Paul Graham has two new essays up, and both are must-reads.
The first essay, The Top Idea in Your Mind, points out that our minds tend to fully engage with only one idea at a time, and that it’s easy to fritter away our mental power by worrying about money or petty disputes. “What you think about in the shower” may in fact be the most important thing in your life (in terms of problem solving and creative progress) and it’s important not to waste the power of our subconscious on mundane issues.
This overlaps with some of David Allen’s ideas — in Getting Things Done Allen states that the goal is to have a “mind like water.” You don’t want to use up your mental processing power with remembering to buy laundry detergent, and to call so-and-so back; you want to save your brainpower for creativity and problem solving.
Graham’s second new essay, The Acceleration of Addictiveness, discusses how technological progress is a dual-edged sword; we continue to make things that we want, but at the same time we make things we want but don’t want to want (like cigarettes). Since everything in modern life is so addictive (or at least alluring), a statistically “normal” modern lifestyle (enhanced by caffeine, alcohol, artificial light, processed foods, the internet, TV, video games, etc.) is not really normal or healthful in terms of our evolutionary biology. In fact you may appear to be eccentric if you take steps to be truly healthy.
As someone who takes steps to reduce my exposure to artificial light, and who favors a paleolithic diet, I can relate to this. Everyone in my life is quite tolerant (and in fact interested) in my lifestyle choices, but I still feel like an oddball at times.
Geneticist Spencer Wells has related thoughts on this topic — how every aspect of modernity is at odds with what is “normal” according to our genetic makeup (genetically we’re still paleolithic hominds, more or less).
They are skilled at creating and noticing chance opportunities.
They make lucky decisions by listening to their intuition.
They create self-fulfilling prophesies via positive expectations.
They adopt a resilient attitude that transforms bad luck into good.
Based on these findings, I created and resolved to practice five customized exercises everyday for the month of June. I’ll discuss my experience of each exercise in turn.
Exercise #1: Discuss and tweet favorite three experiences of the day (focus on the positive)
Discussing the “Top 3” with Kia and Tesla Rose was an easy and fun thing to do in the evening. Sometimes it was surprising which experiences made the list. For example, one evening we were walking in the evening on a beach trail, in near-total darkness (it gets dark very early in Costa Rica) when we began to hear scurrying and rustling on either side of the narrow trail. The noise intensified; soon we were threading our way through a surround-sound mosh pit of horror movie sound effects. The experience was harrowing, but it made Kia’s Top 3 list for that day. She has written about the experience here.
Simple activities, like playing in the surf at the beach, often made the list. So did experiences with nature … hearing or seeing howler monkeys, for example (we were on a working vacation in Costa Rica for the entire month of June).
Early in the month I tweeted the top 3 experiences of each day, but this started to feel obnoxious, and I abandoned that part of the exercise. People don’t necessarily want to read about how precious your day was. Nobody complained, but I ultimately decided it wasn’t the kind of thing I want to tweet about. I would rather share interesting links or facts … provide value of some sort.
Did it make me luckier?
This exercise certainly made me feel luckier. It’s an effective method. Even though the exercise was very focused — picking out three discrete experiences — the overall effect was to make me consider the big picture. Here I was in Costa Rica, with my loving family, in good health, and so on … so yeah, it made me feel like a lucky man.
The grapevine is an important source of information.
Exercise #2: Talk to everyone — strike up a conversation at every opportunity (expand opportunity)
This was the hardest exercise! I’m not naturally a chatty person, and I had to overcome extreme reticence in order to make myself strike up random conversations with strangers. My limited Spanish contributed to the problem.
I ended up compromising; I struck up conversations with people who I perceived to be interesting in some way. Also, if needed information (directions, when a store opened, etc.), or help, I made myself ask someone nearby. Asking for directions or help comes quite easily to some people, but for me it’s challenging. A combination of 1) pride, and 2) not wanting to impose usually conspire to make me to tough it out alone. Could be a guy thing.
Interestingly, sometimes this exercise contradicted Exercise #3 (“follow your gut feeling”). Sometimes my gut instinct directed me not to talk to somebody — to avoid engagement. In those cases I always went with my gut instinct … definitely the easier choice.
Did it make me luckier?
Somewhat. I just wasn’t that good at this one. It was good to overcome my reticence about asking for directions or help, and that proved helpful in several situations. One afternoon I asked a random construction worker if he could spray some WD-40 on my crusty bike lock, and I bought him an ice-cream cone for his trouble (he was working right next to CariBeans). I also had some short, interesting conversations with a few random people.
