Some Thoughts on Communication

Communication between people is accomplished through the medium of language. We communicate with words. But communication is only possible because words have meanings attached to them. When I say something is “hot” or “cold,” you are quickly able to grasp the basic proposition of what it is that I mean when I use such words. Yet not all words are so easily discernible, so clean cut, so black and white. Indeed, many times people will use a word to mean one thing, when, in their mind, they really mean something entirely different. And thus arises an explanation (no doubt among many) of why real communication can be so challenging.

You can have a conversation, a discussion, even an argument with someone, yet if you don't understand exactly what it is that they mean when they say what they say, you aren't really communicating with them. You're simply talking past one another, and though it may appear that communication is occurring, in reality it isn't. For this reason (among others) I have noticed that it is of paramount importance to understand what people mean when they use the words they do. I often find myself asking others “what exactly do you mean when you say 'x'?” or “when you say 'y,' do you mean this or that?” and so on. Recently I heard someone say that they were “being logical.” But when I inquired as to what they meant by the word “logical,” I found that they were actually thinking that they had a good reason to do whatever it was they were going to do. By “logical,” they seemed to think that they had thought the matter through and were not being rash. Had I not asked, however, I would never have guessed that that was what they meant.

The bottom line is this: don't assume that you know what the other person means when they write or say something. You may have very well read or heard a given word, and they may have very well used that word, but make sure that you are both on the same page when it comes to its meaning. Seek first to understand.

Understanding Your Tendencies: Lesson VIII

At the end of each lesson in The Catalyst of Confidence there is a short section entitled “understanding your tendencies.” These sections are composed of a series of questions designed to help the reader understand and apply some of the information that was conveyed during the lesson. What follows is my commentary on these questions from Lesson VIII: Self-Deception and Learning.

1. How often do you reflect on your life (decisions, thoughts, actions, habits, beliefs, etc.)?

Thinking about your life is one of the best things (if not the best thing) you can do to improve yourself. By developing an awareness of your thoughts, decisions, actions, habits, and the causal relationships they involve, you provide yourself with a better understanding of right action. You can course correct. You can learn from your mistakes and the mistakes of others. You can make better decisions in the future. But you must have the willingness to soberly look yourself in mirror and face your faults and failings.

2. Are you ever 100% certain that you are right and someone else is wrong?

Some things are certain. 2 + 2 = 4, for instance, is something that few people should dispute, provided they understand elementary mathematics. Many things, however, are not certain. They might be probable or likely, but not absolutely certain. The problem with being certain that you're right isn't that you can't know whether or not you're right. The problem is that you will soon begin assuming that you're right and the other person is wrong. The danger in assuming is that you stop thinking critically, opting to simply believe that your view is the correct one. Put differently, assuming we're right creates blind spots in our thinking, ultimately putting us in danger of deceiving ourselves.

3. Do you doubt your own abilities?

It's surprising how often we doubt ourselves when we have no good reason to. Was that low test score really evidence of your lack of ability? Are you so sure that it's not worth your time to go on that interview? Most people overestimate the abilities of other people while underestimating their own. Take a chance. You just might surprise yourself.

4. Are you honest with yourself?

Some people struggle a great deal with being honest with themselves. Fearing that, by honestly evaluating their life, they might find something they cannot bear. But if you wish to better yourself and your life, you must face the truth. If you don't, you merely prevent potential progress and keep yourself locked in check. If you do, even if it can be seemingly unbearable, you provide yourself with the opportunity to learn and grow.

5. Do you ever make excuses to yourself?

“There wasn't anything else I could have done!” “I wouldn't have done X if so-and-so didn't do Y!” The habit of making excuses is riddled with danger. When you start creating alibis to excuse your behavior, it can be very easy to lose sight of the things that you are responsible for. It's very easy to fall into the trap of avoiding responsibility, even when you're the one who is responsible. Regardless of the circumstances, you can convince yourself it's not your fault, and believe it to the core. But doing so will profit you nothing, unless you wish to be the perpetual victim of chance and happenstance.

6. Do you make decisions based on immediate or long-term desires?

Poor decisions are often solely based on immediate desires. Good decisions generally take into account long-term desires. You may think it will make you happy to eat cake at every meal. But it won't take very long for such consumptive habits to catch up with you. You may think that procrastinating is fine, right up until you regret your procrastination. Think about your actions and their consequences. And think about their long-term ramifications.

7. Have you ever thought you were better than someone else?

I'm not asking whether you have thought you were better than another person at something specific, like tennis or golf. I'm asking if you have ever thought you were better than someone else—period. If so, you're deceiving yourself. When you think you're better than another person, you tend to assume you're right and they're wrong. You inadvertently turn off your ability to think. You act and reason on the basis of assumption rather than fact. See also #2.

