It sounds cliché, but your body really is your temple. You’ve only got one body in this life; you have to live in it, and others will judge you based on how you care for it.

The world is much like a job interview. At the office, your child’s school, even the grocery store, the people you interact with see your outside, not your inside. Job interviews give the employer a chance to see firsthand what you are all about and quite a bit rides on this first encounter. So what does your physical resume say about you? In this competitive world, does your physical resume say you lack motivation, you are trapped in the past, suffer from a host of medical conditions and that you don’t care about yourself? Not selflessness — that is something different. A slovenly appearance says you don’t care. To an employer, someone who can’t even take the time to show up clean and well groomed, would represent someone unorganized, irresponsible and lacking confidence. This also applies to the world at large.  You need to stop thinking, “Well if people love me they will simply love the inside me.” Good luck with that. Your “inside” you is only part of you, but it is the less obvious part; make the whole package great. Don’t drive around life in a crappy-looking car just because it runs well; have it all.

[i] J, Andreoni R. Petrie. “Journal of Economic Psychology.” University of California (2008) 73-93
Moderately attractive people took home seven percent less in earnings than their prettier co-workers. According to the study, the main reason for this was that attractive people are seen as more helpful and cooperative. The study also found that, of those participating in the study, 39 percent of attractive men and women were judged to be helpful, compared to 16 percent of moderately attractive people, and only 6 percent of unattractive people.

As humans, we tend to see ourselves as other people see us. Although we may view ourselves in regular, two-dimensional mirrors, these looking glasses don’t reveal our stories in any sort of real, three-dimensional detail. What really seems to drive our sense of self-esteem, in terms of who we really are, are the people in our lives such as spouses, friends, and co-workers.

If I ask my wife if she thinks I’m getting fat, the answer is always, “No, honey. You look great. You’re the sexiest man alive.” And of course I trust my wife wholeheartedly, so I go about my day secure in the knowledge that I’m the sexiest man alive. But am I?

Now, if I ask my friend, Rod, “Hey, Rod, do you think I’m fat?” Rod answers very matter-of-factly, “Dude, you’re fat.” Or as he put it to me once before, “Man, you’re really looking thick.”

Men apparently lack the courtesy filter that women seem to automatically possess. Women are taught to please from a young age. Most want to be liked, which means they often opt for nice when plain truth would better serve the recipient. My friend, Rod is so blunt about any issues regarding my weight and me, it’s almost as if he has some form of Tourette syndrome. But when a woman asks her friend about her weight, she most often receives a supportive “Honey you look great”. Energized by such niceties as “having a pretty face,” women blindly plump up to critical mass. Learn to seek honest answers by asking the right questions of the right people.  Never ask a barber if you need a haircut, the answer is always yes.

I think something called the ‘Red Queen Effect’ beautifully demonstrates how this type of toxic relationship exists, even in nature. Also known as the ‘Red Queen Hypothesis,’ this idea was originally proposed by evolutionary biologist, Leigh Van Valen in 1973. His hypothesis was used to argue an idea based on co-evolution. When comparing two co-existing species, such as parasite and host, improvements for one another will lead to a selective advantage for each. This prompts further evolution in an attempt at further advantage. An improvement in one species implies it will gain a competitive advantage over the other, thus capturing a larger share of the available resources. However, in reality, the increase in one evolutionary system tends to lead to a decrease in the other system. Thus, instead of evolving into something better, each of the competing systems stays the same.

Imagine there are two trees. One grows a bit taller than its neighbor to capture more sunlight, and then the other tree grows a bit taller, so as not to be overshadowed. The other tree responds, causing further response in the other tree again, and so on. The net effect is that both trees become taller and taller, but still gather, on average, the same amount of sunlight, while spending more resources to sustain an increased height. This is what I witnessed in the diet centers; interactions between competing species, in which a great deal of energy was spent, but no forward progress was ever made.

The title of this effect comes from Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass. In the book, Alice is in a state of great confusion. In her dream, she finds that things appear backwards, as if viewed in a mirror. She climbs a hill, which appears to be a very straight path. However, when she follows the path, it leads her right back to the Looking Glass house. When she moves forward, she ends up back at her starting point. When she moves quickly, she comes to an abrupt halt. Talking flowers tell her about the Red Queen (a live chess piece) and she decides to search for her.