Kia is quite good at talking to strangers. She actively sought out people with young children (Tesla Rose had a dearth of playmates during most of our trip), and cornered The Dellingers one morning at the beach. Tesla Rose had a great time playing with the Dellinger girls (Eli and Annika) for the remainder of our trip, and meeting them definitely enhanced our experience. A stroke of luck, you could say.
Exercise#3: Consciously consult “gut feeling” at all significant choice points (follow intuition)
The intuitive path.
This one was easy to do, and felt effective. Significant parts of our brains are processing information at a tremendous rate before our conscious minds are aware of the data; the calculations are subconscious (as Malcolm Gladwell discusses in Blink). While intuition is inferior to cold, conscious calculation in some situations (evaluating financial securities, for example), it’s a perfectly adequate way to navigate a Costa Rican workation.
Whenever I had a moment of doubt or confusion regarding the ever-present question “what to do next,” I consulted my gut instinct. What felt like the right course of action?
Did it make me luckier?
I think it did, but it’s hard to prove. The evidence is invisible; bad things that didn’t happen. We stayed out of trouble, avoided crime, didn’t get (badly) injured, etc. Is this a good beach to hang out at? Correct choice = fun times, no sunburn, and not being mugged.
Perhaps the main benefit of “trusting your gut” is that it provides a way to move forward in life, with confidence, and without excessive, time-consuming analysis. Unfortunately there is no way to do a controlled experiment; once a choice has been made you can’t go back in life and try things the other way.
Another benefit of following one’s intuition: it provides an easy way to maximize the return on the expenditure of limited personal resources (such as time, money, willpower). If you find yourself with a spare ten minutes, what’s the best way to use it? Send an email? Relax and stare at the trees? Read, or read a book to your kid? If you had to consciously calculate what the best way to use that time would be, the decision-making process itself would probably take you ten minut
es.
Exercise #4: When something “bad” happens, consider possible upsides, and refuse to be demoralized (resilience)
There’s always an upside.
This exercise was moderately difficult, but extremely effective. When I was feeling down, for whatever reason (usually mosquito bites, or Tesla Rose throwing plates on the ground, or having internet connectivity problems), it wasn’t always easy to find “the bright side.” Usually the “opportunity” in the situation was to change my own perspective or behavior. Mosquitoes? Part of the Costa Rican equation — avoid as much as possible, but don’t focus too much on the bugs or the bites. Two-year-old acting out? What’s going on with her psychologically? What’s she feeling, and what are her motivations? Internet problems? Find something else to do.
Did it make me luckier?
Our biggest piece of “bad luck” was renting a house that wasn’t an ideal fit for our family. This exercise helped give us the fortitude to do something about the situation; we moved from the jungle to a beach house. There was a financial hit, but not a huge one. We found ourselves much happier closer to the beach — the double rental cost was well worth it.
Following this exercise made me realize the absurdity in the “I’m having a bad day” attitude. You can always turn it around. You can always use your imagination to find a course of action that will improve your situation. To paraphrase Lt. Gen. Harold Moore: if plan B doesn’t work, go through the entire alphabet.
Exercise #5: Observe and record (journal) at least three anomalous details every day (expand opportunity)
I failed miserably at this exercise. Part of the problem is that I created too many exercises for myself — I couldn’t keep them all in my mind at once. The other part of problem is that my natural observation skills are dismal; this one was just too much to bite off. I basically gave up after a few days. This would probably be a good 30-day experiment on its own. I’ve read accounts of people dramatically improving their powers of observation; I believe it’s possible. But it was too much for this time around.
Did it make me luckier?
N/A — I didn’t do the exercise.
Conclusion
Maybe I’ll actually buy Wiseman’s book and see what “make yourself luckier” experiments he proscribes. I wanted to start with making up my own exercises, but I think mine might have been too ambitious. Three out of the five I created for myself really worked for me — the other two more or less flopped.
The three exercises that I was able to practice did all seem to have a positive effect. They made me happier, if not luckier. There’s a reason those two qualities are often paired, as in “happy-go-lucky.” Focusing on the positive leads to both luck and happiness.
