideline your strengths until you  eliminate the corresponding weaknesses. Just being aware of the weaknesses will be helpful. 
4. Affirm other people’s strengths and, when appropriate, rely on them to compensate for your weaknesses.

Action item — List your strengths. Then write down weaknesses that may be inexorably linked to those strengths.

Discussion question — Can a weakness that accompanies a strength be totally eliminated or just tempered?

The December 8, 2020 edition of The New York Times included this article:

Blunders Eroded U.S. Confidence in Early Vaccine Front-Runner — The Oxford-AstraZeneca effort held great promise to help arrest the pandemic. But a series of miscues caused it to fall behind in the U.S.

“On the afternoon of September 8, AstraZeneca officials had a conference call with the Food and Drug Administration. The discussion covered important ground: What would AstraZeneca need to do to win the F.D.A.’s blessing for the coronavirus vaccine it was developing with the University of Oxford?

“But the AstraZeneca representatives neglected to mention a crucial development: Two days earlier, the company had quietly halted trials of its vaccine around the world, including a late-stage study in the United States. It acted after a participant in Britain fell ill.

“A few hours after the conference call, the story broke about the halted trials. That was how key F.D.A. officials heard the news, according to people with knowledge of the discussions.

“The F.D.A.’s commissioner, Dr. Stephen Hahn, was stunned by AstraZeneca’s failure to disclose the halt to regulators, one of the people said. The U.S. government had pledged more than $1 billion to AstraZeneca to finance the development and manufacturing of its vaccine and to supply the United States with 300 million doses if it proved effective. F.D.A. regulators expected to be kept in the loop.”

 [Click here to read the entire article.]

AstraZeneca’s lack of transparency impeded its effort to get FDA approval of their vaccine. The company had anticipated providing 60 percent of the vaccines in the U.S. It was a costly mistake. Why were they not forthcoming about the problem in their research? Did they think they could get away with it?

The term “full disclosure” is primarily used in the area of finance. It is an accounting principle that requires management to report all relevant information about the company’s operations to creditors and investors in its financial statements. It ensures that the readers and users of a company’s financial information are not mislead by lack of information.

The term can be used more broadly to include the importance of fully disclosing all relevant facts to any individual or group making a decision.

On a personal level, we should be thoroughly honest and transparent in our relationships and business dealings.

• I once counseled a recently married couple. The husband had not told his wife that he was bringing $50,000 of credit card debt into the marriage.  
• When applying for a job, an applicant intentionally omitted pertinent information on her resume.
• An individual sold his car to another person, intentionally hiding the fact that the car had major mechanical problems.

Full disclosure should be our default setting.

Of course, there’s a balance to achieve. There’s no need to bother people with irrelevant information, and discretion should inform how much information is shared. But be transparent and thorough in sharing all relevant and necessary information.

Action item — Evaluate your personal level of disclosure. Do you tend to be too selective in what you share, or do you practice appropriate disclosure? Also evaluate your organization. 

Discussion question — Is there ever a time when full acknowledgment is inappropriate?