If I’m afraid to admit I don’t know something because of the potential for embarressment, I tackle that thing in private first, instead of exposing my ignorance to others out in public. I may order a book on the topic from amazon instead of my library or local book store so I don’t have to deal with people. I may Google the topic with “private browsing” mode in browsers like Chrome or Firefox. But I don’t sit back with my embarressment and work slowly to push through it. I don’t jump into doing the scariest, most uncomfortable thing I can think of in that aera, but maybe I’ll start by reading one single site about the topic. And then I build up to bigger and bigger things as I get more comfortable.

Funny thing is: we are get embarressed and it’s just a part of being human, but no one likes to talk about it. It’s one of those things we all share but no one wants to talk about. Be compassionate with yourself. Remember that everyone’s got something they’re embarressed about, and it’s often things you don’t even expect people could even be embarressed by.

Another example: excersize. Maybe this is more for the macho male thing where guys don’t ask for help cause they’re embarressed that asking for help will reveal that we don’t know about something that apparently should be born with innate knowledge about–physical excersize.

Yet another example: cars and other technical stuff. Again, maybe another macho male thing but guys hate having to admit they don’t know something about cars or other technical stuff. As if we’re all supposed to be born knowing this stuff. Why do guys hate asking for directions? Same kind of a thing.

It can be really embarressing to admit you don’t know something which you feel you “should” know for whatever reason. Maybe you’re afraid of being judged as being unworthy or dumb or not manly or whatever by others, or even by yourself. Treat yourself with compassion, and realize you can push through these feelings and that you’ll still be ok after going through, facing and overcoming those uncomfortable feelings. In fact, you’ll become much, much stronger. Remember that you’ll be waiting for yourself on the other side of something embarressing with a compassionate hug.

stage 1 – build trust enough and build a high enough emotional bank account so you can talk without attacks or distrust (in 7 Habits — check out the chapter titled “Paradigms of Interdependence” between Habits 3 and 4);

stage 2 – listen to the feelings on all sides, often by you listening first and then being listened to about feelings, not about the actual issue yet (this is Habit 5 - Seek First to Understand and then to be Understood);

stage 3 – once you get a sense of the feelings and everyone feels everyone else understands them (not that you feel you understand the other person, but that they feel you do–which is harder), you can talk about what the issue is and how to resolve it by coming up with creative solutions which are win/win all around (this is Habit 4 – Think Win/Win).

These steps are not always sequential and you don’t have to always start at stage 1. This post is focusing on stage 3 and the part about creating win/win solutions and how this can go awry. I hope to not just parrot the brilliant writing of Stephen Covey but add a few insights which will help you solve your problems more creatively.

Let’s start with a conflict. Say a boyfriend and a girlfriend are negotiating watching TV together after coming home from work. Let’s call them Jack and Jill:

Jill: I wanna watch Two and a Half Men.

Jack: I don’t like that show. Let’s watch this great NOVA documentary!

Let’s stop here to discuss more:

Both of them have lots of trust with each other so they don’t need to start at stage 1, which is great! Neither of them has extremely strong feelings that they feel the need to talk about, so we can jump to stage 3 after recognizing there is a conflict. Now, if they followed traditional ideas of compromise in relationships what they would do is talk back and forth about the various TV shows they can watch till they found one that was acceptable to both of them (but not what they actually wanted). Or they decide to take turns watching TV. But this is a less than optimal solution because 1 + 1 = 1.5 in this case. Neither party gets what they truly want and neither party is as happy as they would have been if they’d just gotten to watch the TV show they wanted to initially (which would lead to a 1 + 1 = 2).

In 7 Habits terminology this is actually a bit lose/lose. Let’s review the different possibilities according to Covey:

• win/win
• lose/lose
• win/lose
• lose/win

There’s a distinction from game theory that’s relevant here that Covey doesn’t use (maybe because it wasn’t widely available when he wrote the book) but he tried to cover it with his idea of abundance and scarcity mindsets. This distinction is key; it is the distinction between zero-sum and non-zero sum games. Zero-sum games are situations or actual games in which the fortunes of both parties are inversely correlated to each other. That is, for one person to win, others have to lose. A chess game can’t have all winners. Non-zero sum games are situations where the fortunes of the two parties are not correlated, or in fact, may be positively correlated. That is, for one person to win, all people have to win, or if one person loses, all lose. Or, it can simply be that one person can win and another person can lose but one person’s winning has nothing to do with the other person’s losing. A relationship is a non-zero sum game and it’s often a dysfunctional, unhappy and soon extinct one that thinks that it’s a zero-sum game.