Focusing on the positive doesn’t mean that you ignore problems, or that you have any less awareness of evil, injustice, wrong-doing, bad feelings, or bad situations. It simply means that you focus on what is good in your own life, and build on that.
I’ve never had a victim mentality; at least in adulthood I’ve always seen myself as responsible for my own fate. But these exercises had the effect of moving the personal responsibility dial from 8 to 10. What “luck” I would like to have befall me — it’s just a matter of doing the work, meeting people who can help me out, and cultivating an indomitable spirit. There’s nothing magical or mystical involved (though the subconscious is heavily involved, and one’s path through life is ultimately unpredictable, which can make it feel mystical).
Lucky Events
Catch some falling coin.
June did contain a couple “extra lucky” events. One night I went out to dinner, and by the time I returned a lucrative Loöq Records music licensing deal had been offered, negotiated, and closed by the time I returned. That same evening I received an email notifying me that there were some uncollected music royalties in my name — would I like them to be collected? Why yes, I would — thank you!
On a less tangible note, June was filled with creative inspiration. Ideas (mostly for stories, blog posts, music) sometimes came faster than I could write them down. I attribute this mostly to being in a different environment, with a high degree of novelty.
What About “The Power of Intention”?
I completely believe that we have the power to “manifest” our desires (or preferences, as I prefer to call them) by imagining them. That is, as long as we’re willing to do the tangible work in the world that brings us to that reality. Bringing something into reality always starts with imagination (or visualization, if you prefer), but it must be followed up by action, by work.
But what if I’m wrong?
What if all you really have to do is imagine what you want, to completely believe that reality will manifest, and then, well … kind of sit around and wait for it?
Back in April, Steve Pavlina put up an interesting post. He suggested that if you don’t believe in the power of intention, you can put a “tracer” on your intention so that you’ll be able to distinguish an intentional manifestation from coincidence. One example he gives is manifesting $100, somehow related to a lime. Yes, the fruit. The more random of a tracer, the better.
Are you my lucky lizard?
What’s the opportunity cost of trying something like that? Zero, I thought — I’m going to manifest $15,000, somehow related to a lizard. Kia hates it when I try kooky stuff like that that doesn’t align with my beliefs about reality, but I don’t see what the harm is. We all know that some of our beliefs must be wrong — we just don’t know which ones. So since early April, I’ve been “trying” to manifest $15,000, somehow related to a lizard, by believing it will happen. That’s all I’m doing. I’m not starting any lizard businesses, or writing songs with lizard names.
When I receive my $15K, somehow related to a lizard, I’ll be sure to let you know.
Kia and I have recently stumbled across a principle that has significantly altered (for the better) our dynamic regarding who does what work and how we each feel about it.
To be clear, I’m not talking about the work of marriage. Honestly, I don’t think being married to somebody should be that much work. It should be fun (at least most of the time), and relatively easy. The real work is finding the right person — someone you love for who they are, someone you feel relaxed around, and someone you’re physically attracted to (and vice versa in all cases — which is sometimes the harder bit).
What I’m talking about is the work in marriage; who takes out the trash, who does the dishes, who takes care of the kid, and so forth. Most of this work exists for single people as well, but if you’re married (or live with your romantic partner) then questions surface — questions of division of labor.
Secret Balance Sheet — A Dysfunctional System
Keeping track in your head?
Division of labor is often a source of conflict in a marriage. A common dynamic is for one (or both) partners to feel like they are doing more work, or more valuable/important/difficult work, than the other person. Maybe they have a secret balance sheet in their head, on which they are constantly accruing credits on their own side and debits on their partner’s side (or it is the other way around? — I always get those accounting terms mixed up). If each partner has a secret balance sheet (one that is never discussed), then there’s never any chance to reconcile the two. A giant blow-up argument is inevitable; the secret balance sheets are eventually brought out into the open and are foundto differ massively. The “you owe me” dynamic is destructive — it leads to resentment on both sides of the relationship.
Do you know any couples where one person supported the other one financially through a degree program, and then as soon that person graduated they dumped the partner that supported them? From the outside it looks cruel and callous; the student who was being supported was obviously just using the other person, right? Well, maybe. But an alternate interpretation is that after graduation, the secret balance sheets were compared, and didn’t match. The partner who was being supported financially was presented with a gigantic “you owe me” bill which didn’t line up with their own view of things. Perhaps they felt that while they were in school, being financially supported, they were contributing to the relationship in other ways. Or maybe they felt that because they were working so hard, things must have somehow been equal in the relationship. When they suddenly realize that the other partner has been expecting something in return for financially supporting their broke ass for all these years, they freak out. Faced with the giant debt, they bail.