8. Do you ever try to run away from your problems?

If you do, you're deceiving yourself (surprise!). You're like the hypothetical ostrich that buries its head in the sand when it sees something it fears. Does ignoring your problems really make them disappear altogether? Or does it simply delay the inevitable? And though you try to force your problems from your conscious mind, are they not always with you? Quietly waiting, in the shadows of your mind? Would it not be better to begin addressing them? You are only cheating yourself by pretending they don't exist.

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?

The Problem With Personal Development

Largely made up of books, audio programs, classes, seminars and workshops, the world of personal development (PD) is composed of a great many things. Within it we find the healthy existence of a wide assortment of topics ranging from personal relationships and increasing productivity to teamwork and communication to leadership and various “how to” subjects and the list goes on and on. Needless to say, there's a lot going on here. But what is rarely—if ever—brought to the forefront of discussion is perhaps the most problematic aspect of PD items in general. (I use the word “items” as an all encompassing reference to any variation of personal development products or services.)

Though it permeates the entire world of PD items, the problem to which I refer is a simple one. It is not necessarily a problem with the various PD items themselves, but is rather a kind of byproduct which tends to develop as a result of the consistent use of such things. Specifically, it is the tendency to avoid or lose focus on the bettering of oneself (which is the proper end of PD items) in favor of using the information available in PD items as a standard with which to critique others. In other words, instead of my seeking to better myself through the application of a given PD item, I use the said item as the criterion to judge why the people I observe around me are so very pathetic. “If only they knew what I knew.”

Consider the following analogy. By sheer accident, Steve stumbles upon a “people skills” book. He has never read a self-help book before, but for some reason decides to give it a chance. Upon completing the book he reluctantly decides to try a suggested approach with a rather abrasive co-worker. To his amazement, his co-worker responds positively and over the next couple weeks their professional relationship improves to the point that Steve no longer considers his co-worker abrasive at all. Thinking “wow, this stuff really works!” Steve enthusiastically heads off to the nearest bookstore in search of another book, and over time, Steve becomes extremely educated and well-versed in various PD items. As a result, he grows tremendously and begins to see the fruits of his efforts in many areas of his life. But—albeit slowly and subtly—something begins to change. Steve begins losing focus of the reason he began exploring the world of PD items in the first place. He begins to lose sight of himself and begins to focus on the weaknesses and failures of other people. He begins to see nothing but the disparity between his “abundance of wisdom and perfection” and the absolute lack of such qualities in the people around him. The more PD items he consumes the more isolated he becomes in his perceived greatness. After all, he has spent years studying such things, he is well-read, well-versed, and lives on the cutting edge of personal development. What began with Steve's initial curiosity and later desire to improve himself has slowly and steadily evolved into a kind of dogmatism. A dogmatism that has resulted in Steve seeing everyone but himself as the source of all problems. Thus, Steve's education in PD items is being used as a “measuring stick” with which to evaluate and critique those around him.

Such situations are not nearly as uncommon as many would think. To be sure, they are especially common in the corporate world. Can you imagine working with people, many of whom perfectly exemplify the given description of Steve? Can you imagine the finger pointing? The stress of the internal politics? The self-righteousness? Regardless of where it occurs, such a situation is no doubt highly destructive to everyone in its proximity.

But what are we to take away from all this? Are we to conclude that, because PD items can potentially result in situations like those described above, such items ought to be avoided? On the contrary, PD items do not themselves produce such situations, but rather, such situations result from human error, misapplication and specifically self-deception—things we must always guard ourselves against.

On Open-Mindedness

In contemporary culture, open-mindedness seems to represent the pinnacle of personal development and as such it is often seen to be on par with and akin to a kind of “enlightenment.” Yet all too often (and perhaps as a result), a person's sincere belief that they are open-minded can solely be used to justify beliefs they hold which conflict with the beliefs of others. For example, if I am open-minded and I believe this world is an illusion, and you happen to believe that this world is real, then you must not be open-minded. (I personally refer to this process as “playing the open-minded card.” Hence, my “open-minded card” is played to trump whatever it is you have to say, because if you were open-minded, you would agree with me.) Thus, I am able to provide myself with a perfectly “rational” justification for my beliefs whenever a person disagrees with me. I may even make statements such as “if so-and-so was only more open-minded they would understand” or “if you don't accept my viewpoint then you're being closed-minded.” But this is extremely shallow intellectually, and can only be ignorant at best. The fact that someone may disagree with me does not provide me with grounds to accuse them of being closed-minded. What if they are right and I am wrong? Too often people say things or hold beliefs which cannot hold up to scrutiny, simply because they are far too general, contradictory, or both, and when one in fact does hold such a position, to retort that those who disagree are closed-minded is clearly to deceive oneself.