A fascinating history of humanity through the lens of these kinds of games is called Non Zero by Robert Wright. He has a TED talk about it here.

Here’s the most important distinction though which often surprises people who are already familiar with the idea of zero-sum games: zero-sum games are often situated within non-zero sum games. I learned this very important insight from Jordan Peterson. Say you and I sit down to play chess. That’s a zero-sum game and there is necessarily a winner and a loser (or a draw). However, you and I may be playing chess (zero-sum game) in order to play a greater non-zero sum game. The question to ask is, ”why are we playing chess?” Say it is to have fun. Our non-zero sum game is thus to have fun. That means there’s multiple possibilities: that we both could have fun, or neither of us could have fun (such as if you’re a sore loser–saying that someone is a sore loser is a recognition of the concept I’m talking about), or one of us could have fun and the other one couldn’t. The person having fun doesn’t have to be the winner, actually, there’s “good losers” and “bad winners”, or people who’re just so stressed out that even though they’re winning, they’re not having fun.

Let’s add the dimension of time. Say we’re playing a game together multiple times over a longer term. What if you and I repeatedly play zero-sum games together? Well, it turns out that if I constantly lose, then I’m not going to be interested in playing the game anymore with you. Maybe you should let me win sometimes in order to keep me playing a game (or at least, let me do well enough to think that I can win or improve–such as by handicapping yourself which is often considered “fair”). And turns out that even rats have an understanding of this idea of “fair play”. Juvenile rats wrestle as a form of play and winning is pinning the other rat. A bigger rat will actually let the smaller rat win about 30% of the time, even though it could win 100% of the time. That keeps both rats playing the game over the longer term, while being “fun” for both rats. Win/win. You didn’t think rats had any sense of fair play, did you? That’s how deep the idea of fair play goes, evolutionarily.

Let’s get back to win/win, lose/lose, win/lose, lose/win. As you’ve guessed, zero-sum games can only be win/lose or lose/win (or draw which is sort of lose/lose…or win/win depending on whether you have a scarcity or abundance mindset). Non-zero sum games, though, can be all four: win/win, lose/lose, win/lose and lose/win. The thing Covey is trying to tell you in the book is: most of the games you think are zero-sum games are actually non-zero sum games, or, a lot of the games that are zero-sum are actually situated within non-zero sum games and its possible to go up to the non-zero sum game’s level to find a new game in which both win. He calls this propensity to frame most games (including zero-sum games) as a non-zero sum game, the abundance mindset. The opposite propensity: to conceive of most games (including non-zero sum ones) as zero-sum, he terms the scarcity mentality.

So, anytime you start to think “oh I’m going to win” or, “I’m going to lose” and get worked up about it, ask yourself if you’re actually playing a zero-sum game or just think you are. A common dimension for this is wealth or money. People often fall prey to the zero-sum ideas and think that there’s a fixed amount of wealth in the world. That the pie is fixed. Turns out, the pie’s not fixed, but is, in fact, constantly growing. There is a fixed amount of money out there (though it’s constantly growing, too), but not wealth. But this topic is a lengthy blog post for another day.

So, let’s get back to the discussion about TV. Recognizing that they think they’re playing a zero-sum game, Jack and Jill go up to the non-zero sum game:

Jill: Why do you wanna watch that show in the first place?

Jack: Well, I just got home from work and work’s really boring. I want something intellectually stimulating.

Jill: I also just got home from work and I’m exhausted. I want mindless entertainment and to laugh to forget the stresses of the day.

Pause here: Note how Jill seeks first to understand and asks the question before seeking to be understood. Both elements are crucial–that is, you have to get yourself understood, too. It can be dysfunctional and unhealthy if one person can always just do the understanding bit and never be understood. Resentment builds, but I’ll talk about dysfunctional patterns of this stuff later.