I’m not trying to justify the behavior of either partner in my hypothetical situation — I’m just saying that the secret balance sheet method is a bad system — one that leads to disappointment and heartbreak.
Open Balance Sheet — A Less Dysfunctional System
A somewhat healthier dynamic (which I think describes my work-sharing dynamic with Kia before we discovered our new principle) is to communicate regularly about who does what and who is responsible for what, in essence frequently reconciling the balance sheets. Thus, no hidden debts accrue.
This kind of arrangement can exist with varying degrees of symmetry. Maybe one partner contributes more money, and the other contributes more household work (childcare, cooking, cleaning, shopping, social planning, vacation planning, handling finances, etc.). Kia and I both work — she earns a bit more hourly but I have more passive income (from music royalties), so we contribute the same amount of money to our household fund. On the other hand, she spends more time with Tesla Rose (two-year-old girls tend to be slightly more focused on mommy — I try not to take it personally) so I try to make up for that by doing more cleaning, and more household organizing. It doesn’t really matter what the division of labor is, as long as neither partner feels like they’re getting the short of the stick. It’s important to remember that 1) there’s a built-in efficiency boost to co-habitating; if you didn’t live with someone you’d both be taking out the garbage and paying the electricity bill, and 2) some degree of asymmetry is probably a good thing; what is difficult for one person might be easy for the other.
Sounds like a pretty good system, right? It is — but with the extra work generated by parenthood, Kia and I would still sometimes get irritated or snippy with each other around work issues, despite the fact that both of us were working hard. Was there just too much work to do? Maybe some disharmony is inevitable for parents of a young child (or children) who also both work, and who also both have artistic pursuits.
Origins of the Principle — Home Improvement
The prequel to our new work-sharing principle came about as we were contemplating our long list of home improvement projects. We were making very slow progress on our list, while at the same time constantly adding new items. We’re in the process of converting our garage into an office for Kia (so that Kia’s current office can become a bedroom for Tesla Rose). It’s a lot of work, but our logic was that it would be easier and cheaper than selling our house and buying a bigger one. The logic still holds, but the project has been dragging on for many months. In addition to that project, the house needs painting, the deck needs some work, the gate needs fixing, and so on and so forth. There’s no end to it. We started to feel overwhelmed.
In response to these negative feelings, we devised three principles of home improvement, as follows:
Only do one disruptive project a time. For example, don’t try to remodel the kitchen and the bathroom at the same time. Regain total functionality in one area before tearing up the next thing.
Make it better than it was before. You’d think this would be obvious. It’s home improvement, right? But sloppy work is all too common. Spesh has dubbed the previous owners of our house “The D.I.Y. couple”; there is evidence of sloppy paint jobs, unfinished mouldings, unevenly placed electric outlets, etc. This principle helps us resist the urge to rush jobs just to “get them done.”
Only do what you feel like doing. The list will never be completed. All houses are in a constant state of decay, and all you can do is stem the tide. Keeping this in mind helps take the pressure off. Each person can work on whatever they want to work on — whatever they feel like needs doing.
We found ourselves enjoying the last principle in particular. If one of us feels like painting, we put on our painter pants and pick up a brush. No artificial deadlines, no schedules, and no nagging. Do what you feel.
We’re making progress at the same rate as before, if not slightly faster. I’m not sure when exactly, but I’m confident that Tesla Rose will eventually have her own bedroom. If she starts demanding it sooner, we may hand her a paint brush.
An earlier home improvement project -- The Light Bar (designed and constructed by Dave Shanks and featured in Ready Made magazine)
Getting To The Principle
Recently, for various reasons, Kia was thinking about the term “guilt-tripping” and what it meant exactly. She asked me for my definition, which resulted in the following conversation (this version is much condensed):
Me: ” ‘Guilt-tripping’ is what you do when you want the other person to want to do something, as opposed to just asking them to do it.”
Her: “Do I do that? Do I guilt-trip you?”
Me: “Yeah. Sometimes.”
