Researchers reviewed over two hundred studies covering human behavior, perception, learning, and relationships, looking for any domain where good was consistently stronger than bad. They found none.

The English language is one piece of evidence. A psychologist analyzed 558 emotion words, every one he could find, and discovered that 62 percent of them describe something going wrong. We have built, over centuries of use, a vocabulary that is nearly two-thirds dark.

The analytical part of the mind is built for this bias. When things are working, it barely registers them. When something breaks, it snaps to attention and begins solving. This is useful for survival, and not always useful for change.

A child comes home with her report card: one A, four B's, one D. Where does our attention go?

Nearly every parent goes straight to the D. Something is broken. Fix it. Get a tutor. Apply consequences. It is the rare parent who says: "You made an A in this class. You must have a real strength here. How do we build on it?"

The mechanism shows up the same way in management, in coaching, in the way people deal with themselves. One question makes it visible: what is the ratio of the time you spend solving problems to the time you spend scaling successes?

Most people, if they're honest, don't know. The problems are hard to ignore; the successes are easy to leave alone. The analytical mind moves toward what's broken, which means the things that are working run quietly, unsupported, until they also break.

Our mind has a problem focus when it needs a solution focus.

Reflect on this:

What strengths have I ignored because nothing is “broken” there

^{Share your reflections in the poll at the end of the email.}