Recently, I have been compiling and writing a book that is designed to help readers to go about their business more effectively. When I talk to other people about my blog, I describe the writings as dedicated to developing personal productivity.

My basic philosophy is that we create desires and that these drive us to take action. If we fulfil the desires, then we feel good. If we don’t fulfil the desires, then we feel bad. Doing well in life thus revolves around understanding and managing desires (to remain consistently cheerful), and developing the personal capability to fulfil desires, i.e. to solve all personal problems. This leads to the following main areas of focus in life:

• Attitude management
• Problem solving
• Skill development
• Productivity enhancement

By combining these things together, we get a final result of vastly enhanced personal productivity, whereby we fulfil more desires, in shorter timescales than ever before and all done in a cheerful and pragmatic manner.

The book has a ‘Ying and Yang’ approach, since it is never enough to study just one aspect of a subject, we must also study the inverse too. The book sets out with the premise that procrastination is the main bane of everyone’s life. Procrastination is the condition that occurs when we are blocked in our minds and in our practical activities and as a result we delay doing the things that really make the difference in our lives. The book explains and dissects procrastination in detail and the goes on to give great detail about what we need to replace procrastination with, once we overcome it.

The first part of the book is entitled, ‘Attitudinal Resistance,’ as the mental condition behind resistance is what drives our feelings and our subsequent actions. Once you know how to manage your attitude well, then you will find yourself driven to get on with the things that you want to do. However, this is not enough, you will come to a quick stop in your activities, if you don’t have the knowledge and ability to tackle ‘Practical Resistance.’ This part of the book is split into two sections: Strategy and Tactics. The strategy behind Practical Resistance is to have an innate understanding of problem solving and of what is required to take an idea from creation through to fruition. The tactics behind Practical Resistance deals with the operational side of getting things done and the practical methods and tips available to make sure that you organize yourself well and keep making progress.

I have created this book, because I want to help other people to find good solutions for their needs very directly (and without the years of frustrated wandering that I had to go through to get to grips with these important things!). I have assumed that everyone wants to feel good as often as possible and that everyone wants to have the personal competence to fulfil personal desires. I’ve created this book from the point of view that I decide what people need to know and so there’s a distinct danger that I end up with a book that doesn’t satisfy people enough, because I haven’t addressed their needs sufficiently, nor in a manner of communication that is the most appealing and appropriate.

That brings me to the purpose of this post: I’d like to involve you in the final development stages. I’d like to carry out some research, through surveys, teleseminars and direct consultations, on what you want and how you want it delivered. To this end, I have recently revised my original free e-book, now called, ‘Understand How to Operate Your Brain Perfectly’ and I offer it to anyone who signs up for the newsletter that I will create, which will, in part, focus on finding out what it is that you want and that will help you the most.

So, for newcomers, please sign up and download the book – it’s only 19-pages long, but it’s a revealing read, as confirmed by a recent comment from Ellen, who said, “Read your giveaway book today on operating your own brain and just wanted to say thanks for an extremely lucid and helpful account of the internal struggle. I’ve been using buddhist methods for years now to attempt to observe these mechanisms in myself–your theory is spot on—but I have never before come across such a detailed and lucid explanation. Brilliant!”

For established nickpagan.com readers, please go ahead and sign up for the newsletter as I particularly value your input. I promise to you that I won’t pass on your details to spammers (I hate spam too) and each mailing that you receive from me will always give you the option to opt-out at any time. The opt-in form is at the top of the page in the right hand column.

Many thanks!

Nick

[Photo by Vierdrie]

Social norms apply to the things that we do for people without a consideration of monetary worth. We are often openly generous to our family and friends and we give our time and apply our skills and capabilities to help our inner circle (and sometimes our outer circle) with scant regard for the time and effort given. We do these things because we also get pleasure from doing them. It feels good to do things on a volunteer basis. Under this condition, we remain in control of what we are willing to do and what we are not willing to do. In addition, we generally only volunteer to do things that we have the full competence to do and so we can do things cheerfully and confidently. We feel good from fulfilling a useful need. We usually only volunteer on a limited basis, which means that we can commit to helping someone fully. If we get out of our depth, then it’s easier to back off and say that we don’t want to go any further. Reasonable people will not ask more of us and will feel grateful for the effort given. Volunteering feels good when we have a large measure of control over what we will do and what we won’t do, when we do things that we are competent at, and when we can easily escape if things get difficult.