Now I realize that people do exist who are closed-minded and perhaps to the extent that we couldn't "open their mind" with a crowbar. But before we assume that such is the case, why not sincerely examine the reasons which support their position? It seems, however, that many people are unwilling to do as much. After all, is it not more satisfying to simply write someone off as being closed-minded than to painstakingly look in the mirror and reevaluate one's personal premises and presuppositions?

The concept of open-mindedness has been indirectly touched upon in the closing paragraph of Lesson VIII: Self-Deception and Learning. The general idea is simple: always be open to learn. Such a concept presupposes the reality that “we don't know what we don't know,” which in itself provides a strong case for continuous learning and growth. Though the word “open-minded” never appears in the lesson, its essence has nonetheless been presented. But how then are we to define the concept of open-mindedness?

First, everything that we know (or think we know) can simply be reduced to information. And nearly everyone will admit to the reality that they don't know everything. We can therefore conclude that information does exist which we personally have not yet discovered. The said premises support the truism that “we don't know what we don't know” or in other words, that “there is always more to learn.” It seems therefore, that open-mindedness is the ability to approach new information as that of a student: it is the willingness to consider new information. The key words in this definition are “willingness,” “consider,” and “new information.” Willingness implies that we are open to hear more about a given subject. We thus can never believe that “everything has been said” about something, and as such we must always be, as it were, open. In conjunction with the word willingness, the word consider suggests that we are open to “think over” something. In other words we are open to honestly study, ponder or evaluate something. New information is just that, it is information which is new to us. It is information which we are encountering for the first time, and as such we must be open to hear as well as consider it seriously. Notice this definition says nothing about “accepting everything you hear” or believing that “all viewpoints are equally valid.” One can wholly reject an idea and still be open-minded about the idea itself. Open-mindedness is not synonymous with acceptance. Rather, it is simply the willingness to consider new information. Without such willingness, we are unable to learn, yet without any consideration we are liable to accept anything.

The Ends of Thought

This is the second post in an informal series, the topic of which is “thinking.” If you have not read the first post (it's fairly short) I encourage you to do so before continuing.

Acute readers will have noticed that the ending of Don't Burn Your Hands! clearly states that “we've barely scratched the surface—more to come!” This obviously implies that we were not done. But that was in August and here we are closing in on December. So, if you would, allow me to apologize for my failure to publish this post in a timely manner.

Having explored a broad generalization of the concept of thinking (causal relationships), let us now begin to break it apart and examine it more closely. One of the first things we should notice is that thinking at this level is inherently teleological, that is, it is directed toward some end or goal. It does not wander aimlessly, but rather, seeks something specific. What exactly does that mean? If we take an example from the first post, specifically the example of placing one's hand on the heated coil of a stove, we know that this action will result in our hand being burned. But examining the causal relationship between the act of placing our hand on the coil and the result of our hand being burned is not properly an end in itself. Rather, the end of such examination (thinking) is presumably “how do I avoid burning my hand in the future?” In this case, the end which our thinking is directed toward would be the avoidance of burning one's hand.

For the purpose of these posts, the ends which we direct our thoughts toward will be called goods. Thus, the examination of the causal relationship between the act of placing one's hand on a heated coil and the effect of it being burned, is directed toward the good of avoiding such effects in the future. Most people will agree that it is desirable to not burn one's hand on the coil of a stove. In other words, it is seen to be good to avoid such things. However, no one deliberately directs their thoughts toward an end which they believe to be destructive or bad. Ends are always seen as goods in the mind of an individual. This leads us to the contrast between real and apparent goods.

A real or genuine good, is an end which is actually good for a person. The end of avoiding burning one's hand, for example, would be considered a real or genuine good. An apparent good, on the other hand, is a good which, while a person may think or believe it to be genuinely beneficial for them, in reality is not. We can easily conceive of a person who desires to eat chocolate cake at every meal. Such an end would no doubt be seen as a good in the mind of the individual, but would nonetheless prove to be the opposite. This inevitably leads us to yet another distinction. That of the short-term and long-term effects or consequences of different ends.

