The Boy Who Cried Wolf and Pinocchio are not what we think of as kids’ role models. But if your child is lying to you, research suggests that it’s not only normal, but a probable sign of intelligence. (http://nyti.ms/2mdN4bJ). 
 
Children discover lying at about age two, and they often become quite adept at the skill. When adults were shown footage of kids who were either lying or being truthful about committing a transgression, none of the adults (not even the kids’ parents) could consistently detect the lies.
 
Some children start lying earlier than others and, according to developmental psychologist Michael Lewis, the precocious liars are smarter—by as much as 10 IQ points. Lewis suggests that the children who lie may have better “executive functioning skills” (faculties that enable us to control impulses and remain focused) as well as a heightened ability to see the world through other people’s eyes.
 
The psychologist Kang Lee, who has researched deception in children for over two decades, tells parents that if they discover their child lying at age 2 or 3, they can cheer. Of course, parents ideally want their kids to be clever enough to lie but morally disinclined to do it. Good news: Simply getting children to pledge to tell the truth can increase their honesty (Tweet it!)
 
Have you noticed your child fibbing to you? What has been your reaction, and do you think it might change when you consider that it could be a sign of intelligence? To join the conversation, click "comments" above.
 
If you would like to read more about creating a habit around masterful communication, check out our book: Be Quiet, Be Heard: The Paradox of Persuasion

Consider that self-confidence can lead us to overestimate our abilities. Self-compassion, on the other hand, involves acknowledging our flaws and limitations and looking at ourselves more objectively. Many experts believe that self-compassion includes the advantages of self-confidence without the drawbacks (Tweet it!).

Eric Barker, author of the book Barking Up the Wrong Tree: The Surprising Science Behind Why Everything You Know About Success Is (Mostly) Wrong, notes that productivity culture often promotes faking confidence without considering that when you do, you may start to believe your own pitch. This is better known as the Dunning-Kruger effect: a cognitive bias in which we overestimate our abilities.

Dr. Kristin Neff, an associate professor of educational psychology at the University of Texas, suggests a solution to the problem of overconfidence: self-compassion. “Self-compassion is treating yourself with the same kindness, care and concern you show a loved one,” she said.  To acknowledge ourselves as imperfect beings living imperfect lives can free us from delusion and enable us to be authentic and empathic and to take negative events in stride. (For example, a study asked people to describe themselves while being recorded on video. Those subjects were then told they would be rated on how likable, friendly and intelligent they seemed on camera. Subjects who had high levels of self-compassion had generally the same emotional reaction no matter how they were rated. By contrast, people with high levels of self-confidence had negative emotional reactions if the feedback was simply neutral and not exceptional.

The bottom line, writes Kristin Wong in The New York Times: “Without the pressure to be superhuman, it’s easier to accept feedback and criticism. It’s much harder to learn and improve when you believe you already know everything.” http://nyti.ms/2DIS3Jb

Do you believe you practice self-compassion? How has it helped you to succeed despite life’s ups and downs? To join the conversation, click "comments" above.
 
If you would like to read more about creating a habit around masterful communication, check out our book: Be Quiet, Be Heard: The Paradox of Persuasion.

In the 1970s, renowned psychologist Daniel Kahneman suggested giving government officials estimated probabilities of events. Looking back years later, Kahneman changed his mind, saying: “No one ever made a decision because of a number. They need a story.” (Tweet it!)

In the past year, many of us have been surprised by certain outcomes, many of them political, and we complain that our prediction models are incorrect. But the models are not incorrect: It is just that we tend to misinterpret numbers that tell us “this has a 10 percent chance of happening” as virtually no chance at all.

In a New York Times column entitled “What I Was Wrong About This Year”, pundit David Leonhardt writes that probabilities “are inherently hard to grasp. That’s especially true for an individual event, like a war or election. People understand that if they roll dice 100 times, they will get some 1’s. But when they see a probability for one event, they tend to think: Is this going to happen or not? They then effectively round to 0 or to 100 percent.”

But what if a probability came with a story? “Imagine that a forecast giving Candidate X a 10 percent chance included a prominent link, “How X wins.” It would explain how the polling could be off and include a winning map for X. It would all but shout: This really may happen.”

As Leonhardt says, this won't eliminate confusion, but it might minimize it. “The rise of big data means that probabilities are becoming a larger part of life. And our misunderstandings have real costs.”

Do you feel anecdotal explanations of probabilities would help you understand odds better? Have you ever used one, and can you give an example? To join the conversation, click "comments" above.

If you would like to read more about creating a habit around masterful communication, check out our book: Be Quiet, Be Heard: The Paradox of Persuasion.

By now, many employees are familiar with sexual harassment training, be it online or in person. It’s become ubiquitous since 1998, when two Supreme Court cases determined that for a company to avoid liability, it had to show that it had trained employees on its anti-harassment policies. But does it work?
 
According to research by Justine Tinkler, a sociologist at the University of Georgia http://bit.ly/2my2R4m, the training may inadvertently backfire by reinforcing gender stereotypes. Tinkler, quoted in The New York Times, said “It puts women in a difficult position in terms of feeling confident and empowered in the workplace” because it presents men as powerful and sexually insatiable and women as vulnerable. Other research found that training that described people in a legal context, as harassers or victims, led those being trained to reject it because they didn’t think the labels applied to them.
 
(Tweet it!) Researchers say training, though essential, is not enough. Companies must reinforce it via culture, by:

• Empowering bystanders to take action;
• Encouraging reporting;
• Stressing overall civility in the workplace;

• Promoting more women.

 
What has been your reaction to sexual harassment training? What else does your organization do to discourage inappropriate behavior? To join the conversation, click "comments" above.

If you would like to read more about creating a habit around masterful communication, check out our book: Be Quiet, Be Heard: The Paradox of Persuasion