Kia has an unusual, one might even say preternatural, to instantly change her behavior once she makes up her mind to do so (I, on the other hand, usually have a time-delay of one to ten years). Kia completely stopped guilt-tripping me from that moment forward. Instead, if she wanted me to do something, she would just ask me to do it, politely and directly. Usually I don’t mind doing something even if I don’t want to do it, so the new dynamic worked better (much more so than the previous dynamic, wherein she would drop hints about what she wanted me to do, and I would miss or ignore those hints, and then be confused as to why I was in trouble).
This was a big step towards our new principle, but we weren’t quite there yet. We arrived at the other half of the equation when I recently asked her if she could finish putting away some dishes I had just washed. I’d been pulled away from my dish-washing task mid-stream — some time-dependent errand I needed to run (I forget what) — but I really wanted to job to be completed (in a slightly OCD kind of way). Since I had to run off and do something else, I asked Kia if she could finish the task for me. I may or may not have said please.
Be very glad they are smaller than you.
I returned from my errand (whatever is was) to find the dishes not yet put away, and my wife feeling resentful about the request. She explained why. It has gotten dark in my absence, and Kia had felt nervous about working downstairs in our wide-open-to-the-jungle house (we’re temporarily living in Costa Rica). It wasn’t an unreasonable fear; we had already sighted howler monkeys and agouti nearby, giant jungle rats running through the kitchen, and one morning we found a paw print on the table (either dog or jaguar — the two look remarkably similar). In addition to the jungle proximity issue, she had witnessed a horrifying drama unfold on the kitchen counter; a live moth being forcibly dismantled by large black jungle ants. We have since moved to a beach house. In any case she had felt the burden of my request quite heavily. It hadn’t helped that I had delivered it a little tersely. In my mind it was just an off-hand request, a preference — no big deal if she didn’t feel like doing it. But she had perceived the request with more weight, and was a little upset.
We talked about it, and came to a joint realization. It’s a drag to have someone else control your agenda, even a little bit. I had tried to use Kia’s work units as my own, assigning a task the way I might assign a task to myself. In the process, I had circumvented her work autonomy.
Not that different.
The Breakthrough Principle
Psychologists who study motivation have known for a long time, via numerous, oft-replicated experiments, that one of the best ways to motivate a person is to give them more autonomy. People, in general, like to work. They especially like to contribute and to feel needed and appreciated by their peers. What they don’t like is to be told exactly what do, how to do it, and when to do it.
The same is true in marriage. Unless you’re married to a lazy bum or a mammoni, your partner probably likes to work; to contribute to the household. They also have a strong desire to do it — the work — their way. Nobody likes being micro-managed (or even managed, when it comes down to it).
So what’s the principle?
Both partners are free to do, or not do, whatever work/tasks they feel like doing, when they feel like doing them. Asking your partner to do something is allowed, but only as you might ask a friend (politely), and the other person is free to cheerfully decline without fear of repercussions. No guilt-tripping, delegating, or nagging allowed. Do what you feel. Radical work autonomy.
So How Does It Work?
Pretty well, so far. It’s not that there isn’t a balance sheet — of course there is. We’ll still have conversations about who is responsible for what — a constantly moving target. So it’s not that different from the Open Balance Sheet method discussed above.
What’s different is the moment-to-moment dynamic. There’s a new respect for the other person’s emotional state, in regards to work. Sometimes a person is out of willpower, and the smallest request can feel like a giant weight. So now … there’s more slack. What if something needs doing and nobody feels like doing it? Usually someone steps up. If not, it gets done later, or maybe it didn’t really need doing. Sometimes tasks just go away.
For the most part, I think we’re more efficient. What needs doing gets done more easily, and we have more energy and attention to do what we enjoy, and to enjoy each others’ company. There’s definitely less resentment and struggle around division of labor issues. It’s like R.O.W.E. for the home — you immediately weed out the bums (neither of us, fortunately), and after that it’s all increased productivity and happier people. It’s free freedom.
I don’t mean to imply that we’ve discovered some kind of magical, argument-free zone in which we live in perfect harmony, subtly communicating our preferences with loving non-verbal signals and sharing the household work with perfect equality and efficiency. That would be a little too precious, wouldn’t it? Nah, we still sometimes bicker and get irritated with each other. But there has been a real breakthrough — a mutual realization that any attempt to delegate, manage, or in any way control the other person’s work autonomy is going to backfire. Of course we still ask each other to do things (very politely). Of course we each have a different awareness of what needs to get done in certain areas. But we’ve committed to abandoning the habit of directing each others’ actions. We still backslide at times, but we catch ourselves at it (or call each other on it) more often than not.