The short-term effect of my avoiding burning my hand can be seen as a real good because I do in fact avoid burning my hand. The long-term effect would be the same. In this case there is no difference between the short-term and long-term effects when it comes to the end of “avoiding burning my hand.” Can the same be said of the person whose end is the consumption of chocolate cake at every meal? The short-term effect of eating chocolate cake at every meal is simply the gratification of the desire to eat chocolate cake at every meal. Again, in the mind of the individual, this end is seen as a good. Even so, the long-term effect would be quite different, the very least of which would be mild health problems. In this case, the long-term effect of the end of “eating chocolate cake at every meal” reveals itself to be, not a real or genuine good, but on the contrary, an apparent good.

On the basis of what has been said, we can make several conclusions about the essence of goods. First, real goods are ends which actually produce beneficial effects, with an added emphasis on the long-term. In many circumstances, the short-term or immediate effect of a real good, is not seen to be good or beneficial at all. When a person who desires to lose weight begins to eat healthy or work out, for instance, the short-term circumstances are generally undesirable. Prior to working out this person was overweight. Now that they have begun working out, they are still overweight, but now they are tired and sore as well! Thus, this person must tolerate a short-term pain or discomfort in order to attain their desired end in the long-term, which is a real good.

Next, we find that apparent goods are ends which are expected to produce beneficial effects and generally emphasize the short-term. Put differently, apparent goods have a tendency to focus on the immediate effect of an end or good. Procrastinating on a project may seem to be desirable in the short-term, but oftentimes such ends produce hazardous effects in the long-term. As discussed in Lesson VIII: Self-Deception and Learning, a characteristic of self-deception is seen in fulfilling immediate desires while simultaneously ignoring future consequences.

A person may opt to tolerate a given pain or discomfort in the short-term, in order to enjoy a real good in the long term. While another person may solely be focused on an apparent good in the short-term, at the expense of the long-term. Herein lies the difference between good and bad choices. In one instance, a person takes into account the short-term and the long-term effects, and evaluates them as goods. In another, only the short-term or immediate effects are considered and evaluated as goods.

I do realize that this is a lot of information, but it is a necessary foundation to understand the forthcoming posts on this topic.

Emotionalized Final Thoughts

This is the third (and hopefully final) post in a series, the topic of which is the concept of “emotionalized thoughts.” If you have not read the first and second posts, I encourage you to do so before continuing.

Having explored the affect emotionalized thoughts have on the creation of beliefs, as well as the accomplishment of goals, let us continue our exploration with a third example. In Lesson IV: Thought and Concentration, we find that thoughts which are either repeated or emotionalized have a “magnetic” affect on one's mind. The word “magnetic” is used to indicate that such thoughts appear to have a tendency to “attract” other thoughts which are of a similar or related nature to that of the original thought. A person who is worrying about the outcome of some past action, for instance, will find that if they continue “worrying” (repeating the said thought) or if their initial “worry” is accompanied by a strong feeling(s)—such as anxiety, nervousness, etc.—they will find it inevitable that other thoughts of a similar or related nature will begin appearing in their consciousness as well. Hence, an initial fear or worry that a given action (A) may produce an anticipated negative result (B), suddenly expands in their mind. They now are not merely worrying that A will result in B, but now that A may not only result in B, but potentially consequence C, D, and E, as well. In effect, the initial fear or worry has expanded through a kind of “snowball” effect in the said person's mind.

As previously stated, the affect of an “emotionalized thought” is simply that it appears to “speed up” the cognitive faculties inherent in one's mind. If thought X is accompanied by strong feelings (emotions), then additional thoughts of a similar or related nature to that of X are likely to begin appearing almost immediately. The substance of the original thought itself is irrelevant. If the thought is of a positive nature, with accompanying positive emotions/feelings, the “magnetism” of the thought will be positive as well. The word “magnetism” refers to the capacity of a given thought to attract other thoughts of a similar or related nature. Thus, positive will attract and perpetuate positive while negative will attract and perpetuate negative. If you throw strong emotions/feelings into the mix, the process occurs in less time.

Another phenomenon associated with emotionalized thoughts which may be worth noting is their apparent unreliability or fickleness. For example, let us return to the above mentioned person who is struggling with the fear or worry that action A may produce consequence B. Due to the strong feelings which accompanied their initial “worry” they now find themselves confronted with the prospect of, not only consequence B, but potential consequences C, D, E, etc. These additional potential consequences have, in effect, been produced as the result, not of careful thought or analysis, but rather of sheer emotion. Insofar as such potential consequences have been created by emotion, they are not necessarily reliable. In other words, after the said events transpire and all consequences—anticipated or otherwise—have occurred, it is likely that the majority of the said person's worries will have been unrealized and thus spent in vain.

How many of us have driven ourselves to the edge of madness through emotion, only to find such things to often be utterly baseless, unwarranted and devoid of all rationale? Our emotions absolutely have their benefits, but unless we are able to accurately discern when to employ them, we will likely deceive ourselves.