If both had one TV and both came down from work at the same time, then their attempts would really be zero-sum, because for one person to get what they want from the TV (intellectual stimulation) is completely opposite from what the other person wants (mindless mirth). If there’s one TV, they can’t just both go off and watch what they want in different rooms. If they came home at different times from work, then they could just watch TV at different times.

We’re at another crucial point here: the partners could do win/lose or lose/win here. Jack could say, “oh alright honey, let’s do what you want. Roll all over me.”. In a healthy relationship, it’s perfectly acceptable to occasionally do win/lose for the sake of another person, to build the emotional bank account. But to do it chronically leads to problems, which I’ll cover a bit later.

Jill: Why do we wanna watch TV together in the first place? We could watch it seperately in different rooms, so why are we even arguing or butting heads over this?

Jack: Well, I just got home from work and I wanna spend some relaxing time with you doing something together. I like that.

Jill: Me, too. Why do you like that?

Jack: Doing something “routine” or “mundane” with you like this helps make me feel like you’re a part of my life. To build a ritual that is really comforting to me. I don’t just want to watch TV with you today, I want to watch it with you every day after work.

Pause again: here’s an opportunity for Jack and Jill to compromise once again based on this new information. They could take turns daily watching something mindless and watching something intellectually stimulating. Jill could just zone out when the intellectually stimulating show is out and Jack could try to watch the mindless show by thinking deeper into what he’s watching. So, over the long term, this may be a win/win on the level of the game of their relationship, but on any given day, it’s not a win/win on the level of getting their after-work needs met. So, they keep trying, back and forth, until they hope to get a win/win scenerio that fulfills their desire to spend time together after work as well as their respective desires to get intellectual stimulation and mindless entertainment.

All of that said, maybe by realizing they just want to spend time together–that that’s their real purpose behind watching TV together, they could both or one of them could say, “I don’t really care about my after-work desire because I’d rather just spend time with you”. So, maybe Jack says, “I’ll just lie next to you while you watch TV and that’s ok even if I don’t get intellectual stimulation cause we’re spending relaxing time together and I get my ritual”. But, maybe they keep trying to find a better solution. This solution may seem like win/lose on one level (Jack doesn’t get intellectual stimulation), but it’s win/win on another level: Jack gets most of his other needs met: to spend time together and to have a ritual. Sometimes, in relationships, you accept lose/win at one level to get win/win at a more important level. This sort of “compromise between levels” can also be avoided as much as possible, but is a much better sort of compromise than the straight compromise on the issue I mentioned earlier, and occasionally you do it for the relationship.

Jack: Ok, so is there anything that means we spend time together and we get our respective needs met? Let’s just brainstorm some ideas first.

Jill: We could watch a movie instead? You may get so engrossed in a movie that that’s more intellectual stimulation than in a 20 minute show?

Jack: I suppose, but then we’ve to find a movie that also gives you the kind of mental relaxation. I guess we can try that.

Jill: <says some movie names>

Jack: I don’t really want to watch those. How about these? <says movie names>

Jack: None of those seem to fulfill both our needs and I don’t really want to watch them. We’re ending up with the same problem as with finding a TV show we can both agree to.

Jill: Ok. How about we go out. Forget TV. We’ll go out for a picnic. If we do this every day while it’s summer, we can both make it a routine. There’s a park nearby and all we need is a blanket. You can watch people and get intellectual stimulation and I can just lie back and watch the clouds.

Jack: That’ll work! And if I get bored, I can just bring a book along.

Deal! Both kept going till both found something that’s fulfills all their needs. Now Jack and Jill are going to have a much better relationship. This “disagreement” actually led to making some serious deposits in each other’s emotional bank accounts, so the relationship actually improved through the course of this disagreement. And everyone got what they really wanted. Amazing. You may say that Jack and Jill didn’t get to see what they wanted to see and they both lost. If you do, you’re paying too much attention at the wrong level. They didn’t want to watch the tv shows for the sake of watching those tv shows–in this case it was to get their emotional needs met. So finding other stuff that fills their emotional needs just as well means they get what they really want.