Volunteering efforts for our inner circle often implies inherent, but unspoken, reciprocity. We help each other out because we hope (or expect) that the other persons will do something for us. It doesn’t have to be immediate and it doesn’t have to involve an equal amount of effort, but we do expect that people will feel grateful and reciprocate in some form, at some point. We tend to get along best with people who return favors and who equally match our commitment to a relationship. It’s a vague state of affairs and people have different interpretations of fair returns, but by and large, we are content to remain with those people who match us. Those who don’t are perceived as takers, who don’t play fair and will eventually end up excluded, if they continue in that way.

Volunteering efforts for our outer circle are usually done just for the feeling of satisfaction that comes from helping other people. The relationships involved are not expected to be reciprocal. We are usually content just to be treated with gratitude and respect for our efforts.

Market norms apply to the things that we do for people with a consideration of monetary worth. We enter into an agreement (sometimes unspoken) whereby we exchange time and ability for a financial return. This places an absolute value upon our worth and, for unique transactions, it cuts off the expectation of reciprocity and added returns or rewards over and above the monetary value of the transaction. Working for money creates obligation, it reduces the control that the worker has, and it makes it difficult for the worker to evade difficulties.

Working for money places a definite value on a person’s time and ability and if it’s low, then it’s disappointing. If it’s high, then it can feel good for a while, but we always know that more money could be paid, if the other person was more generous.

In the book, ‘Predictably Irrational’ by Dan Ariely, details are given of experiments carried out to test how people behave when working for money, how they behave when they volunteer to do work and als how people respond to gifts. The tests involved carrying out a simple exercise on a computer where participants were asked to drag a circle from one side of the screen into a box on the other side of the screen. When completed successfully, the circle disappeared and a new one appeared. The participants were given five minutes to do this as many times as possible and to give a measure of their productivity.

One group was paid 5o cents, one group was paid $5 and one group was paid nothing, but asked to volunteer. The group that was paid $5 was over 50% more productive than the group paid 50 cents - that’s not so surprising, but the volunteer group was almost 70% more productive than the lowest paid group and 6% more productive than the highest paid group! This is a powerful example of what happens when social norms are replaced by market norms. Those paid 50 cents did not feel valued and so did not perform very well.

The experiment was then repeated using gifts instead of money. A 50 cent chocolate bar, a $5 box of chocolates and no gift at all were used and this time the productivity results were all at the highest level previously seen from the volunteers (within a couple of percentage points). This shows how gifts keep things in the domain of social norms and people respond accordingly.

Next the experiment was repeated only this time the participants were told the value of the gifts. This time the productivity levels matched the original experiment. The 50 cent chocolate bar was considered of low worth and productivity dropped right off again. Mentioning the monetary value brought market norms back into the frame. It seems that people will work for a fair wage and people will work for free (if it’s a short-term activity) but no one wants to work for low pay.

As Dan Ariely writes, “We live in two worlds: one characterized by social exchanges and the other characterized by market exchanges. And we apply different norms to these two kinds of relationships. Moreover, introducing market norms into social norms hurts the relationship. Once this type of mistake has been committed, recovering a social relationship is difficult. ”

I experienced this very thing quite recently. I had recently developed a friendship with a guy and we seemed to have a lot in common. He invited me to join him at his very pleasant holiday home and I went there for a few days. He hasn’t worked for a while and has been living off of savings so I knew he was hard up for cash. Consequently, I made sure from the outset that we agreed on what I should contribute to running costs and expenses. We had a good time and got along well. We even talked about business and how he might be able to use some of his specialist skills to help me. In the end, I didn’t spend as much as I had budgeted for and so I gave him a generous gift of some money. Having read Dan Ariely’s book, I can now see that this is where things started to go wrong. The use of money introduced market norms to the relationship.

A few days after my return, I asked him to help me out with a technical problem on my server. I considered it a minor problem but I didn’t have the expertise to do it. I asked my friend to help out. He came back saying what he would do and what his hourly rate would be. I asked him to check what the problem was first and to define clearly what the solution would entail. He bristled at this because it implied that I didn’t trust him. I explained that I didn’t want to get into an open arrangement of paying an hourly rate as I did not know what I would be letting myself in for and that was just plain good sense and not an issue of trust.

In the end, he checked the problem and couldn’t fix it. He said that it took him twenty minutes to do this. I had previously stated that if it took him less than an hour to fix it then I would pay him a full hour’s rate. Although he didn’t fix the problem, I offered the fee again. To be honest, in view of the fact that I had given him a cash gift equivalent to 10 times his hourly rate and that he had only spent twenty minutes and not solved the problem, I expected him to waive the fee. He didn’t and so I paid it and I was disappointed. I didn’t know it but market, norms had now come into full play and the implied reciprocity of social norms that accrued in the beginning of our friendship now faded away.