How God Fits In, Part 3

This is the third post in a series, the topic of which is “how God fits in” with the content of The Catalyst of Confidence. If you have not read the first and second posts, or the introductory post, I encourage you to do so before continuing.

Up to this point we have discussed some of the more positive aspects of The Catalyst of Confidence as they relate to God. In this post, however, I would like to introduce a somewhat sinister topic to our discourse. Namely, sin. Most every major religion has an understanding of the concept of sin, but for the purpose of this post, we will define sin as simply wrong action. That is, action contrary to the ultimate good of a person. (I realize that this definition is, in many ways, a simplification. While it is true that the concept of sin entails much more than what has been said, a more generalized definition is necessary to fulfill our purpose in this post. After all, we will not be discussing how sin relates to God, but rather, how the concept of sin “fits in” with the content of The Catalyst of Confidence.)

In my opinion the most profound lesson in the book is Lesson VIII: Self-Deception and Learning. It's implications are seemingly limitless and inexhaustible. Self-deception is a concept that no person can honestly “close the book” on, as it is an inherent condition of humanity and must be guarded against at all times with vigilance and determination. The concept of self-deception is defined in two parts. First, as the betrayal of one's ultimate self-interest. Second, as the betrayal of one's true potential. To satisfy the objective of this post, we will concern ourselves with the former definition.

One will quickly notice that the definition “betrayal of one's ultimate self-interest” can easily be used as a definition of sin itself. If we define sin as wrong action or action which is contrary to the ultimate good of a person, we can see very plainly that this is a form of self-deception. In order to betray our ultimate self-interest, we must act contrary to it. In other words, though we may perceive a given action to be right and good, in reality it may not be good for us at all. Hence, the crux of self-deception being “the act of deceiving oneself.”

I would like to propose that sin itself is a course of action that we perceive as being good or necessary (perhaps in the moments we sin?), when in reality such action is neither good nor necessary. Sin, like all wrong action, is something that is damaging to oneself, even though it may not be immediately apparent. Many of those outside the realm of organized religion view the concept of sin as something which God arbitrarily mandates, and that when a person “sins” they are simply disobeying one of God's capricious “rules.” But such conclusions are erroneous because they ignore the fact that sin (irrespective of any supernatural consequences) is detrimental to the individual—as well as those affected by their actions—in this life, here and now. All actions have consequences—some immediate—some forthcoming, and if a person believes that sinful actions are right and good they are simply deceiving themselves.

It is also worth noting that many of the lessons contained in The Catalyst of Confidence may properly be utilized to avoid sinful actions.

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?

Self-Interest and Football

The concept of self-interest is popularly associated with terms such as selfishness and greed. When we say a person pursues their own “self-interest” we generally mean that they are wholly devoted to their own desires while ignoring others, perhaps completely. While this is the popular understanding of the phrase, I nonetheless believe it to be not only incorrect, but also incoherent.

Consider, for instance, a married couple, where the husband spends a majority of his free-time ignoring his wife and directing his attention toward other things, such as (to hazard a popular stereotype) a football game. Assuming, of course, his wife doesn't care about football, it could easily be said that the husband is pursuing his own self-interest. Yet, over time—if the husband continues to ignore his wife in favor of the glamor of his television—this could cause tension and eventual problems in their relationship, a circumstance which is not in the husband's self-interest.

So the husband, while pursuing his self-interest, acts contrary to his self-interest. But this is impossible. He cannot pursue his self-interest if his actions are against his self-interest. In other words, what he may initially believe to be his self-interest is actually contrary to his self-interest, in which case it cannot truly be his self-interest. Hence, my understanding of this concept as being “incoherent.”

In the Lexicon of The Catalyst of Confidence, the concept of self-interest is defined as one's ultimate good. i.e., that which is good for oneself. It is not defined as “what someone thinks is good for oneself” because such things may not be conducive to one's actual good. Just as a husband's activity of habitually ignoring his wife in favor of some other thing is not conducive to his actual self-interest.

Thus, it seems we can conclude that if a husband develops the habit of doing such things, he may be acting selfishly or carelessly, but he is not acting in terms of his self-interest.

Rocks Have Souls?

Beliefs are created from the perception and repetition of information. How they are developed and nurtured seems in little need of further explanation, and depending on one's memory and self-awareness, the genesis of a belief can often be ascertained quite easily. Every living person has developed beliefs. While certain people have convinced themselves they are utterly worthless, others have gone about donning the facade that they alone possess the true knowledge of reality. Then, of course, we have people who believe such things as rocks have souls, the man on the moon was a conspiracy, or that Jimmy Hoffa was abducted by space aliens. You name it, it's very likely that someone—somewhere—believes it.

