J.D. Moyer

sci-fi author, beatmaker

Goals Should Provide (Not Require) Motivation

By

On January 6

In Life Purpose & Goals, Metaprogramming, Personal Updates

Goals should electrify the brain.

Goals should electrify the brain.

Over the last couple years I’ve been experimenting with different systems for setting and achieving goals. During that time I’ve hit some walls and changed my mind more than once. Here’s a summary of my current thinking:

One area that I haven’t discussed in detail is that motivational value of the goal itself. Several times, I have selected a goal that seemed to align with my life purpose, but then found myself swimming upstream when it came to taking action. The parameters I set around the goal (target date, reward) had no effect, because my core motivation was lacking.

If the goal itself doesn’t energize you, no trappings applied around the edges are going to light the fires of your motivational engine. Goal-setting doesn’t work as a hammer to pound yourself into something that you’re not. At the best, goal-setting adds structure to something you already want to do.

Steve Pavlina has a good post on this subject. I don’t agree with everything in the article, but Steve makes an excellent point in that the point of goal-setting is not to control the future. The point of goal-setting is to energize you in the present moment.

Energizing and Actionable

Steve’s post references SMART goals (a concept made popular by Peter Drucker), which stands for specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound (Steve is not in favor of the SMART system). I think the SMART criteria are reasonable in the context of employee management (Drucker’s field), but they make less sense for individuals trying to “level up” in a particular life area.

My own criteria for goal-setting are that a goal should be:

  1. Energizing (providing motivation rather than requiring it)
  2. Actionable (the goal is such that you can immediately plan and take actions in pursuit of the goal, including setting up a task system and schedule that will in all likelihood lead to reaching your goal, as long as you do the work)

The goals I end up choosing for myself usually end up being SMART goals as well, but for me the SMART acronym isn’t that helpful. It misses the most important thing (that a goal should be energizing, providing motivation), and five criteria are just too many too remember (even with the help of the acronym).

“Today You” vs. “Tomorrow You”

The human brain is comprised of layers, with each layer relating to a different set of functionality. The inner layers are more primitive, and provide motivation and capability to eat, hunt, defend ourselves, claim territory, procreate, and otherwise pursue our reptilian and mammalian prerogatives.

The outermost and most recently evolved layer, the neocortex, enables conscious thought and the ability to understand and visualize time outside of the present moment.

Sometimes human motivation becomes a battle between primitive instincts to sleep, eat, and rest vs. more abstract/cerebral motivations (prepare for the future, work on a project that may offer long-term benefits, etc.). This schism could be considered “today you” (that part of you that is interested in immediate sensory satisfaction) vs. “tomorrow you” (the part of you that considers future consequences of present actions).

Goal-setting tilts the scales in favor the neocortex (“tomorrow you”). This doesn’t necessitate total self-denial. “Today you” can be easily satisfied with good food, adequate rest, time with friends and family, and other animal pleasures. Life occurs in the present, so it doesn’t make sense to endlessly defer gratification. But goal-setting can provide a line of defense: a minimum level of effort dedicated to improving circumstances over time (even if it means minor, occasional discomfort in the present).

Motivation and Brain Health

If your life is devoid of excitement and nothing excites you, you are probably depressed. When I experience a lack of ambition and motivation it’s a red flag for me that my dopaminergic system is out of whack, and that I need to take immediate steps to increase BDNF, encourage neurogenesis, and resensitize dopamine receptors. My basic strategy in this case is to become more paleo (eat less sugar and starch, decrease artificial light and go to bed earlier, exercise more intensely, spend more time with friends and family, and reduce screen time). On top of this I eat more curry and oily fish (turmeric and DHA both increase BDNF, increase neurogenesis, and improve brain health). When I take these steps I generally notice a marked improvement in attitude and motivation within a week (and sometimes just after a day or two).

Personal Update

My own goals continue to center around fiction writing. Though sometimes I feel (as a 44-year-old trying to start a career as a novelist) like I’m tilting at windmills, I recently completed a 2nd draft of novel that I’m reasonably pleased with, and I’m working towards what might eventually become a novel-writing system.

Good luck with your own goals, and Happy New Year!