I’ll admit: most of my discussions don’t go this far. I’m often like Jack and I give in on my needs on a particular issue in order to “win” at the higher level of the game of the relationship. I’m a bit on the self-sacrificial side, but I’m working to improve that (why? isn’t being self-sacrificial noble and a good thing? I’ll get to that later). Also, this whole process can be pretty damned tiring. It often requires a lot of conscious thinking which is often what you’re least interested in doing after a long day at work. But, it’s often worth it to go through this process to get at the results.

Now, you may be thinking, “all this conversation between Jack and Jill is too clean and real people don’t talk like that. It seems forced and artificial and I’d feel awkward trying it in my relationships. Besides, what if the other person’s not interested in playing along–it won’t work if only one person’s doing it?” Let me address those: re-read just the conversation without my commentary and you’ll find pretty normal conversation. Try reading it out loud if you want to test it.

Secondly, if it seems forced and artificial–that’s cause it can feel that way, but only at first. To do anything that improves a relationship but requires change can feel awkward at first, especially if you’re worrying about what the other person will think or how they’ll respond. Well, just push yourself gently through that sense of awkwardness and keep doing it. You’ll start to see rewards.

Finally, what if only one person is doing this? That can be a problem in the long-term for the relationship, but in the short-term, you don’t need both people to be explicitly familiar with these ideas to make them work. If you explained them to the other person in the relationship (or sent them this blog post), they would probably agree with it. But, as proof that this works if only person is doing it: read the conversation again. Only one person is doing it at any given time. Jill is the one who’s applying the 7 habits clearly, and Jack is not trying to prevent her work because they have lots of trust and security. She’s seeking to understand first and then to be understood; she’s the one asking the “why” questions and after she gets an answer, she explains how she feels and she throws out a lot of the options.

Don’t get me wrong: you don’t go from your normal way of dealing with conflict and negotiation to this overnight. I actually found it easier to start off a new friendship with an understanding of these concepts, than to convert old relationships that work differently to this way. Some of those old relationships have been important enough to go through the awkwardness and so forth, though. And if both people recognize a relationship as important and there’s enough trust in a relationship, then it’s ok to talk to someone and say, “listen, can we try out this new way of approaching conflict and negotiating differences? It’ll feel awkward and forced at first but eventually it’ll become automatic. I care about this relationship and I think this will really improve it. What do you think?” Some relationships are setup so that it’s really uncomfortable to admit your feelings (“I feel awkward”) or to tell the other person you care about them and the relationship, or that you want to improve it. But consider carefully whether those are things you’d really like to have an in that relationship. Maybe you’d like to change it so that the relationship CAN talk about feelings, or that they can make a conscious attempt to improve things.

Another note: to go through this process the way Jack and Jill did requires a fair bit of self-awareness. Jack and Jill needed to be have self-conscious awareness of what they’re feeling and why they’re feeling that, and they’re willing and able to articulate it (because of the trust, security and precedent of doing so in the relationship). So, like they immediately told the other person why they want to watch a certain TV show and went to the understanding of their emotional needs rather than just saying, “I wanna watch it cause I want to”.

How do you develop that sort of self-awareness? Journalling really helps. When I’m going through something emotional, I write about it, often in the form of a draft email I may send to that person. Over time, this habit has led to me developing greater self-reflective awareness in the moment rather than only after writing about an issue. Another thing that really helped was practicing mindfulness meditation. There are likely classes somewhere close by to you, or you can find guided meditation cds and mp3s online.

What do you do about situations which are truly zero-sum? While you shouldn’t be hopeless about finding creative solutions, there’s a danger in being too optimistic. What if there aren’t any creative solutions that are truly win/win? This happens when the differences are caused by some fundamental value differences or differences in vision for the future. I’ll answer this question in the context of a marriage but the ideas can be applied to any sort of relationship.

John Gottman, PhD (who is a fantastic researcher who predicts divorce with over 90% accuracy) calls these “perpetual problems” vs “resolvable problems” in his great book The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. Clearly, if you don’t believe that there’s any such thing as perpetual problems and that all problems are resolvable (and therefore don’t believe there’s fundamental differences between people), then you’re going to have a hard time constantly trying to move an immovable object. You’ll either degrade into constant fighting, or you’ll be constantly be going through the steps I outlined above and get nowhere. So, what do you do?