Things got worse when he recently demanded ‘a loan’ five times what I had previously given him as a gift. He claimed that he was desperate and had no one else to turn to but I very much doubted that. I told him that I didn’t have that kind of cash to spare. Later he came to me again, with another demand disguised as a desperate plea. Again I refused him and he then asked me to find someone to lend money to me, in order that I lend it to him. This was pretty bizarre behavior and the element of money involved meant that I totally discounted the social norms that had previously existed and now viewed the relationship almost entirely from market norms. I considered the value of money involved, the element of risk involved with lending money to someone with no income, the hassle and work that I would have to do on his behalf and the fact that I would receive no financial benefit from this transaction at all. The market norms made it clear that this was a ‘no dice’ situation. Another friendship bites the dust.

Now that I know about social and market norms, I will be very careful about ever considering to do business with good friends, and also about introducing monetary worth into anything that I do with friends. I’ll be generous with gifts, but I’ll remain very reluctant to ever give money.

What’s your experience with mixing social and market norms, either with your inner circle, or at work?

If you would like to receive more fundamental insights into better living, then subscribe to the nickpagan.com newsletter and you will receive a free copy of the ebook ‘Understand How to Operate Your Brain Perfectly.’ Please use the form at the head of the page.

[Photo by rrss]

The first time that we come across something new, such as the price of a product that’s new to us, or a new experience, we tend not to have a precise frame of reference for that new thing. Consequently, what is initially presented to us, and how we interpret that, has a disproportionately greater influence upon us. We tend to be more alert in such situations, some factors are uncertain and decisions have to be made about how to interpret events and how to proceed. Decision-making, involving the assessment of a multitude of options and variables and attempting to discern the most favorable combination, is generally considered a difficult task. We tend to be risk averse and so once we have made a decision that gives a favorable result (not necessarily the most optimum outcome, but more likely one that doesn’t disappoint, create disadvantages or peril), then we will be much more likely to repeat the same decision the next time similar circumstances arise. New events thus become formative events. They create imprints and those initial conditions will anchor us to a point of reference from which we will assess subsequent similar products or events.

Sometimes, with pricing, the initial imprinting doesn’t even have to come from a directly related reference. In much the same way that you influence people to act calmly or aggressively, honestly or dishonestly, by asking them to do exercises with words related to those states, you can do the same thing with influencing what people will be willing to pay for products that they are unfamiliar with. If you take two groups of people and ask one half to consider a low number and the other half a high number, then, when you afterwards ask them to state what they would pay for an unfamiliar product at auction, the low number group will bid relatively low and high number group will bid relatively high. I haven’t tried this, but presumably, if you were selling something on Ebay that was worth somewhere between $10 and $20, then if you listed the item on two separate occasions, once with a description saying “10-reasons why you should buy this product” and once with a description saying “20-reasons why you should buy this product” then the first time it would probably sell at around $10 and the second time at around $20. (I don’t do any trading on Ebay, but if any readers do and are inspired enough to carry out this experiment, then I’d love to know the result)

Knowing the power of this effect, we can take more informed responses to new situations and we can also reinterpret old imprints and anchors. We can use this to our advantage when buying goods. Instead of remaining anchored to the previous price that we paid for something, we can focus more on the utility of an object. Most of the time, we use 20% of the features of a product 80% of the time, so, for example, if you previously bought a mobile phone for $50, this can anchor you to spending the same amount next time, for which you might get a phone with a surplus of new, but marginally useful, features. Instead of making a buying-decision mostly based upon what you paid previously, you can assess the vital few features that you use with your existing phone almost all of the time and search for a phone that delivers that utility. The chances are, that with the continuous advances in technology and reduction in prices, you can get a phone of equal utility for a lot less money. If you value utility per unit cost higher than features per unit cost, then this enables you to make a decision to your advantage.