A Revolution Is When Fringe Thinking Becomes Common Sense

By

On December 21

In Alternative Economics, Utopian Speculations

4424154829_e7b9231037

In this article from The Baffler, anthropologist/author/anarchist David Graeber makes the point that a “successful revolution” has less to do with protestors taking over the government, and more to do with previously fringe/radical ideas becoming common sense, within a short period of time. The article’s powerful closing line:

And the moment any significant number of people simultaneously shake off the shackles that have been placed on that collective imagination, even our most deeply inculcated assumptions about what is and is not politically possible have been known to crumble overnight.

This got me thinking, what was considered fringe thinking ten or twenty years ago, but is currently entering mainstream thought? The following probably seem like common sense/conventional wisdom to a person in their twenties, but anyone holding these ideals in the “greed is good” 80’s was definitely outside of the zeitgeist.

  • gay people should have equal rights
  • intelligent animals (dolphins, whales, elephants, apes) should not be used as slaves or slaughtered for body parts/meat
  • environmental/ecological collapse is possible if our natural environments are treated as economic externalities
  • the national security apparatus has more to do with control of citizens than it does with the protection of citizens
  • food, shelter, healthcare, and education should be basic human rights, and not conditional privileges to be granted based on hard work, morality, cleverness, inborn traits like ethnicity, etc.
  • the value of work should be based on how much it benefits other people and humanity, not on profitability
  • extreme income inequality erodes social trust and pits the poor against the (shrinking) middle class
  • mass incarceration creates more criminals and does not increase public safety in the long run

Attitudes vary by country. The U.S. is fairly enlightened when it comes to gay rights, but is behind on healthcare as a basic right (Obamacare is a small step in the right direction, but saddles middle-class families with unaffordable premiums). In terms of mass incarceration the United States is in a league of its own (not in a good way). Japan is behind on cetacean rights; Thailand is behind on elephant right; China is behind on environmental regulation, and so on. But none of the ideas are “fringe” — Americans who visit England and happen to break a leg are pleasantly surprised when they get no bill for services, and wonder “Why not in the U.S.”?

So what ideas are currently fringe/radical, but might enter the mainstream in ten or twenty or one hundred years? I would suggest the following are plausible:

  • animals with any sort of conscious awareness (insects and some fish probably excepted) should not be used as slaves or slaughtered for body parts/meat
  • depopulation is more of a risk to civilization than overpopulation
  • extra-terrestrial communities (moon base, Mars base, orbiting artificial worlds) should be established as quickly as possible to improve humanity’s survival chances
  • machines that are probably conscious-aware should have legal rights
  • state benefits should not be means-based, but universal (allowing societies to share wealth without violating Murray’s law)

We can see Steven Pinker’s expanding circle of empathy taking humanity to places that seem strange now, but may make perfect sense later.

Of course, even if the long-term trend is towards more cooperation and compassion, short-term collapse and cultural regression is just as likely. Consider the millions of starvation deaths that resulted from the Chinese Cultural Revolution, or the political and economic events (and xenophobic attitudes), that led up to the Holocaust.

Still, there are hopeful ripples in the way human beings are thinking about alternatives to consumer capitalism, which is Graeber’s main topic. Not every detail of the “sharing economy” vision is worked out, but green shoots are visible. Wage slavery and the ruthless exploitation of human labor no longer make sense to most of us. The tide is turning.

The Pursuit of Happiness Is Meaningless Without the Pursuit of Justice

By

On December 16

In Culture Rants/Shares, Metaprogramming, Utopian Speculations

Where’s the Justice League when you need ’em?

Ambushed By An Article

Yesterday morning I was happily drinking coffee and reading the New York Times, when I came across this disturbing article by conservative think tanker Arthur Brooks.

The piece starts off as a bland rehash of “the latest” happiness research (trotting out studies from the seventies). Nothing new, but nothing offensive either. Towards the end, the piece takes a sharp right turn as Brooks champions free enterprise as the solution to both personal happiness and global poverty. The bogeymen of socialism and collectivism are trotted out as the usual enemies. Perhaps as an apologetic concession to liberal NYT readers, Brooks does acknowledge that social mobility and economic opportunity are on the decline in the United States (at least as compared to Canada and the Scandinavian countries — ironically all collectivist social democracies). The whole piece is a confused mess.