First, you’ve to figure out which perpetual problems you can live with in another person. Gottman offers an example which I’m paraphrasing: Jack marries Jill and they end up at a party. Jill wants Jack to stop leaving her alone, but Jack wants to talk to new people and Jill doesn’t want to join him in doing so cause she’s uncomfortable around new people. This will likely remain a problem forever. But if Jack had married Beth instead of Jill, they would never have gotten to the party cause Beth is constantly late and that really bothers Jack, and half the time they end up having a fight over this and don’t end up going to the party at all. If Jack had married Jen, then they wouldn’t have even been going to the party together because Jen hates parties. Jack would have just been going to the parties by himself while Jen stays at home. Over time, though, this causes them to lead more and more independent lives and eventually they divorce. So! You’ve to figure out what perpetual problems you can live with.

Secondly, you do have to have a conversation with your partner about the issues and what they mean to them. Following the steps above will do this for you. This way, you’ll know that having a cabin really fulfills a lifelong dream of spending time in wilderness for one person. And you can trust and honour that, even if that dream directly interferes with your dream of saving for your child’s education because the other person wants to spend the money in the cabin. This is where compromise has its value. But compromise with love and in a way that both people agree is fair (which may not be 50-50!).

Thirdly, you’ve to learn to treat the perpetual problem with a sort of peace and as something to get used to. Something that’s a part of growing older, or whatever. Part of the ups and downs of life. Find a way to not treat it as a cutthroat issue that you’ll have massive blowups over. Gottman uses the example of treating it like a “trick knee” or a “bad back”, things that you get used to as you grow older. Maybe you can treat it like the toilet flush lever you always have to jiggle or hold down. An annoyance but you’ve gotten used to it.

This way, you don’t try to cut each other’s necks when discussing a perpetual problem. Some common ones include one spouse not wanting to have a baby but the other does, one partner wants sex more often while the other one doesn’t, one partner wants the other to do more housework when the other one doesn’t, religious differences, whether a spouse sides with the in-laws or with their partner, etc. In The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, he gives lots of good “compromise points” ie right balance of win/lose for each partner. Funnily enough, for the bit about how to tackle a husband siding with the in-laws (especially his mother) over the spouse: Gottman says you have to side with the spouse over the mother every time. :p

I mentioned a bit about dysfunctional relationships and this concept. Let me elaborate on that.

There’s a number of ways that a pattern of dealing with “games” in a relationship can be a little bit pathological. Some are obvious. Some are much more subtle. Obviously, I’d say the healthiest way to deal with this is to adopt the abundance mindset (constantly construe situations as non-zero sum), and to keep going till you hit a truly win/win solution. To do that, you’re going to need self-awareness and communication skills, as well as some imagination to think up creative solutions. All those things can be developed. I’ve gotten to the point now where most of this stuff is automatic (though it’s taken about 4 years of practice…but that time’s going to pass anyway, so get to it!). When someone brings up a conflict or asks me to do something I disagree with, I automatically go up a level and ask why, listen to their why for emotional needs/wants, repeat it back to them, then using my self-awareness I identify and use courage to express my emotional needs/wants (though I often fail here and sacrifice being understood to resolve the conflict), then try to enroll both of us in finding creative solutions that are truly win/win, then follow through on my end of the bargain to deliver those solutions and hold the other person responsible for their part. I try to do this in an atmosphere of teamwork rather than me vs you, and try to do with as little resistence as possible. But it’s taken a lot of work to get here and I’m really glad I put in the work because my relationships are way better now.

Anyhoo, on to the pathologies:

Obviously zero-sum thinking (scarcity mentality) leads you to only perceive things as win/lose, lose/win. If one party in a relationship is thinking this way, they’ll constantly see the attempts of the other party who has an abundance mentality as attempts to manipulate them and get their way. Compromises can lead to a lose/lose solution. Therefore, you’ll constantly assign a score to a relationship and be really sensitive to ideas of being taken advantage of and of unfairness and injustice. This distrust will be picked up by the other partner and they’ll start to distrust you. Not a good atmosphere to build in a relationship.

