The "feel good" pattern

by Richard L. Weaver II

You hear about the “feel good” pattern, and you read about it over and over again — although it is seldom labeled. Here, Michael Kinsley writes about it in the final Time essay (August 11, 2008), “[Bill] Gates founded Microsoft and ran it with legendary single-mindedness for three decades. There was not a lot of energy devoted to lifting up the world’s poor. Now, having squeezed every drop out of capitalism, he is going to devote almost all his time and fortune to improving the state of the world. Even the skeptics tend to agree that the results of that redirected single-mindedness could be awesome” (p. 68).

I was talking with a friend of mine who is an environmentalist and works for a company in Texas that is concentrating on protecting some of the fish in the Gulf of Mexico — at least in that body of water that touches the eastern portion of that state. He said that it takes the cooperation of a wide variety of entities, and the goal of the corporation for which he works is to try to bring all those entities — government as well as businesses — together. But the key, he said, is getting businesses to a point where they want to become good stewards of the environment.

One aspect or arm of his corporation is to help businesses become healthy, i.e., financially stable, because only when a company achieves that status (the “feel good” pattern) does it have any interest in environmental concerns.

What I’m suggesting in this essay is that this is a universal pattern — I’ve often referred to it as “life’s template” — that applies in a wide variety of circumstances. If you look at Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs the “feel good” pattern is well illustrated. If you recall, at the bottom of his pyramid are physiological needs, and if our basic need for food, water, sleep, and physical comfort are not satisfied, needs that appear higher in the pyramid are unlikely to be filled. The next step includes safety needs, and those include stability, our freedom from violence and disease, as well as our security. This, too, includes our need for structure and order and, to create and maintain that structure and order, law.

Belongingness and love needs, at the next step, include our need for friendship, love, and affection, and at the step next to the top of Maslow’s pyramid, self-esteem needs include our need for recognition, respect from others, as well as self-respect.

The point of this essay is that the true “feel good” needs occur at the very top of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. They are self-actualization needs, and they include genuine fulfillment and the realization of your potential. You only reach that level — that true “feel good” plane — once the needs below are satisfied. It isn’t that you can’t feel good before achieving the top level; it is, indeed, that the ultimate “feel good” attitude or orientation is obtained after the lower needs in the hierarchy are filled — then, through self-actualization.

You can see the “feel good” pattern revealed, too, in the relationship between self-development and relationships. I have taught for years that “you need to get your own house in order before inviting anyone over.” What that means is simply, you need to engage in some serious self-concept construction before deciding to take on a relationship — especially a serious one. When you have problems with self-confidence, assertiveness, self-reliance or with your own identity, character, and state of mind, it is no time to bring a serious relationship partner into your life. There are enough problems when two people are working with each other, trying to develop or sustain a relationship, and solving conflicts and resolving difficulties, that adding to those circumstances the weak or deficient ego of one of the partners doesn’t just complicate things, it has the potential of destroying everything! It is like adding a foreign ingredient, like cement, to a cake recipe. You may not notice it immediately, but the cake is destroyed.

It applies, as well, to charitable giving. Only when individuals have enough money to sustain their own individual or family needs, can they begin to think about giving money, or volunteering their time, for charities.

In state budgeting, as another clear example, the expense of maintaining the infrastructure is often an “add on” expense that is only carried out when all other “essential” budgeting expenses are covered. When the state “feels good,” then the infrastructure (roads, highways, bridges, and state buildings) of the government can be repaired and maintained. That goes for every level of government, of course.

As I heard several pundits describing the situation regarding business on television, it is too bad, they concluded, that our thinking has to be this way. It is too bad that we cannot begin to think of others first before thinking of ourselves. And they are certainly correct. This is the way life should be. But, there are so many shoulds out there, you could even think of life as the “tyranny of the shoulds.” as German psychoanalyst Karen Horney described it. For example, we know we should be attractive, outgoing, sociable, and self-disciplined because these are reinforced by our parents, family, friends, the media, and society as a whole.

There are many other shoulds, of course, and they include being friendly, supportive of others, and altruistic as well. The problem with any set of shoulds occurs when they become absolute, inflexible rules. That puts an enormous amount of pressure on us, and when we don’t live up to them — the shoulds in our lives — it can make us feel very bad.

Certainly, feeling bad can occur at any point when the “feel good” pattern remains unaccomplished. Notice how it almost always seems to take place once something else has transpired — so clearly demonstrated in Maslow’s Hierarchy. Some might even say that what goes before is a prerequisite for any “feel good” pattern to emerge. And it may be that for many people it never reveals itself for a number of reasons. The first may be that there was no prerequisite in place, but I’m sure many people exist comfortably without ever exhibiting or experiencing the “feel good” level. Some, too, never strive to attain that level; it doesn’t happen automatically, and if there is no interest, effort, or motivation, it is unlikely to take place.

The “feel good” pattern appears to be universal. Although in some cases it may not be the best result, actions often become easier to understand when you know what is going on. It is a pattern worth noticing and applying because it is so important, and it seems to work no matter what agency is involved — whether it is government, business, individuals, or relationships.

-----

At “Ground Rules for Living.” there are 14 great rules (such as “Keep your word,” “Let go of all upsets,” and “Have your life be about more than you. Serve!”) which, if everyone followed, we would have a much better society — and a bunch of superior individuals, too! Talk about templates!

At “Golden Rules for Living” there are more than 50 “rules” discussed including “Know thyself,” “Life is what you make it,” and “Knowledge is power.” Sure, all of these have been written about previously, but not one of us can afford not to review them occasionally. Sometimes it’s a reminder that prompts new action.

There is a great, short essay on “The tyranny of shoulds, oughts and musts," where, after a number of shoulds, oughts, and musts are discussed, there are six specific methods for “dealing with these tyrants."

-----

Copyright 2009 by And Then Some Publishing L.L.C.