Personal Development Hijacked by Corporate Ideology

So why am I writing about it?

This blog is subtitled “Systems for Living Well.” I agree with many of Arthur Brooks’ conclusions about personal happiness (a spiritual life, strong relationships, meaningful work, and connection to community are all important). But I want to distance myself from Brooks (as well as bloggers like Steve Pavlina, Gretchen Rubin, Tony Robbins, and Tim Ferriss) who approach personal happiness and life satisfaction in a “bubble” context, ignoring social and political issues as if they didn’t exist.

Too often, self-help philosophies function as a justification for right-wing ideology. Ignore the bad cards life has dealt you, and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps! Pursue your passion and beat the economic odds! Be a winner not a loser! A credo of personal accountability ties in neatly to ideals of free enterprise and anti-welfare sentiments.

In a similar vein, advocating gratitude and forgiveness as spiritual practices is usually good advice (in terms of emotional health and personal empowerment). But the same philosophy can be twisted to imply that workers should be happy with (and feel grateful for) whatever is doled out by their employers, instead of negotiating for better wages, benefits, and working conditions, or fighting against corporate crime and corruption. It’s one thing to forgive the CEO of a Wall Street company that swindled tax-payers, so you don’t have to live with hate in your heart. But it’s another thing to lie down and let them do it again.

I believe in personal accountability, the value of hard work, establishing effective habits, practicing gratitude — all the same things that the Pavlina/Rubin/Robbins/Ferriss types are pushing. But I also believe that if we truly want to live well, we should fight against the injustices that prevent others from living well.

So what are the injustices we should be fighting against? Well, for starters:

Maybe, if I’m not happy, it’s because my conscience isn’t clear. Maybe I’m not working hard enough for the right for others to get a fair shot at the pursuit of happiness. Yes, we’re all responsible for our own happiness and sense of meaning in life. But if we ignore injustice, others may not even get the chance to pursue happiness.

Call To Action

To writers, bloggers, economists, psychologists, and social scientists who are exploring the topic of happiness, here’s what I’m suggesting:

  • Don’t be a tool for corporate ideology. In the discussion of personal happiness and life meaning, don’t ignore oppression and injustice, wherever you see it.
  • Allow for the possibility that the concepts of personal accountability and social inequity/injustice can co-exist.
  • Don’t only look at happiness and life satisfaction on a personal level, but consider social and economic factors that affect us collectively, and call people to action to fight against injustice, greed, corruption, oppression, and other realities that hurt all of us.

I do understand why self-help writers want to steer clear of these topics. If you write about political issues, you potentially lose half your audience (or more). And I want to give credit to Ferriss and Robbins especially for raising money for schools, fighting poverty, etc.

But it’s delusional to think that we can *all* pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and visualize (or optimize) our way to an ideal life, when income inequality is so high, and social mobility so low, and we live in an age of rampant unchecked corporate irresponsibility.

Please share your thoughts below.

Environmental Regulation = Clear Skies (Thank You Clean Air Act)

By

On December 9

In Culture Rants/Shares, Utopian Speculations

Clear skies in California.

Clear skies in California.

It’s cold outside. Crisp. You snow-state people might laugh, but temperatures in the thirties are unusual for the Bay Area (especially the East Bay). But what I was thinking of, when I dropped my daughter off for school this morning, was how thankful I felt for *clear* skies. If you’ve been following the news in China you know what I’m talking about. Air pollution is so bad that visibility is as low as 5 meters in some cities.

I remember similar stories about Los Angeles in the early 70’s (though I don’t think it ever got as bad as mainland China). Things got better after strong amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1970 and 1977.

Environmental compliance can be an expensive chore for businesses (I’ve helped a few on the reporting side of things). But once the changes to operations and systems are made, they’re done, and the result is a cleaner environment.

The alternative is the pollution dystopia the Chinese have created in their balls-out push for global economic domination. The good news is that the problem is fixable. The solution is not to wait for a windy day (the current Chinese strategy), but national legislation with high air quality standards and strong enforcement.

I would love to visit China someday. But not just yet.