If one partner “constantly” does lose/win and sacrifices themself for the sake of the relationship or the sake of ending conflict. If Jack constantly does that, though, constantly “loses”, he’s going to become resentful and want to stop playing the game. Sometimes that means he may stop playing the game of the relationship and end it, citing that it’s to unfair and that Jill always get what she wants. Or he may just continue to suffer with feelings of being taken advantage of and that Jill never does what he wants, or Jill never sacrifices like he does. Why would someone want to do this when it hurts relationships in the long term? Well, lots of reasons and different individuals do it for different reasons. One may be that someone’s been deeply scripted in being a martyr and of being the “sacrificial one”, often a stoically sacrificing mother. Another way is to have something to hold over the other person and manipulate them. “I sacrificed so much for you, can’t you do this one little thing for me?” But doing these things reduces the emotional bank account and the trust and is essentially emotional blackmail.

Obviously if one partner “constantly” does win/lose, then they’re selfish. That said, for the other person to continue to play the game and not just quit, the other partner also has to have to submit to losing and they may do that for the reasons I mentioned above.

It’s also possible for someone who is in a really self and other destructive pattern to constantly do lose/lose. In extreme anger, it often becomes lose/lose because one partner is trying to hurt the other for the pain that was caused. This is obviously not good for a relationship in the long term. Both partners feel victimized. This can happen when being in a relationship with a dysfunctional person who may come from a dysfunctional family. Being in a relationship with someone who abuses drugs can also be this way. However, you have to ask, well, why does the non-drug user stay in the relationship? Why does someone stay in an abusive relationship in general? There’s many reasons and most of them are not the fault of the person who’s staying in the relationship. Blaming the victim doesn’t get you anywhere. However, there are times that a person feels, for one reason or another, that they don’t deserve any better and that it’s their lot in life to end up in a abusive relationship cause that’s all they’re worth. This sort of dysfunctional pathology can be really bad when someone subtley goes out of their way to end up in an abusive relationship…by subtley encouraging the other person to be abusive. Which really sucks. For example, daughters of alcoholics, despite being abused and seeing the abuse happen to their mothers and constantly saying they don’t want to get into that, end up in a relationship with an alcoholic at a level greater than “chance”. Sometimes this happens very subtley, so she might go find a frat boy who drinks a little bit too much for his own good (but not to an alcoholic level). Then maybe she’ll start to get him mad when he’s drunk (by yelling at him for whatever reason) until he starts to abuse her. Then she’ll play out her role of being the victim which she’s deeply scripted in and which is what she’s been trying to play out. We become deeply scripted in certain roles and it can be hard to change them, and we may feel deeply uncomfortable if we’re not playing those roles, even if those roles are unhealthy or dysfunctional for us.

Anyhoo, so, we’ve looked at dysfunctions of not seeking win/win in a particular situation and dysfunctions of not seeking win/win over the long term and through multiple games. What happens when a particular person who has a certain pattern gets together with someone else who has a different pattern?

Win/lose person gets with win/lose person often ends quickly because the focus of each person is to get their needs met at the expense of the other person. If one person changes to lose/win, then this relationship can continue.

Lose/Lose person gets with lose/win, win/lose or even win/win person. All these tend to end badly because the lose/lose person is just trying to destroy the relationship. If someone’s scripted in lose/win and sacrificing yourself without concern to your own needs being met, then this may continue for a long time with both people in utter misery. These tend to be deeply toxic, abusive (perhaps only emotionally) relationships in which neither partner gets their needs met. The lose/lose person is aiming at destruction, not anything particular.

