Clarifying Expectations

In the recent post, Start Where You Stand, I stated the following:

I tend to subscribe to the notion that, when I attempt something new, it's not possible to be “ready” or “fully prepared.” It's been my experience that I'm much better off “jumping in” and getting my “feet wet.” Should I expect my initial performance to be flawless, however, I will likely disappoint myself.

At first glance, this may appear to be flat wrong. How is it that we can't be “ready” for something? After all, have we not prepared, and been “ready” for things in the past? And why shouldn't we expect the best from ourselves? Doesn't the expectation of mediocrity contribute to mediocre results?

While these objections are not necessarily incorrect, they do miss the point of what was said. When I say that it isn't possible to be ready or fully prepared; or that expecting one's performance to be flawless will likely result in disappointment, I do not mean that one can never be ready or fully prepared, or that one should never expect the best from oneself—full stop. What I mean, rather, is that one cannot be ready or fully prepared—nor should one expect a stellar performance—the very first time they attempt to do something. Of course a person can be ready or fully prepared to do something if they have done it before. It is the very fact they have done it that enables them to understand what preparations are necessary, and it is at such times when a person ought to expect the best from themselves.

The reason I maintain that a person should never expect to be “fully prepared” when they first attempt something new, is because such expectations often jeopardize their ability to begin. In other words, they end up postponing action, because they don't feel that they are yet “fully prepared.” But, how can a person actually be “fully prepared” for something if they have yet to actually do it? How can they even know what they are prepared for, if they haven't done it yet? Hence, it is not necessary to be “fully prepared” in order to begin, it is better to just “jump in.” On the other hand, if a person does act, but acts with the expectation that they are “fully prepared” or that their performance will be stellar—and especially if they are emotionally committed to that expectation—they will very often find themselves emotionally hijacked if things don't go as planned. Whereas the person who is not caught off guard by an initial lackluster performance is able to maintain composure and can therefore more effectively work to improve. (It should also be noted that an expectation of mediocrity is entirely different from a lack of expectation of perfection.)

In short, we can only truly be prepared to do something if we have done it before, and we should only expect the best when we are qualified to expect it.

Start Where You Stand

Sometimes you have to start doing something to actually learn how to do it. Sure, you can convince yourself that you need “more time” or “more practice” or that you have “more to learn” or “aren't ready,” but sooner or later—if you really want to do something—you have to get down to doing it: you have to act.

I tend to subscribe to the notion that, when I attempt something new, it's not possible to be “ready” or “fully prepared.” It's been my experience that I'm much better off “jumping in” and getting my “feet wet.” Should I expect my initial performance to be flawless, however, I will likely disappoint myself. Such expectations have largely proven to be foolish. But by acting, without the expectation of perfection, I provide myself something to work with. I provide myself with a foundation to build upon and improve. Had I not started, I would still be “sitting,” “practicing,” or “planning.” But by acting, I am able to correct myself as I go.

Start where you stand. Use the tools you have at your disposal. You may surprise yourself how quickly you can learn and improve.

The Eye of Thinking

In the previous post in our informal series on thinking we discussed a method of observing, hypothesizing and experimenting as a way to identify and remedy undesirable life circumstances or problems. The effectiveness of this process, however, is utterly dependent upon a certain characteristic. Namely, whether or not the individual utilizing the said process is willing to take personal responsibility to fix the problem, whatever it may be.

Taking responsibility implies that we are going to take action in some form or another. Thus it seems necessary to make a distinction between the things we can control and the things we can't. The former being our most effective option. We know that, strictly speaking, the only thing which we have direct control over is ourselves. That is to say we have direct control over our own actions. In contrast to the things we directly control are the things which we do not, specifically, external circumstances. External circumstances are just that—external—and therefore “outside” of our direct control. The weather, the actions of other people, and random events in life, for example, would all fall under the umbrella of external circumstances. At this point it should be obvious that if we are going to attempt to solve a problem or remedy a given situation, we ought to focus not on the things which are beyond our control, but rather specifically on the things which we are capable of directly affecting. In short, we need to focus on what we can personally do and not on the external circumstances that may exist. It makes no difference in the world what some other person ought to be doing—you cannot control the other person—you can only control yourself.