8401034045_23405560a13674333468_76d25ed6982871289951_c2a6bca5ac4770943611_418fb0c9ae3409148152_af864ecc93

Goals Are For Soccer? (Reevaluating Goals vs. Systems)

By

On November 26

In Advice for Young People, Creative Work/Career, Life Purpose & Goals, Metaprogramming

Should the idea of goals be left on the field?

Should the idea of goals be left on the field?

Recently my friend Will Spencer sent me this article by Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame). Part of the article is a cautionary tale against listening to advice from successful people re: their methods (for example “follow your passion”). The rest of the article focuses on why Adams prefers systems over goals. “Goals are for losers,” writes Adams, pointing out that the majority of time for a goal-oriented person is spent in a “not yet successful” mindset (having not yet achieved their chosen goal).

I agree with Adams that we should be skeptical of career/success advice and self-help books. For every millionaire who made money on real estate, there are probably at least a dozen who lost their shirt (and didn’t write a book). As for “following your passion,” I had already considered the arguments against (a major theme of Cal Newport’s excellent Study Hacks blog), and generally found them to be lacking. Adam writes that when he worked at a bank, he was advised to avoid loaning money to small business owners who were following their passion; those types of businesses almost always went bust. Good advice, probably, and Newport’s advice on Study Hacks is also mostly sound; I completely agree with his emphasis on deep focus, hard work, effective systems, and attempting to live a meaningful, interesting life.

But for some people (like myself) there is no real choice when it comes to following your passion. If I didn’t, I would literally die of boredom (or at least accelerate my demise; I quickly get despondent and depressed if I am not actively and intensively pursuing writing, music production, and other creative endeavors). I made the choice in my twenties to follow my passion (start a music label and spend most of my time making dance tracks); I would earn money via IT freelancing on an as-needed basis. For me it has worked out so far. Not only is my soul intact, but I have significant savings, passive income streams (music royalties), and plenty of freelance work. Maybe, as Adams suggests, I’m still passionate about making music because I’ve had some success in that area. Certainly it’s nice to have a “win” in your field (money, a good review, a track in the charts, praise from fans, whatever). But most of the time, I create because I feel compelled to create. So my advice to anyone who asks is still to follow your passion. Just expect hard work and be realistic about how you’re going to pay the bills (and yes, you should be skeptical about my advice as well).

So that covers the first part of the article. The second part; where Adams argues against goal setting, made me think. I had never considered goal-setting to be opposed to a systems-based approach, and considered both to be useful tools (or, more accurately, I considered goal-setting to be part of my system).

In my own recent experience, setting and working towards a challenging goal was a positive, empowering experience. I didn’t feel, as Adams writes, that I was in a state of “near-continuous failure” because I hadn’t yet reached my goal. Rather, I felt like I was steadily working towards an important milestone. And that felt great.

But still, reading the article by Adams made me doubt my approach. Did setting the goal lead to success, or was it the system of daily effort that really made the difference? According to Adams I’d be better off tossing out the goal and keeping the system.

Adding fuel to this fire of doubt was the fact that after achieving my most recent major goal (completing the first draft of a novel), I floundered for a couple months. I knew I needed some time away from the manuscript before jumping into revisions, but it didn’t feel appropriate to set another major goal that wasn’t related to the book (after all, all I had was a first draft … I hadn’t actually completed anything yet).

After letting the question simmer in the back of my mind for a few weeks, here’s where I am at the moment:

  • in the long run, systems are more effective than goals (and habits, or actualized systems, are the most effective)
  • goal-setting can still be useful tool, especially if you are trying to create a new pattern in your life, and change the direction of your inertia
  • goal-setting is less helpful in life areas that require regular good habits and/or systems for ongoing success (for example physical health and fitness, unless you are training for a competition or something like that)
  • it’s not necessary to have a main life goal all the time; it is important to know where you are going (life purpose, and a clear vision of what you want your life and/or the world to look like)

You could accuse me of over-thinking this process, and you might be right. But the “tweaks” I make to my life system have real and immediate effects (to my productivity and happiness, to the quality of work I produce, to my ability to help others and make the world a better place).

How has goal-setting helped you? When has it felt awkward and contrived? What are your most effective life systems?

Page 62 of 101

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén