August » 2010 » Darius' Thoughts

Hierarchy of complaints

In every complaint there is a success. The success is having had the resources, competence, or luck to arrive at a place in which this is your biggest problem, rather than something more sinister.

“God, it’ll take all night to finish this paper” is a statement that commonly assumes:
1) That you can finish the paper in a night
2) That the paper thus finished will be adequate
3) That there is nothing more pressing than finishing this paper

If all those are true, then you have 3 impressive successes that this complaint relies on. Something to reflect happily on as you get the 3rd cup of coffee.

The order complaints come up can be telling and I often use it to rate business ideas. Nearly any business idea I float to friends results in one of the following phrases:

1) “Customers won’t use it”
2) “We can’t build it”
3) “It won’t make money”
4) “Some people will dislike it”
5) “It wouldn’t really help the world”
6) “Something else would help the world more”

Interestingly, I think people start from the top of that list and then reply with the first complaint that seems valid. This means I can instantly know that if a friend says “It won’t make money,” then the friend things it will be buildable and usable! I also find this a handy way to rank business ideas with the higher numbers being better for the world.

For example: dreamers just satisfy level 1 and struggling businesses satisfy level 2. Payday loan companies satisfy level 3 but fall victim to 4. Many businesses are happy teetering on level 4: making money with few detractors. Google purports to “Do No Evil” and satisfy level 5. Social entrepreneurs try to satisfy level 6 and beat all the complaints.

Current, pressing complaints are what most people focus on. It is somehow easy to forget about having overcome all one’s previous hardships. However, there are two kinds of people that I have noticed don’t forget: happy people and entrepreneurs. I have noticed that any person who is generally happy often has a painful complaint in the past that they are now safe from. Whenever they get down, they remind themselves of this stark contrast and are positive again. I’ve also seen a seemingly-hypocritical way that successful entrepreneurs can be satisfied with little yet desirous of more at the same time. They freely shift between deriving peace from the complaints of the past they’ve beaten and getting worked up over complaints about “how much better” something could be and striving for it. It would seem that a focus on both of these issues would provide a centering calm and I think for many an old soul it does, but successful entrepreneurs freely switch between them, mixing calm and excitement to their taste.

What hierarchies of complaints have you experienced? Are there any successes hiding within your complaints?

Mind Manipulations

We all try to convince. But some people use techniques that later make the listener feel like “I was told one thing, but the reality is something else.” These aren’t lies, per say. Lies are outright false statements, known to be untrue by the speaker and, often, verifiably untrue with some research. The type of manipulations I’m talking about are “true” in the strict legal definition, a fact which hides their deeper miscommunication.

“You could make millions!”
“Lose 30 pounds in 30 days!”

Some of the most common lies are by percentage chance. Lotteries, casinos, CEO’s, and anyone selling you on upside will tell that there is amazing potential and a good-enough chance of getting it. The excitement for the result often overwhelms the consideration of likelihood. To avoid this trap: determine the past success ratio, ie how many people started the process vs got the advertised result and assume your fate will be statistically similar.

“Payday loans help poor people get needed credit.”
“My proposal creates jobs”

One powerful way to convince people is to focus only on the parts of reality that support your argument. For instance, there are a small number of people who responsibly use payday loans and pay them off before they accumulate high interest fees. The defenders of payday loans highlight this case yet, in reality, payday loans have proven so destructive that the military has banned them < http://usmilitary.about.com/od/millegislation/a/paydayloans.htm>. To avoid: Write down the opposite of the given statement, separately attempt to prove each is true, and examine the balance of believability.

“This is what most people in your job make”
“Our recon indicated the attack was justified.”

Saying something that the person can’t verify (or would have to risk the entire relationship to verify) forces people to accept the statement because it’s too much psychological energy to distrust someone without a solid reason. To avoid: investigate claims and doubt unverifiable statements.

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
“We’re a leading company.”

Redefining terms is a way to say something defensible while giving someone else a very different idea. Bill Clinton later said that “sexual relations” meant intercourse however most people would think of it as “any sexual contact” which he had been denying. To avoid: know the speakers’ and the laws’ definitions and replace words with accurate terms before you judge a statement.

“You won’t have to worry about free time once this company goes public!”
“This injustice will be solved as part of the Glorious Revolution”

Making personal goals dependent on a shared goal puts the drive usually reserved for personal goals into the shared goal. This can be a powerful force for good and ill. Most revolutions and companies are powered by these dependent goals. However, sometimes an authority figure encourages this behavior when it isn’t in the persons’ interest. To avoid: consider whether doing this increases or decreases the chance of your personal goal getting fulfilled. Handy trick: when you’re tired in bed in the morning, think of everything in your day depending on putting two feet on the floor now.

“I agree it’s not perfect, but we’re running a company/country/etc here and it’s the best we can do.”
“If we made the change you suggest, it would actually make things worse.”

An insidious manipulation is the idea that something better cannot be achieved, or even hoped for. There are constraints and compromises in the world but removing someone’s hope for something better is a common way of quashing dissent. To avoid: watch similar companies/countries; if others do it, it’s possible.

Thoughts? Comments?