Consider the likely result when a person fails to take personal responsibility to solve a given problem or circumstance. Take person A, for example, who, rather than seeking to ascertain what they can do to help solve a problem, seeks instead to determine what someone else (say person B) ought to do to fix it. Such a situation would be characterized by a failure to focus on what one can directly control in favor of something one has absolutely no control over—the actions of other people. What would this accomplish? To begin with, unless person B is aware that it is supposedly “his responsibility” to remedy the situation, chances are nothing will be done. Person A will just sit around thinking that person B ought to do something. But on the other hand, if person A confronts person B in order to “get him to do something,” person B could easily turn the situation around and simply respond “that's not my responsibility—get someone else to do it!” It doesn't require very much imagination to see how such a situation could quickly escalate into something far worse than the initial problem. We could further complicate the situation by supposing that person A is in a position of authority over person B and thus, if person B desires to keep their job in good standing, they will do what they've been told. But this is how employees come to resent their bosses. When “the boss” is constantly “pawning off” responsibility for problems on “other people,” the “other people” naturally lose respect for them. Contrariwise, when “the boss” takes responsibility for problems and works to correct them—even if the problems are not “the bosses” fault to begin with—employees will naturally aspire to be more responsible and effective. The likely result then of avoiding personal responsibility to solve a given problem or circumstance—irrespective of what the specifics may or may not be—is not only the probable failure to fix the problem itself, but also the possibility of widespread animosity and pandemonium as well.

The “eye” of thinking should be understood as the “center point” or the heart of thinking, which refers to thinking only in terms of what you can personally do to help a given problem or circumstance. It makes no difference “who's fault” something is. It makes no difference what “someone else” ought to do. The only thing that you have control over is your own actions. If you want to fix a given problem then you must focus on the things that you can do personally to fix it.

Unless of course you would prefer to stress yourself out and frustrate yourself to the very edges of sanity—it's up to you.

Get Over Yourself

How do you respond when things don't go as you expect? Do you contemplate the possible causes that something did not work out? Do you stop and think about it? Do you examine your own actions in relation to the outcome and resolve to correct them in the future? Or do you just fly off the handle, freak out, go berserk?

Consider this 36-second clip taken from America's Funniest Home Videos:

Obviously the child is quite ignorant in regard to the cause of his falling when he steps on to the “slip-n-slide.” He doesn't realize that wet plastic is slippery, nor is it likely he would understand what “slippery” means at his age. Nonetheless, he seems perfectly content to believe that the reality of his “repeatedly-falling-down” is something the “slip-n-slide” is deliberately doing to him. Thus, the responsibility is clearly the slip-n-slide's and as a result the little man is doing his best to give it a solid verbal lashing.

Now clearly no one is forcing the little guy to run out on the slip-n-slide. He simply observes some other kids doing it, sees that they are having a good time, and decides to give it a whirl. But the other kids aren't falling down like bumbling idiots, so why is he? Maybe the slip-n-slide is doing it to him? Maybe he ought to put it in its place?

Little does the child know that it is his fault that he is falling down like that. In effect, his deliberately running onto a slippery surface is directly resulting in his loss of balance and subsequent descent. Now surely it would be wrong to expect a child of his age to know this, but is it wrong to expect grown adults to? Many people make their way through life yelling and screaming about situations, situations—perhaps unbeknownst to them—that they themselves are responsible for creating! And though it is true that many external circumstances appear without being directly caused by everyone affected by them, the fact remains that we as individuals are directly responsible for the creation of a great many of the life circumstances that we enjoy—or suffer. And unless we take the time to examine the causal relationships of our unpleasant life circumstances—and moreover are willing to take personal responsibility for them and get over ourselves—the likelihood of any of our situations improving will be almost entirely beyond our control.

Perhaps those who prefer to avoid responsibility for their life should wear diapers as well?

Someday Is Now

The only moment in time which really exists is now. Neither the past, nor the future really exist. The past is a memory of previous "now" moments. The future is a collection of potential "now" moments. But the only moment which truly exists is this one—right now. We often postpone our goals and dreams to the ambiguous "someday." The truth, however, is that someday is now. The only moment you will ever have is right now.

Discipline

Discipline is simply the ability to do what you commit to do. If you can't fully commit, don't. Be consistent. Do what you commit yourself to do and only commit to do what you are willing to do. Actions perpetuate themselves. Develop discipline in small things and your habit will carry over into large things.

Life and Habit

A good life is the result of consciously developed habits. Control and master your habits and they will place the world at your feet. Allow them to run wild and undisciplined and they will destroy you.