It is the responsibility of each individual, however, to ascertain whether or not their beliefs are warranted. That is, whether or not there is sufficient reason for us to believe that which we profess to believe. “Does my belief correspond to reality?” is a question all people should wrestle with throughout their lives. Two opposing beliefs cannot both be valid. If I believe that “rocks have souls” and you don't—we cannot both be right. Either they do or they don't. Period. Granted, it may be impossible for us to know one way or the other, but that doesn't change the fact that contradictions cannot exist simultaneously.

It seems that so few people stop to examine the reasons they believe what they believe. If someone professes a belief opposed to your own, do you silently say “they're wrong” and dismiss the issue, or do you take the time to examine the reasons they may be mistaken? If you don't know why you believe something then why do you believe it? “I don't know, I've just always thought such-and-such” is NOT a good reason. We must always remember that our believing in something does not make it true. If it is true, it should be true independent of our belief, and we should have plausible reasons to demonstrate why it is. The same standard should apply to something we believe to be false.

You can believe anything you want—but you better know why you believe what you believe.

Student A and "I Fail at Life"

As a follow up to the previous post Joe, Basketball and Accurate Thought, I would like to make some additional comments.

Over the years I have had the opportunity to teach many teenagers, some of which, at times, have provided me with rather breathtaking examples of inaccurate thought. For instance, say Student A is talking with his or her friends during a break and (for some reason) explains that, while driving a car, it is legal to pass a “slow-poke” on the right-hand side and cross over into the shoulder of the road. Some other students (who perhaps have their drivers license?) quickly reply that, far from being legal, such a maneuver would be, in fact, illegal and quite dangerous. Consensus quickly rises in the room and many other students nod their heads to agree that so-and-so is right and passing on the right-hand side of the road is definitely illegal. Perhaps some even jest that “maybe it is legal—in England!” Laughter ensues and Student A grudgingly accepts that they were wrong.

Now, I would not consider this to be a good example of inaccurate thinking (though, strictly speaking, it would be inaccurate to think that one could legally pass a car on the right-hand side of the road) in and of itself. What often happens next, however, would be considered one of the best examples I can conjure. In situations such as these, where a so-called “Student A” is proven wrong (often by mere popular vote), many students will respond to their mistake by saying something like “oh well, I fail at life.” The first time I heard this I almost stabbed myself with one of my dry-erase markers, I was aghast.

“You what?—you fail at life?—because you thought it was legal to pass on the right-hand side of the road?”

In the loving and forgiving world of logic, there exists a term known as the non sequitur. Latin for “it does not follow,” a non sequitor describes a conclusion which does not follow from its premises. The response outlined above, “I fail at life,” is a non sequitur. In other words it is an entirely unjustified conclusion and yet, sadly, is one of the most common “teen-age” responses to challenges and mistakes. It is also one of the most profound and agonizing examples of inaccurate thought. Those saying such things may as well say something like “triangle x is isosceles, therefore I fail at life” or “the sky is blue, therefore I suck.”

When asked, students quickly point out that “I fail at life” is just a “harmless saying” and when they say it, they really don't mean that they literally “fail at life,” but rather, that they simply made a mistake. At first this may seem like a harmless conclusion, but imagine saying such a thing to yourself every time you made a mistake. Imagine developing the habit of communicating such a thing to yourself. It seems that eventually such a “harmless saying” would begin to take on a life of it's own in our minds, and would soon begin reminding us of our failings and shortcomings until such things dominate our thought life.

It is a known law of psychology that we come to believe that which we repeat to ourselves. Beliefs, as we have learned, determine our perception of reality, govern our actions and limit or unleash our potential. It appears that many teens have been communicating “I fail at life” to themselves for years in their internal dialogs. Imagine, if you can, adopting the belief that you-fail-at-life. How much faith would you have in yourself? How would you act?

Probably a lot like many of our so-called “teens.”

Skeletons! In The Closet

It's time for a proverbial “bust” on myself.

What follows is an account of myself when I was happily moving about between the mature and wise ages of thirteen and sixteen. Though my wife is convinced that I'm perfect (I'm convinced I went a tad overboard selling myself to her, in fact, let's hope she doesn't read this article), I assure you, as you will soon see, I am most definitely not.

Shall we begin?