Lose/win person gets with win/lose person (or vice versa :p). This kind of relationship is where one partner feels they’ve to be self-sacrificial constantly and may see this as their “lot in life” for this sort of relationship to continue. The other person, of course, takes advantage of this to get what they want. This sort of pattern can continue for a long, long time, each each partner but especially the lose/win one constantly feeling like they’re sacrificing. The way out of this patterns tends to come when at least one partner (usually the lose/win one–cause the win/lose one has a vested interest in continuing this) realizes that their legitimate needs aren’t getting met. Often this needs to happen through recognizing their needs are legitimate (in abusive relationships, the win/lose person often tells the other person that their needs are’t legitimate). Take a step back, if you had a best friend you loved who complained about the same things you do about your relationship, would you tell them to leave this relationship? List out your needs aren’t being met by that person or at all (especially be careful if YOU don’t think you should have certain needs) and put the list away for a bit. Come back to it and ask if they’re legitimate for each one and then decide whether you can continue the relationship if they’re not being met and the other person’s not willing to meet them because their whole schtick is winning at your expense. Google “abusive relationship” or “emotionally abusive relationship” and answer those quizes about whether you’re in an emotionally abusive relationship. Careful, cause you may not actually want to find out you’re in an abusive relationship.

Lose/win person gets with lose/win person. This one is kinda funny in that two self-sacrificial person get together and both will feel like–and look for opportunities to–constantly sacrifice for the other person. Then they may both feel that they unfairly do not get their needs met and both constantly feel resentful and that the other person always gets their way. This kind of relationship can go on for a long, long time.

Lose/win person gets with win/win person. This is similar to the lose/win person with the lose/win person. The win/win person, though, will try hard to make sure the other person wins, too, but if the lose/win person is so deeply scripted in lose/win that they won’t even acknowledge that the other person is letting them win too, then they can be resentful and say things after a while like, “you constantly get what you want” or “I do so much for you but you do nothing for me”. Over time, if this relationship continues, it can sometimes transform the win/win person into lose/win or win/lose person to keep the relationship going.

Win/win person gets with win/win person. Hooray!

Quick note for lose/win, self-sacrificing people (such as me): In our culture, we’re taught and deeply scripted in the idea that tis nobel to sacrifice. It can be. But if you’re going around sacrificing when it isn’t necessary so you can feel noble or as not a bad person or to avoid feeling selfish, or to avoid becoming/being thought of as a win/lose person then that’s not very noble. Sacrifice when necessary, when there is no other choice, is noble in that you act with stoicism and courage in the face of a challenge. But sacrificing for the sake of sacrificing can become unhealthy. Your needs are often more legitimate than you think and it’s not necessarily selfish to ask for them. If you feel you do this, then try slowly and gently pushing through the feelings of selfishness, the fear of becoming a win/lose person, and that you shouldn’t have these needs cause they’ll just be let down or that they aren’t legitimate and ask for your needs from the partner. If your partner (who you don’t think has some sort of pathologies) turns them down, ask them if they’re legitimate needs. You can also ask others if these needs are legitimate, such as books on relationships or therapists or google.

Note: what I’ve written here may be categorized as unverified research. A lot of this if from my own experience and my combining the random research I’m aware of. Be very careful when taking advice on relationships, but especially about pathologies and dysfunctions from the intertubes. If you think there may be an issue, go see a qualified professional, whether for yourself (eg if you’re concerned you’re too self-sacrificing and you feel you may be causing it cause you’re playing the victim role) or for your relationship. Good luck!

Let that sink for a moment. She hit the nail right in the head about personal development. One of the key things we have to do to change is to be willing to let go of those parts of us which do not serve us any longer. It’s one of the reasons I believe that true change only happens when you’ve hit rock bottom and have become utterly frustrated. That’s when you have nothing else to lose and you’re willing to let go of something you consider to be a part of yourself. We have a tendency to try to protect our own sense of identities, even if those identities are hurting us. Sometimes letting go of that part of ourselves, or even our whole self is violent and we have to step up and kill that part of ourselves. In stories, this is often represented by the hero character having to fight an evil version of themself (as in Scott Pilgrim fighting Nega-Scott) or a part of themself often conjured up to fight them, such as a monster from their own dreams. By killing those parts of yourself, you become stronger.

You can see this mythically and in stories, where the hero often loses the first confrontation against the villain and runs away. He learns and is reborn and wins the second round soundly. A perfect example of this is the Matrix. Neo becomes the One AFTER being shot and dying. Trinity then spells out his transformation as she stands over his dead body by saying, “I’m not afraid any more”. Pretty classic resurrection story, based on the Gnostic Bible, and thus the story of Jesus, who also, if you’ll remember, was killed and reborn.