The Method

This is the third post in a series, the topic of which is “thinking.” If you have not read the first or second posts I encourage you to do so before continuing.

Before we move on it seems appropriate to briefly summarize what has been said in previous posts. As it relates to The Catalyst of Confidence, the concept of thinking broadly refers to the examination of causal relationships. A crucial component of such thinking is that it is inherently teleological in that it is always directed toward a specific end or good in the mind of the individual. In other words, causal relationships are not examined “just because” or for “no reason,” but rather, for the purpose of attaining a desired good. While the goods which our thoughts are directed toward always “appear” to be real or genuine goods, in fact, they may or may not be. By evaluating both the short-term (immediate) and long-term (forthcoming) effects of a good, a person is better able to discern whether or not the goods they are directing their energies toward are real or merely apparent. And while poor choices in goods tends to focus solely on short-term effects, beneficial choices tend to focus on effects in both the short- and long-term, with an emphasis on the latter.

Up to this point, our posts have put forward a lot of theory, but how can a person actually apply this information? How does a person go about putting this information into practice? To answer these questions and others we must, oddly enough, look to the natural sciences. At present, the best possible way that I have found to apply this information is to start by utilizing a basic scientific method, which I will adapt and describe below. This method consists of three steps: observing, hypothesizing and experimenting.

1. Observing

Observing refers to the observation of various elements in one's current circumstances. Naturally some circumstances may be evaluated as good and satisfactory, but it is likely that others, like a burnt hand, for instance, will be judged as less beneficial. It is the second category of circumstances, those which are deemed unsatisfactory, with which we concern ourselves. These are specific conditions which we would like to eliminate and/or replace with those of a more desirable nature. This leads us to our second step.

2. Hypothesizing

Once an unsatisfactory circumstance is identified a person can begin to determine it's cause and/or remedy. This is done through a form of speculation known as hypothesizing. Hypothesizing is closely linked with observation, as it refers to the examination of causal relationships so as to determine the root cause of a given unsatisfactory circumstance, and if appropriate, it's remedy.

3. Experimenting

When a possible cause or remedy is identified a person may then begin taking action in order to correct the problem or unsatisfactory circumstance. Performing actions which are directed toward the correction of an unsatisfactory circumstance is known as experimenting. Experimenting is basically an attempt to fix the problem. It then becomes necessary to begin observing the results of our actions. If our initial attempts fail, we can begin re-examining the situation by hypothesizing which may then be followed up by further experimentation.

Thus, through trial and error, a person is able to utilize this method to identify an adverse condition, it's cause and/or remedy, and ultimately eliminate and/or replace it through their own efforts. I will continue to elaborate in the future.

Between A and B

People often refer to their “present situation,” which, generally speaking, represents the sum total of their current circumstances. In other words it describes where they are in the present—right now. Such a concept may easily be labeled as a so-called “Point A.” In contrast, people often speak of the future or of their anticipated “future situation,” which again, simply refers to what their “present situation” will be like at some point in the future. Likewise, such a concept may easily be labeled “Point B.” It follows, in this sense, that every living person is in motion or moving from a given Point A to a given Point B (A → B). They are moving from the present to the future.

But what constitutes this movement? Through what process does a person “move” from a given point to another? At this time, it may be helpful to replace the word “circumstances” with the word “results.” What then, determines a person's results? Choices. Specifically choices and actions, the individual initiative and volition of a person. If someone is at Point A and desires to get to a given Point B, the defining factor of their “movement” from A to B can be none other than their individual choices and actions. It is because a person's choices and actions produce results that they can either bring them closer to or further from their desired destination (Point B).

It is obvious that a person's Point A must be different from their Point B. If it were not, if the circumstances which constituted A and B were identical, then no choices or actions would be necessary to “move” a person from one point to another. Indeed, strictly speaking, no “movement” would be needed. But few people, if any, can claim such a blissful state of existence. By definition, we all desire to better our circumstances to the extent possible. To be sure, whether we acknowledge it or not, we are all moving from the present to the future; we are all moving from a given Point A to a given Point B in the sense that our choices and actions today will largely determine the point we find ourselves at tomorrow. It is because of this, that the importance of defining our so-called “Point B” cannot be overstated.

Consider, for instance, a cargo ship leaving port. Without a defined destination (Point B) the ships captain would be powerless to get anywhere—except, of course, by chance. Why? Without something to direct his actions toward, the ships captain would be unable to rationally make any decision whatsoever. In other words, by knowing the ships end or destination, the captain is able to choose the actions necessary to reach that point. In the same way, without a defined destination (Point B) a person becomes unable to choose or act effectively, and as a consequence, cannot “get anywhere” except by chance. Thus, we can conclude that it is nothing less than the goals, dreams and aspirations of a person (provided they have been defined in detail), which ultimately direct their life.

Have you explicitly defined your goals and dreams? If not, what rational basis do you have to guide your decisions and actions?

A Common Mistake

If you are sixteen or older, the odds of you having your drivers license are fairly good. In order to acquire this license you had to complete/pass a state-approved “drivers ed” program, which consisted of a combination of driving and class work, for the duration of approximately two to three weeks. After completing this first segment, you were given a driving permit which enabled you to “practice driving” with a parent or legal guardian for a specific period of time. Later on, you entered the next segment for some additional class work and, after that was complete, were able to take your “road test,” which, if passed, approved you to get your official drivers license. Again, if you have a drivers license, chances are you went through this process or one very similar to it.

The class work we did during our “drivers ed” program can be referred to as the “intellectual understanding” of the subject of driving. In it we learned the rules or “laws” of driving an automobile. We learned about various traffic signals, signs, speed limits, etc. We learned the theory of how-to-drive a car and at this point, our understanding was purely intellectual.

But class work wasn't all we did. Eventually, we were able to get behind the steering wheel and, along with other students and a driving instructor, drive down the road amidst other automobiles. This process of actually driving a car can be referred to as the “functional understanding” of the subject of driving. Functional understanding is essentially understanding something by doing or applying what we know intellectually. Though we understood how to drive a car (in the intellectual sense), we didn't fully understand it until we actually did it and became proficient at doing it (which took a considerable amount of time and effort).

As discussed in the Introduction, the ability to fully understand a given subject is dependent upon two distinct forms of understanding: intellectual and functional. Both are necessary to fully understand almost anything. One of the most common mistakes in the area of personal growth is assuming we understand something, when in reality we only understand it intellectually. But it is only after we take the time and put forth the effort to functionally apply what we intellectually know, that we can truly understand our potential and grow personally.

Don't Burn Your Hands!

The following quotation appears at the very beginning of The Catalyst of Confidence, just prior to the Table of Contents:

“Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is

probably why so few people engage in it.”

-Henry Ford

One would not be wrong to assume—especially considering it is seen before anything else—that this quote carries some special meaning within the overall context of the book. Indeed, it does. For if The Catalyst of Confidence is a book is about anything, it is a book about thinking. But what exactly does it mean to think? After all, the term “thinking” is thrown around colloquially as though anyone and everyone engages in such activity. Yet Henry Ford himself, the great automotive visionary and industrialist, proposes that not only is thinking the hardest work there is, but also that so few people engage in it? It seems to be true that on a certain level—everyone thinks. And on yet another, demonstrably deeper and more analytic level, few people think. Though it may surprise some, it is this second, deeper and more analytic level of thinking with which The Catalyst of Confidence is concerned.

Thinking at this level is concerned with causal relationships. That is, examining the relationship between cause and effect—between action and result. If you place your hand on the heated coil of a stove, you're going to be burned. The act of “placing one's hand” on the stove would be considered the “cause” or “action” while the condition of “being burned” would be considered the “effect” or “result.” This is, of course, a rather simplistic example, but it serves the purpose of illustrating this concept quite nicely. Everything we do (action) produces a given effect or result. Some effects/results are good and desirable, and therefore we would do well to seek out the cause/action that produced them. Some effects/results are bad and painful, but we would do especially well, if we took the time to seek out the specific cause/action which produced such undesirable circumstances.

If you find yourself in any undesirable circumstance, particularly inner or personal circumstances, reflect on the cause/action which produced such circumstances. If you don't know the cause/action which produced it, concentrate on finding it, and eventually you'll figure it out. However, we must remember that it isn't enough to simply examine the relationship between a given cause/action and effect/result if we ultimately fail to correct it. In other words, in order to change the effect/result, we need to change the cause/action. Surely, no one wants to spend their life burning their hands?

We've barely scratched the surface—more to come!

Constancy or Rationalization?

It seems the concept of “uprooting bad habits” may require some further elucidation. At first glance, the process of conquering a bad habit is intellectually understood without much difficulty. Functionally, however, it largely remains a mystery to many people. (Perhaps this is because most people have acquired the habit of assuming they understand something, when in fact they only understand it in an intellectual sense.)