If we can afford the items that we want and we can make decisions that don’t drive us into calamity, then we can easily get by without ever knowing about or noticing the effect of imprinting and anchoring upon our perceptions. However, in some areas, this effect might create an unperceived disadvantage. For example, your peers, the careers that they follow and the salary that they earn, is highly likely to have an imprint upon you as to what career you will follow and upon the salary that will prove acceptable to you. You will probably adjust your perceptions, and your lifestyle, to the limitations that these initial conditions create. This might be causing you to live an impoverished life in both qualitative and quantitative aspects relative to your potential worth. Rather than accept these limitations, you can instead search for ways in which you can earn more money or gain more benefits but essentially do the same role as before. In this way, you can use an understanding of this effect to leverage a better return for yourself based purely upon perception - not your perception of value but upon the perception of the market and the purchasers within it. A lot of value is merely perceived as having value rather than absolutely having value (A carefully painted reproduction of a Van Gogh is largely identical in terms of its components and its result upon the senses. The value that resides in the uniqueness of owning a Van Gogh original is an abstract perception of value).

Life isn’t fair; it never has been and never will be. What we can each of us do though, is to seek out advantages and look for leverage so that get a good return for the efforts that we make. Now that you are aware of this concept of imprinting and anchoring and how it limits your perceptions of value, how could you now make different decisions and take different course of action that increase the return on your efforts expended?

If you would like to receive more fundamental insights into better living, then subscribe to the nickpagan.com newsletter and you will receive a free copy of the ebook ‘Understand How to Operate Your Brain Perfectly.’ Please use the form at the head of the page.

[Photo by david.nikonvscanon]

Relativity is something of an illusion, as how something is perceived is often highly-dependent upon the things that it is compared to in the immediate environ. We can see this visually in this illusion from www.123OpticalIllusions.com

In the diagram the inner circle on the left (surrounded by smaller circles) looks bigger than the inner circle on the right (surrounded by bigger circles). Both circles are exaclty the same size, yet the look relatively different.

Humans find it hard to judge something in isolation. A thing in isolation is difficult to assess in absolute terms. Instead, we seek to ascertain relative advantages between two or more physical objects, or experiences. Very often, people don’t have a clear idea what they want and so they need a context to assess things within. This can prove very frustrating for efficient problem-solving as very often, when you attempt to clearly define what someone wants (the deliverable) so that you can work out a solution, a design and a process for fulfilling the end result, you find that many people cannot give a precise answer. Instead, it becomes necessary to create something first, whether a rough design or a prototype, in order for the customer to decide what they like and don’t like and what they want and don’t want. With a knowledge of how people assess things relative to one another, you can more easily influence people to take the option that you prefer, as will be revealed.

Most people don’t like to think. They don’t want to define problems or desired results clearly and they don’t want to labor over the relative merits of one offering to another. You can influence them in two ways:

1. Add extra perceived value to the option that you would prefer someone to take (or remove value from the option that you don’t want taken).
2. Add a decoy

Option 1 requires adding more value, which might end up ‘costing’ you more to provide. Option 2, adding a decoy, allows you to enhance the value of another option without adding further value to it. An example given in the book is this: You have two options for a romantic weekend break, either Rome or Paris, with all flights, transfers, excursions, 4-star hotel with breakfast included. Both cities have an equal appeal and so making a decision becomes very difficult as no clear relative advantage is perceived. The decoy would be to offer an option for the Rome package without breakfast. Now there is a third option, with a clear disadvantage. In this case, with the decoy creates a relative advantage to the original Rome option. This advantage will tend to drive most people into choosing the original Rome option as it now seems much better overall. Actually, there is no great difference to the Paris option but the decoy creates a winning option. The benefit of using a decoy is that it doesn’t require extra value to be added, or to be given away.Another example given in the book is in restaurant pricing. Most people will not select the most expensive dish on a menu and will instead opt for the second most expensive. In order to take advantage of this common trait, a restaurant that has a very highly-priced dish ends up creating a decoy. It makes the second most expensive dish look relatively cheaper and, if carefully designed, that second dish can be priced higher than might otherwise be the acceptable case, thus creating extra profit margin.

Relativity can also affect the success of launching a brand new, never seen before, product into the market place. Since people cannot assess the absolute value of a totally new product, they will not be able to tell if the price is fair and reasonable or not. A way to benchmark the perceived value is to create another, much more expensive model or range. People will now have a grasp of the relative worth of the product and most people will choose the lower priced item, or the middle item between cheap, standard and expensive.

Once you understand this concept, it becomes very useful in everyday life. I recently used it on a girlfriend of mine who will never make a decision when I give her two options. Last week the same thing happened. I suggested the following, “We can go to (restaurant A) for a meal, or (restaurant B) for a meal” and I got, “Oh, you decide!” so I added, “Or we can go to (restaurant A) and just have a drink.” We ended up going to restaurant A for a meal.