Freedom In Marriage
It’s a truism that what you sacrifice for the stability, comfort, and warmth of marriage (or any long-term, committed, intimate relationship) is freedom. A more nuanced view is that each couple decides how much freedom they want to grant each other in each area of life. Turning up the freedom dial in a given area usually has both costs and benefits. If you crank up the sexual autonomy dial (open marriage, to whatever degree) then you might gain excitement and the thrill of sexual novelty, but the cost might be jealousy, emotional distance, and long complicated conversations about what is and isn’t allowed and how everybody is feeling (what The Ferret calls “the sex bureaucracy“). If you turn up the spatial/geographic autonomy dial, perhaps living in different houses (or even different cities), or traveling separately for extended periods of time, then you might experience alienation, or just drifting apart (“separate lives” — that’s probably what happened to Al and Tipper).
The work autonomy dial seems to operate differently. I don’t see what the costs are when you turn this one up; they’re illusory. If you’ve married a person who likes to contribute and feel needed (and most people do — watch the video below), then the work still gets done.
John C. Lilly, the only scientist to have two horror films based on his life.
For a number of decades I’ve been interested in self-improvement via a method I like to call metaprogramming. I was first exposed to the term via John C. Lilly’s Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer (a summary report to Lilly’s employer at the time, The National Institute of Mental Health [NIMH]). Lilly explored the idea that all human behavior is controlled by genetic and neurological programs, and that via intense introspection, psychedelic drugs, and isolation tanks, human beings can learn to reprogram their own computers. Far out, man.
As the fields of psychology, neurophysiology, cognitive science have progressed, we’ve learned that the computer/brain analogy has its limitations. As for psychedelics, they have their limitations as well; they are so effective at disrupting rigid mental structures (opening up minds), that they can leave their heavy users a bit lacking in structure. From my own observations, what the heavy user of psychedelics stands to gain in creativity, he may lose in productivity, or stability, or coherence.
Those issues aside, I still love the term metaprogramming. We are creatures of habit (programs), and one of the most effective (if not only) way we can modify our own behavior is by hacking our own habits. We can program our programs, thus, metaprogramming. This is a slightly different use of the term than Lilly’s; what I call metaprogramming he probably would have called selfmetaprogramming (he used metaprograms to refer to higher level programs in the human biocomputer; habits and learned knowledge and cultural norms as opposed to instincts and other “hardwired” behaviors).
Effective Metaprogramming
Effective metaprogramming requires a degree of self-awareness and self-observation. It also requires a forgiving attitude towards oneself; we can more clearly observe and take responsibility for our own behaviors (including the destructive ones), if we refrain from unnecessary self-flagellation.
Most importantly, effective metaprogramming requires clear targets for behavior. In my experience, coming up with these targets takes an enormous amount of time and energy. It’s hard to decide how you want to behave, in every area of your life. It’s much easier to just continue on cruise control, relying on your current set of habits to carry you towards whatever fate you’re currently pointed at.
And what if you pick a target for your own behavior, implement it, and don’t like the results? Course corrections are part of the territory.
Religion (Do It Our Way)
If you don’t want to come up with your own set of behavioral guidelines, there’s always someone willing to offer (or sell) you theirs. Moses, lugging around his ten commandments, or Tony Robbins, with his DVDs.
Looks like we might be down to five commandments.
Religion has historically offered various sets of metaprogramming tools; rules for how to behave, and in some cases, techniques and practices to help you out (like Buddhist meditation). If you decide to follow or join a religion, you have to watch out for the extra baggage. Some religions come with threats if you don’t follow the rules. The threats can be real (banishment from the group), or made up (banishment to Hell). Judaism is perhaps the exception; there are lots of rules but the main punishment for not following them (as far as I can tell) is that you simply become a less observant Jew.
I’m an atheist, more or less, and a fan of the scientific method and scientific inquiry. I also appreciate the work the philosopher/evolutionary biologists Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, both of whom have taken up strong stands against organized religion. These stands are excusable, insofar as they attack outmoded religious beliefs (creationism, the afterlife, inferiority of women, and so forth) or crime (like the abuse of children by priests — Dawkins is actually trying to arrest the Pope). But religion offers much more than belief, and in some religions (like Judaism) belief matters very little. Religions offer behavioral systems, practices, rituals, myths, stories, and traditions, all of which are tremendous, irreplaceable cultural resources.