When I was an early teen I was ever-so-slightly prone to arguing with people. I had recently outgrown the hollow sham of physical fighting, and was ready to try my hand in, what I considered to be a more worthy pursuit. Now, believing that brains were far more worthwhile than brawn, I began my transition by saying things like “you may be stronger than me but you're still stupid!” I would randomly inject myself into conversations, not because I had anything useful to say, but rather to simply show my mental superiority. For example, if you said something, regardless if I felt it was it was true or not, there would be a good chance that I would attempt to trump up some strange example which would prove what a moron you were. Why? It wasn't because you were necessarily wrong, but rather, because I felt it was my job, being the most brilliant person who ever lived, to show you just how brilliant I was. Wouldn't you have loved to have been my friend?

Over the years I developed some techniques which proved quite useful, had I made a mistake in my reasoning (which, mind you, was not often). I can recall a time when I was arguing with this kid about how to properly “gear a bike for maximum speed” or something (don't ask). I perceived him to be getting the better of the argument, and thus, in a state of panic, pulled out one of my new defensive methods. This particular technique, involved stringing together a series fabricated words, which did not exist, and using them as if I knew exactly what I was talking about. My opponent, would more often than not, be blown away in confusion, and simply throw in their cards, it was sheer brilliance. They had no idea what I said (little did they know I had pulled it out of thin air), and I liked to think (at the time) that they suddenly realized I was beyond them in every respect and they had better just stop talking. To bring back the example with gearing the bike, I said something like “but once you see that the circulators motion inertializor mechanisms reduce the effigerity energy of the elaborativeitron forward motion of the rear derailleur, you'll see that it's just not possible.” I distinctly remember following this up with saying, rather disdainfully, “do you even understand what I just said to you?” To which he replied, “no, I guess you're right though.” BOOM!—SCORE!—WA-BAM! I had it all figured out.

Another technique I developed (which was much more desperate, I admit) was simply accusing my opponents of being complete idiots. In other words, if I was losing an argument, I would quickly respond by saying something along the lines of “listen, I don't think your pee-wee mind can even remotely comprehend what I'm trying to explain to you, so I'm just not going to talk to you anymore.” Mind you, I said this with the utmost arrogance, essentially adopting the attitude that I had been gracious enough to even speak to them, let alone tolerate their idiotic opinions. Unfortunately, most kids, especially at the age of fourteen or fifteen, have little or no confidence in themselves, and this technique would often end the conversation outright, with me, of course, feeling the exhilaration of mercilessly slaying yet another unworthy adversary. I was like Genghis Khan, everywhere I went there were piles of bodies that I had soundly defeated on the battlefield of ideas.

There was another time when I got into an argument with my father. I do apologize, as I cannot to save my life remember the topic of the altercation, but I do remember I was sixteen and was in the car with both my parents. At any rate, after a somewhat heated back and forth, my dad simply stopped talking and several minutes later, began talking to my mom, as if nothing had happened. I was at the height of my mental endeavors, overflowing with pride, as I believed I had swiftly and soundly whooped my own father into silence. (Surely it must have been rather humiliating to be routed so easily by one's son?) I clearly remember my subsequent thoughts being “I actually know everything.” I literally thought that if anyone has a question about anything, they should simply ask me. All I had to do was think, and the stream of truth would flow forth from my lips. I had apparently reached a point, after defeating countless foes and now conquering my own father, where I thought I had entered some kind of “nirvana of wisdom.” Looking back, I think my dad stopped talking because he was simply sick of arguing with his young hard-nosed, moron-of-a-child. Needless to say, “I actually know everything” was a belief which I proudly donned, until it was subsequently beaten out of me through various life mistakes and random occasions of making a complete fool out of myself.

This brings me to my point.

What we have here is a vivid illustration of one of the most self-deceived people on the face of the earth. I was not brilliant by any stretch of the imagination. I liked to convince myself that I was, but I was far too self-deceived to even realize my convictions were based on absolutely nothing (especially considering I cheated myself into victory after victory, none of which were even genuine). Fortunately I was able to get a good taste of deceiving myself at a reasonably young age. Getting kicked in the face by life will do that to you, and as luck would have it, I had enough sense left to put two and two together. Some say that adults are considerably more self-deceived than the youth, for while the youth are simply ignorant, adults are willingly ignorant. While I agree with this for the most part, it doesn't have to be that way. Truly, the unexamined life is not worth living.

Self-Deception and Corporate America

Have you ever been required by your job to attend a professional development seminar or workshop? I am not referring to technical training but rather the “people” and “productivity” sides of business training, such as leadership or management training, team building, business skills, emotional intelligence, time management, etc. I personally have no idea how large this industry is, but my guess would be that training services which cater to businesses and other organizations easily amount to a multi-million (if not multi-billion) dollar industry. No doubt plenty of high-level managers and executive assistants (perhaps even President's, VP's, CEO's and COO's) spend a considerable amount of time herding their “people” into such programs.