Equally so, if you have a product in your business and you are finding it hard to persuade people to accept and buy at the price that you want, then try using a decoy to enhance the relative value and benefit of your main product. You can either create a higher priced product, or else offer a standard product and then a second offering of the same product, at the same price, only this time with a free gift added to it. Offer the two things at the same time, that’s crucial in order to take advantage of the relative benefit. People love ‘free’ and the relative perception of value of that offering will persuade more people to buy.

Can you think of other situations in your life where a decoy can make your life a whole lot easier, or else create more value in your life? If you can, then I’d love to know about it!

Related articles:

The Lazy Person’s Way to Instantly Looking Better

Many years ago, I read ‘Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance’ by Robert Pirsig. At the time I didn’t know anything about Zen or Motorcycle Maintenance and at the end of reading the book, I still didn’t know anything. I recall very little of the book now, except that it was a road trip between a father and his son. One thing, though, stuck in my mind for years afterwards. It was the kernel of an idea that subsequently had a profound influence upon me.

As I recall, at one point in the book, the main protagonist, Pirsig, visits an old friend who has married. The wife doesn’t know Pirsig and asks him what he does for a living. Pirsig explains that he does technical writing in the form of assembly instruction manuals for barbecues and other self-assembly contraptions. She asks him if she finds the work satisfying and he responds that although he can write the instruction manuals easily, he feels that an important aspect of the job is never done.

He elaborates to say that one of the problems for people who buy a machine and want to assemble it is that they have never done it before and so there is a lot to learn and a lot of processes to go through carefully. Unfortunately, most people want instant results and so when the job proves difficult, such people are likely to get frustrated and angry, finding the whole process unpleasant and perhaps never completing the device. He found that instruction manuals, like many informational books, focused only on the process for getting things done and said nothing about the attitude needed to get things done. His idea (and this is about as Zen as the whole book got for me) was that the instruction manual should begin with a statement along the lines of, ‘Before starting, clear your mind.’

Over the years, I spent a lot of time and effort into developing new knowledge and skills all with the idea that somehow it would create a better life for me. I was good at getting things done in private but when I tried to do things in the public arena I struggled against myself continuously. In private, I didn’t care about results; I just enjoyed the process of doing things and by default I got excellent results but I failed to manage that when I wanted to get public results.

It’s true that I had some limiting beliefs and low self-esteem but on reflection, the biggest problem I had was that I had such a massive focus on ‘getting a result.’ The problem with that, is that it sets up a high-expectation and if the end result is too far away, the route unclear and uncertain or the goal too fantastic, then I found myself in rebellion against myself. Far-reaching, pinnacle goal-setting designs difficulty into the process of getting things done. It actually increases the likelihood of failure because it creates a struggle within the mind as it seeks to do good but continually fails to get the desired result - not necessarily because a person is no good, but simply because the desired result is so far away - with the net result of feeling bad a lot of the time. In my case, the result was massive frustration, massive procrastination, self-sabotage and depression.

All of that knowledge and skill that I spent decades developing was almost useless because I could rarely apply it in meaningful ways and certainly never on a consistent basis. I did badly because I had such a crappy attitude. My life seemed impossible to live and I struggled interminably against myself in an effort to get things done. It felt tragic because I had so much potential and yet there I was, just spinning my wheels.

From time to time, I kept coming back to Pirsig’s idea of having the correct set of attitude before commencing difficult things and I analyzed very deeply and took careful note of my responses when I attempted to do something and yet ended up struggling. It was tough to make a breakthrough because I was so deluded and in denial about my life and my abilities, but I finally realized that I struggled because I always wanted the impossible, not the absolutely impossible, but impossible for me to fulfill at the instant of wanting it.

Too much focus on getting results can be paralyzing because we can so rarely immediately get the result at the point of desiring it and that instantly sets us up to feel bad. Alternatively, a focus on carrying out a process from moment-to-moment with little desire other than to make progress on that immediate item of action is liberating, invigorating and highly-productive.

We spend all of our life living in the moment and so doing the best that we can with that moment is the way to live a life of true satisfaction. If you are struggling to get a result right now, then forget that end result in this moment. Clear your mind of that end result and replace it by focusing intently, yet playfully, upon that part of the process to getting the end result that you are working on now. Do that well, live that moment well and enjoy doing it. That’s the best way to live every moment.

Related articles:

Pinnacle Goal-Setting Doesn’t Work

The Journey

If you have enjoyed this article then please comment (the more comments I get, the better I write!) or recommend it to one of the social bookmarking sites below. To ensure that you receive all future posts please subscribe to the RSS feed (use the button in the header bar above)

[Photo by markagibson]