Daniel Dennett, aka Santa Claus.
Some religions are attempting the leap into modernity. The Dalai Lama has taken an active interest in neuroscience. My wife’s rabbi is a self-proclaimed atheist. The Vatican has put out a statement suggesting that Darwinian evolution is not in conflict with the official doctrines of the Catholicism (a nice PR move, but in my opinion it’s only because they don’t fully understand the principles of Darwinian evolution — Daniel Dennett called Darwin’s idea “dangerous” for good reason). In the long-run, religions are institutions, and they’ll do what they have to in order to survive. The term “God” will be redefined, as necessary, to keep the pews warm and the tithing buckets full. Evolutionary biologists (with their logical, literal thinking) are tilting at windmills when they attack religion; they are no match for the nimble, poetic minds of theologians.
As much as I value religions in the abstract, I haven’t yet found one I can deal with personally. My wife finds the endless rules of Judaism to be invigorating; following them gives her real spiritual satisfaction. I find them to be bizarre and confusing (maybe this is because I’m not Jewish, but I suspect some Jews would agree with me).
Still, I have liberally borrowed from the world’s religions while devising my own metaprogramming system. Jesus’s Golden Rule. Islam’s dislike of debt. A good chunk of the Buddha’s Eightfold Path. And at least a few of the Ten Commandments.
Help Yourself
Want to win friends and influence people? Change the spelling of your last name to match that of a world-famous captain of industry!
The modern self-help movement has had its share of both inspired individuals (like Tony Robbins) and charismatic but ultimately abusive (like the late Frederick Lenz).
I’m a fan of Robbins, for example, because his teachings are open (he does sell products and seminars, but he also gives away an enormous amount of content). Same goes for Steve Pavlina, Les Brown, and even Timothy Ferriss. All offer up their own insights and behavioral modification (metaprogramming) systems with a “try this and see if it works for you” attitude. It’s clear they are interested in spreading their message first, in making a living second, and not at all interested in controlling people or accumulating subjugates.
I’m also fascinated by the late anti-guru U.G. Krishnamurti (not to be confused with the more popular J. Krishnamurti). U.G., by all accounts, was unequivocally an enlightened being. The interesting bit was his absolute refusal to attempt to teach, pass on, or even recommend his own higher state of consciousness. Throughout his life, he refused to take on any followers or officially publish any of his writings. I’ll write about U.G. in more detail in another post.
Frederick Lenz -- charismatic but mad as a hatter.
Sinister Intentions
At the unfortunate intersection between religion and self-help lies the world of cults. Cult leaders and cult organizations can be spotted by the following attributes. Stay away!
enormous fees required for membership and/or access to teachings
requirement to cut off contact from family and/or friends (nonmembers)
use coercive methods to control their members (intimidation, blackmail, even violence)
NEVER challenge a hack sci-fi writer to invent a religion -- he might succeed!
Cults often seduce new members by offering up simple, effective metaprogramming techniques. Scientology offers “clearing,” a method of reliving painful emotional experiences and thus removing their negative subconscious influence. There’s nothing wrong with clearing — the problems come later, when you’re maxing out your credit cards and babbling on about “operating thetans.” Frederick Lenz instructed his followers in chakra meditation. The young, impressionable, and idealistic are especially vulnerable to seduction by cults, but these dangerous organizations are easy to spot if you know what to look for. They’re not looking to spread a message of truth, love, and higher consciousness; they’re looking for subjugates.
There’s nothing wrong with using somebody else’s self-improvement/behavioral modification/metaprogramming system, either ancient or modern, in whole or in part, as long as you shop around carefully. Or, you can invent your own. As a third alternative, if you are already happy with the current state of your habits (and where they are steering you in life), you may not feel compelled to bother with changing yourself.
Baby with the Bathwater
The field of self-improvement is full of half-truths, hucksters, pseudoscience, charlatans, snake oil and snake oil salesmen, bizarre beliefs, true believers, smelly hippies, narcissistic baby boomers, pitiful cases, get-rich-quick schemers, crystal wavers, cult leaders, and weird dieters, and is thus always ripe for parody (my favorite is this video parody of The Secret). A down-to-earth, rational person could be excused for steering clear of the self-improvement realm altogether.
On the other hand, energy we invest in improving our own habits (programs), including habits of thought and perception, is probably one of the best investments we can make in our own lives. Even minor improvements can yield enormous dividends in the long-run.