Everyone at some point has developed bad habits, a relatively simple feat. Getting rid of them, on the other hand, is another story. When a destructive habit has been identified it cannot simply be “willed” to disappear, but rather, must be replaced with another habit (hopefully a beneficial one).

Though habits are generally performed subconsciously, they are still actions. So, to clarify the language, a bad habit is simply a bad action, albeit performed subconsciously. To replace it, a different action must take it's place. In other words, an individual must consciously act differently, consistently over time, in order to replace a destructive action with a more beneficial one. So far so good. But when it comes to actually doing this, many people find themselves in the dark, opting to conclude that such things are great “in theory” but ultimately not very practical.

So how can someone actually do this?

Consider a person who has developed the habit of watching television in the evening after work. This isn't necessarily anything destructive, but let's say that the said individual would prefer to be more active, as they don't get any exercise during the day, nor would they mind losing some weight. So what can they do? Since the “bad habit” (action) has already been identified, a new habit (action) must be decided upon to take it's place. So the question is what can they do instead of watching television at the time when they would normally sit down and watch television? Suppose this person decides that they can go for a walk. Great, but how can they implement this?

At the point in time when they would normally sit down and watch television, they get up and go for a walk—period. (This is so simple that many of us don't understand it at first.) Notice, I didn't say that they get up and go for a walk “if they feel like it” that day. They get up and go for a walk whether they feel like it or not. If it's raining, they get an umbrella. If it's cold, they put on a jacket. They deal with it, because that is the only way to develop a new habit. That is, if the said individual can maintain constancy in their decision to “go for a walk” instead of watching television, then they will, over time, replace watching television with walking. In short, they will reach a point in time when, rather than wrestling with the urge to sit down and do nothing, they will go for a walk without even thinking about it. Walking will become the new norm.

What traps most people, of course, is a process of rationalization. For example, they may decide “to go for a walk” instead of watching television, but when it comes time to actually “go for the walk,” they come up with some rationalization for why they would be better off “going for the walk,” starting tomorrow. When tomorrow comes, they miraculously have another “good reason” for forgoing the walk (surprise!), and conclude that they'll get to it as “soon as the weekend is over.” Over time, instead of developing the habit of walking instead of watching, they develop the habit of “rationalizing why they will walk some other time” immediately prior to sitting down and watching television!

Brilliant, wouldn't you agree?

Acting Man vs. Spectating Man

At the end of Lesson III: Goals and Dreams, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt is quoted at length:

It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

Criticism is something which must be confronted and tolerated by anyone who would do—perhaps—anything. As the saying goes “if you're not being criticized, you're probably not doing anything.”

If you have ever observed something as a spectator and then, been able to participate first hand in what you were spectating, you know full well that it is far easier to “point out how the strong man stumbles” or “where the doer of deeds could have done better” than to be the “man who is actually in the arena.”

Things are easier said than done. But it is only through doing (acting) that things may actually be accomplished.

If you have ever striven “valiantly,” or came “up short again and again,” you know full well that there is “no effort without error or shortcoming.” For all action holds the possibility of wrong action, but let this not discourage you, for all wrong action holds the possibility of right action, and through such a process you will learn and grow and come to know the “great enthusiasms,” and the “great devotions,” and spend yourself for a “worthy cause.” “In the end,” knowing the “triumph of high achievement,” and if not, never being with those “cold and timid” souls who knew neither “victory nor defeat.”

It is easy to come to believe that “winning” is the point. But it is through the process of wanting to win, through the process of striving, that we learn the most—whether or not we attain the “triumph of high achievement.” For this reason, it is not the “critic who counts,” but the “man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood.”

Why Is There 12?

While The Catalyst of Confidence is built around ten core lessons, which culminate in an eleventh, the acute reader will notice that there is also a twelfth, and no doubt wonder why it exists, especially considering that the eleventh lesson draws upon the functional understanding of the previous ten. In a sense, the twelfth and final lesson seems to stand out from the rest of the book, like a kind of black sheep, and though it adds to the consummation found in the eleventh, it is not merely a stand alone lesson, but rather, a more complex interpretation of the first. In other words, Lesson XII: Possibility and Impossibility, is simply a further explanation of Lesson I: Perception and Belief.

