I recently watched a thought-provoking clip by Lewis Howes featuring Price Pritchett, where they asked a deceptively simple question: What matters more — thinking more positively, or thinking less negatively?
Their conclusion is unexpected but persuasive: it’s less negative thinking that often makes the greater difference.
Pritchett describes what he calls the Five C’s of negative thinking:
• Complaining
• Criticizing
• Concern (as in unproductive worry)
• Commiserating
• Catastrophizing
Each of these can seem harmless enough. Most of us complain now and then, share a concern, or commiserate with someone having a hard day. But collectively, these habits quietly drain focus, optimism, and problem-solving energy. They limit perspective — and they’re contagious.
Why it matters in law
In law, and especially in mediation or arbitration, much of our work involves identifying risk and analyzing conflict. Those habits serve a purpose, but they also make it easy to slip into one or more of the Five C’s.
• Complaining that the other side is impossible.
• Criticizing internal processes instead of crafting solutions.
• Excessive concern about what might go wrong instead of what can go right.
• Commiserating with colleagues about “these difficult files” rather than advancing them.
• Catastrophizing the next stage as “disaster” rather than “manageable step.”
None of these behaviours, in themselves, advance resolution. They only reinforce stalemate.
A moment from mediation
Not long ago, in a mediation I participated in, two capable representatives spent much of the day locked in what seemed like constructive debate. But every proposal from one side was met with a variation of the same five C’s — criticism, concern, commiseration, even a touch of catastrophizing.
Despite the hours invested, the discussion never escaped the gravitational pull of negative thinking. One side simply could not stop rehearsing what wouldn’t work. And so, predictably, nothing did.
It was a reminder that progress sometimes depends less on finding the perfect argument and more on clearing away the negativity that prevents one.
Practical application
Here are three steps worth applying — in any setting:
1. Name the negative pattern
- When you catch yourself saying “But” or “What if”, pause and identify which “C” it is.
- → “Ah. That was catastrophizing.”
2. Replace it with a neutral prompt
- Instead of “What if this goes terribly wrong?”, ask: “What is one realistic next step?”
- Focus on less negative thinking, not forced optimism.
3. Reflect post-mortem
- After a client call or hearing, ask: “Where did I slide into complaining or criticizing rather than advancing?”
- Over time the habit of avoidance dims, and the habit of enquiry strengthens.
The takeaway
“Think positive” is easy advice to give but hard to sustain. “Think less negatively” is quieter, more achievable, and, as it turns out, often far more powerful.
Less negativity leaves room for clarity.
Clarity leaves room for reason.
And reason — especially in law — is where good outcomes begin.