I’ll continue to share my thoughts about metaprogramming in this blog, including my core metaprogramming principles (not as a prescriptive, but rather in the spirit of open-source code sharing). As a quick preview, I’ll offer that my own principles involve the following areas:
Maintaining a High Quality of Consciousness
Taking Radical Responsibility for All Your Actions, and Every Aspect Of Your Life
We must believe in luck. For how else can we explain the success of those we don't like? - Jean Cocteau
Today launches a new 30-day experiment, during which I will try to be more lucky. I’m basing the experiment on the research of Dr. Richard Wiseman, who, starting in the 90’s, conducted a series of experiments investigating the nature of luck, and whether or not being lucky was a trainable skill (he concluded that it was).
This article by Wiseman explains his experiments and results succinctly. Wiseman’s “lucky” subjects would probably would fare no better at games of pure chance than the rest of us, but they have better fortune in life. Opportunities fall into their laps, they seem happier, they know all the right people, and so on. Who wouldn’t want a bit more luck juice to sprinkle on their fate?
From his research, Wiseman concluded the following about his lucky subjects:
“They are skilled at creating and noticing chance opportunities, make lucky decisions by listening to their intuition, create self-fulfilling prophesies via positive expectations, and adopt a resilient attitude that transforms bad luck into good.”
A nice cake, if you can bake it. But how do you get from here to there? How do you turn an unlucky person into a lucky one? Wiseman prescribed various exercises to help his less fortunate subjects develop the necessary attitudinal traits. After following the simple exercises for a month, the less-lucky subjects reported dramatically better luck; fewer mishaps and more happy coincidences. Wiseman’s exercises were along the following lines (in his own words):
Listen to your gut instincts – they are normally right.
Be open to new experiences and breaking your normal routine.
Spend a few moments each day remembering things that went well.
Visualize yourself being lucky before an important meeting or telephone call. Luck is very often a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In other articles, like this one from Forbes, Wiseman focuses on the social side of luck; luckier people have larger social networks (and keep them active, staying in touch with people). He also notes that luckier people are far more observant than their less fortunate brethren; they are more likely to notice details outside of “what they are looking for,” and this serves them well.
If you view all the things that happen to you, both good and bad, as opportunities, then you operate out of a higher level of consciousness. - Les Brown
Self-Analysis
Where do I currently stand, on the luck spectrum? I consider myself fairly lucky, with room for improvement. I tend to have a good attitude and look on the bright side, but I’m not immune to occasional bouts of self-pity or gloomy pessimism. I have a decently large social network, but I’m horrible at striking up conversations with strangers; I tend towards minding my own business (and even shyness at times). I trust my gut more often than not, but sometimes plow ahead despite “having a bad feeling about it.” I’m open to novel experiences and breaking my routine, but I’m spectacularly unobservant at times.
Customized Exercises
Every day in June, I plan to do the luck-building exercises below. I’ve designed them to addresses my particular weaknesses, build my strengths, and be easy and fun enough to do every day.
Principle: Focus on the positive / Exercise: Discuss and tweet favorite three experiences of the day
Principle: Expand opportunity / Exercise: Talk to everyone — strike up a conversation at every opportunity
Principle: Follow intuition / Exercise: Consciously consult “gut feeling” at all significant choice points
Principle: Resilience / Exercise: When something “bad” happens, consider possible upsides (and refuse to be demoralized)
Principle: Expand opportunity / Exercise: Observe and record (journal) at least three anomalous details every day
I don’t know if these exercises are perfectly designed, but I don’t think it matters. They should get me going in the right direction. It’s worth noting that the opportunity cost in each case is low; none of them take very much time or involve much risk (the possibility of initiating an awkward conversation seems real, but bearable).
Opportunity is missed by most because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
So far, the experiment is going well. Hacking away at a coconut this morning, standing on slippery leaves in bare feet, I managed to not hack off my foot, and while stabbing at the inner shell with my Swiss Army knife, I miraculously avoided cutting off my finger when the blade suddenly jackknifed closed (I escaped with only a laceration, easily staunched with direct pressure and a number of Band-Aids). This resulted in an opportunity to provide a safety lesson for my daughter, and elicited a tender outpouring of concern from both my wife and daughter, making me feel both loved and needed. I’d say the day was off to an excellent start!