Our beliefs are curious things. It seems that, regardless of what we do or for what purpose, our actions can ultimately be traced back to a belief about something, while that specific belief can often be traced to a specific perception regarding a specific experience, which can ultimately be reduced to information, and from all this our actions and potential actions spring. (It is worth noting that throughout this entire process we have the freedom to choose how we perceive the information we associate with, and as such, are not necessarily reacting blindly to our environments.)

We find in Lesson XII: Possibility and Impossibility, that those who have accomplished the so-called impossible, believed that the “impossible” was possible. We find in our own lives that our ability to accomplish the things we desire, to solve problems, build relationships, or communicate effectively, is determined by what we believe. Likewise, the impossibility or possibility of a given end is also largely determined by and dependent on what we believe. Believe you can solve a problem and you'll find a way. Believe you can't and you won't bother trying.

The Specter of Discipline

It seems few things haunt the masses of mankind more than discipline.

Popularly regarded as rather unpleasant and menacing, discipline is a concept which hangs over the heads of many like a ghost. This is, of course, due to the fact that many people tend to view discipline as something they lack rather than positively possess.

When people say something like “I have no discipline,” what they mean is they tend to not follow through with many of their decisions (there are also those who are not conscious of the fact they do such things). Ultimately, a lack of discipline is characterized by an inconsistency between one's decisions and actions. For instance, say I was going out to eat with my wife and had resolved to spend no more than $50 on the meal. But, upon seeing the top-shelf wine selection featured by the restaurant, quickly change my mind, and opt to relinquish my limit. Essentially, I have reneged on my original decision to spend no more than $50. Now, let me emphasize that this is not necessarily much of a problem—in itself—when isolated in the moment (assuming of course I have the money to spend). The problem occurs when I develop the habit of haphazardly acting other-than that which I have decided. Thus I may find myself, perhaps in the not-to-distant future, saying things like “I always spend more than I should, I'm just not disciplined.”

Most people fail to realize that both discipline and indiscipline (the lack thereof) are habits. While discipline is the habit of doing what you commit (decide) to do, indiscipline is the habit of doing other-than what you commit (decide) to do. As described in Lesson V: Action and Habit, all habits result from consistent actions. Hence, those who have developed the habit of discipline (the habit of doing what they commit to do) have done so because they have consistently done what they have committed themselves to do. Whereas those who have developed the habit of indiscipline have done so because they have consistently done other-than what they have committed themselves to do. Indiscipline is developed by not adhering to one's decisions, while discipline is developed by simply following through with them. In short, if you fall under the “not disciplined” banner you have simply developed the habit of indiscipline.

How does one overcome such a habit?

If you struggle with discipline there are many things you can do to develop it. The simple answer is changing your actions (easier said than done, I know). As mentioned above, if you are not a disciplined person it is because you have developed the habit of indiscipline, which may only be replaced by developing the habit of discipline. In other words, you must begin to consciously do what you decide to do. The following tips may be helpful:

• Develop awareness of your decisions: Every day we make hundreds (perhaps thousands) of decisions. Some are small, like brushing your teeth. Others are larger, like going to the gym. Begin to pay attention to your decision making process. Many people literally make most of their decisions unconsciously, that is, with no conscious thought. Your goal is to begin consciously making your decisions and to develop an in-the-moment awareness of when you make them.

• Start with small things: Remember, your ultimate goal is to develop the habit of doing what you decide to do. You may want to lose 100 pounds, but if you've developed the habit of indiscipline, your goal should first be to develop discipline. The best way to do this is to start with small things. Consciously decide to get dressed in the morning. Decide to eat breakfast, lunch and dinner. Decide to go to the bathroom. Decide to take out the trash. This alone will affect you tremendously. Not only will you begin to develop the habit of doing the things you have decided (regardless how small), you will also gain an increased awareness of your decision making process, and will begin to feel more comfortable deciding to do bigger and bigger things. This leads us to our next tip:

• Only decide to do something if you are absolutely sure you will do it: Do not commit yourself to doing anything if you are unsure about your following through with it. As you begin to consciously decide to act on bigger and bigger decisions, you may find yourself uncertain as to whether or not you will follow through. It is better to decide not to do something, than to not do something you have decided.

The key to developing discipline is being consistent in our decisions and actions. Only then may we truly develop the habit of discipline. When we have developed the awareness of our decisions we can begin deciding about the small things in life. The small choices we make and act upon invariably lead to larger and larger ones, until over time, we have developed the habit of doing what we decide to do in all areas of our life.