Given the amount of time, attention and money poured into this industry by many companies and organizations, one would assume such programs to be extremely beneficial. At least the “powers-at-be” perceive them as such. But before I go any further, let me first clarify that it is not my intention to disparage anyone who may advocate or represent such programs. There is, after all, a tremendous amount of evidence which suggests that such programs have helped many organizations in a variety of different ways. Besides, how could any industry exist if it wasn't perceived to be helpful or beneficial to someone?

Although such programs and workshops exist to benefit organizations of all shapes and sizes, it is Corporate America which is often seen as the poster child for this industry. Thus, I will be using Corporate America (CA) as the central example in this post.

It is within the structure of CA (especially within middle and upper management) where we most often find mandatory training programs, seminars and workshops. The majority of which are geared toward some form of leadership development or team building. The corporate motive for sending these individuals off to paid seminars and workshops is, of course, to increase their personal effectiveness, which in turn will (hopefully) increase the effectiveness of their team, enable them to “synergize” (arguably the most overused buzzword and sacred cow in CA), and at bottom, increase profits.

This is naturally advantageous to employees for a number of reasons. First, their company will generally pick up the tab for the cost of the seminar. Also, though in more rare cases, the company will also pay them their hourly rate for attending, especially if the seminar falls outside normal business hours. Lastly, the training itself is not only helpful (let's assume), it also provides them with a “mini vacation” from the daily grind, and, lest we forget, enables them to add yet another notch in the “training” bedpost of their résumé.

Now, one would think, considering the millions (though probably billions) of dollars spent on professional development annually, that CA would boast one incredibly effective, efficient and leadership savvy workforce. Does it? Yes—in very rare and isolated incidents—beyond which, the answer is a resounding no. In general terms, it is a well documented fact that CA bears a staggering amount of waste and inefficiency (transaction costs if you wish), which is perhaps exceeded only by government bureaucracies (again, speaking in general terms). And this is before we even consider CA's glamorous reputation of being a somewhat psychotic bare knuckled mosh pit that is often riddled with internal political turmoil.

Let's take a moment to consider exactly what we're saying.

Billions of dollars are being spent on professional development every year within a specific demographic (CA) with the expressed goal of enriching leadership ability, teamwork, and overall effectiveness, and yet this same demographic also happens to be notoriously plagued by internal politics, inefficiency, and a general lack of leadership? Yes—exactly—impressive isn't it?

There may be thousands of reasons for this (we are, in fact, dealing with humans), but today I wish to discuss only one. For the sake of example, let us assume that the information provided at these seminars or workshops is 100% spot-on accurate. In other words, if the participants applied what they learned, in most cases, it would result in increased effectiveness, communication and efficiency within their team. Now, every program which seeks to improve an individual is “standard” based. For instance, there are specific “do's” and “do not's” in basic leadership. The “do's” essentially create a “standard” that we ought to practice. Naturally it follows that the “do not's” create a “standard” that we ought not to practice. These “standards” provide us with the criteria with which we are able to judge our performance, analyze our results and make changes to improve.

After attending the seminar or workshop the participants will eagerly return to the workplace, excited to apply the new information they have acquired. It should be mentioned that this “new information” is intellectual by nature. Meaning, the participants intellectually understand the information which has been presented to them. They do not, however, at this point, understand it functionally. Functional understanding is only possible through the consistent application of what was learned. Any training whatsoever, is effective only to the extent with which it is applied. In other words, individuals or groups will only produce results if they, on an individual case-by-case basis, apply (functionally) what was learned (intellectually). It must also be noted that the said individuals must not only apply this new information in the immediate, but consistently in the future as well.

Unfortunately, most of the participants will never take the time to functionally understand what they have learned. How can this be? After all, haven't they just learned what they should and should not be doing? Yes—but intellectually “knowing” how or how not to do something is infinitely different than incorporating it into one's life. Most people will only “apply” their training intellectually. In other words, they simply become masters of the information. They learn all the “right answers” to given situations, become experts in what should or should not be done and inevitably begin measuring everyone else against the standards they have become so proficient in memorizing. But they never seem to disassociate themselves from those around them and take the time to look in the mirror and determine if they embody these qualities. Knowing the components of leadership intellectually is very different from embodying them personally. By not directly practicing what they “know,” they deceive themselves in thinking they are qualified to lead. They simply assume that because they “know” what it means to be a leader, that they are a leader. Needless to say, in CA we have many people who think they are leaders, but few who actually are.

Perhaps the phrase "psychotic bare knuckled political mosh pit" makes sense after all.