Mythically, further, the snake tends to represent change and death and rebirth, by being able to shed its skin and become a “new” snake, in a way. You may have to do the same and shed your skin and become a new version of yourself. Sometimes the people around you aren’t comfortable killing their idea of your old self and exchanging it for your new one and that’s a part of life. People change.

There’s a few ways out of this for those of us who do not want to change only when things get truly horrible. The first is to change what you identify with as yourself. Are you the same person as you were ten years ago? How about when you were ten years old? How about when you were five? When you were just born? Physically speaking there’s almost nothing that’s the same as when you were that young. Mentally either. Personality-wise, there were significant differences. So what ties you to that child, and makes you think you’re the same person? A name? It can be argued that it is a narrative. It is a story that you tell yourself that starts with, “I was born” and “here I am”. We make up stories in order to make sense of everything around us (including us) and these stories are often incorrect. But we cling to these stories like a drowning man to a life-saving device.

Steve Pavlina/Ekhart Tolle/Buddhism makes the point that you should identify not with the things you consider you identity (your memories, personality, past, future, body, emotions, thoughts, etc.) but with the consciousness on which all of these things play out. The awareness of awareness that you develop in mindfulness practice.

Another related way is to reduce clinging attachment, a la Buddhism, again. Try mindfulness meditation and notice how you cling to things, unwilling to let go because of fear.

Another example is that I’m not “naturally” an entrepreneur but I am becoming one. I read books like Howard Shultz’s Pour Your Heart Into It (story of Starbucks) and he writes as if he never had any doubts or periods of thinking, “Am I crazy? Maybe I should just give up.” I reckon I’ll get to a place where I have that much confidence in myself (or the ability to edit my memory of low confidence moments :p), but I won’t have gotten there “naturally”. For some reason, I feel that being naturally calibrated is better than to have to that calibration through conscious hard work. I don’t really know why. It just feels less genuine and less real. Perhaps this is a consequence of our society’s awe and deification of natural ability over hard work, though it seems like both are necessary for success. To be fair though when I’m feeling down on myself, I’m not appreciating the things I AM naturally calibrated to do, such as pursue improvement, or being naturally happy.

I don’t really have a resolution for this yet. Just throwing this out there in case you feel similarly.

Edit: Perhaps this is just the feeling before a quantum leap.

The first point assumes that all of the other roles we play as friends, partners, parents, lovers, children, siblings, human beings and many others go up against the one role of being an EMPLOYEE. My life includes work, but is not going to be balanced out with work, because “work-life balance” implies there is some sort of balance to be achieved. Balance usually refers to somin being equal. If I was to do that, out of every 24 hour day, I should spend 12 hours working and try to cram the rest of my life such as sleeping, working on personal projects, and hanging out in the other 12 hours. That just seems idiotic.

I prefer Tim Ferriss‘ take on the idea of work-life balance. He says there should be “work-life separation”. I still have some qualms about this term, but this at least gives the possibility of reducing the time and attention you give to work, possibly working less than the fabled 40-hour week.

BTW, I’m using “work” in the sense of a job and being an employee. I personally use the broadest sense of word “work” in my life: that of anything that I’d like to do, including job stuff, personal stuff, relationship stuff, humour stuff, personal projects for love not money, etc.

Let’s say you have a goal to make more money. Now, since you’re a hardworking productive person you start thinking of ways to get more money. After a bit you start to feel disconnected from the goal and from yourself because you don’t like the greedy person you feel yourself becoming. Perhaps you’ll also find that you haven’t made much money at all or improved your financial situation. Perhaps it’s gotten worse. Pretty common experience, it seems like.

Now, let’s say you decide that instead of trying to get money (the production), you try to improve the thing that gets you money (production capacity)–the value you deliver. Getting money is a consequence of value given/created for another person.

Here’s why you don’t wanna focus on getting money: 1. In the experience of a number of people (Steve Pavlina and myself included), it doesn’t work. 2. Extrinsic motivation reduces intrinsic motivation. Like playing guitar? If I start paying you for it, you’ll start liking it less and will likely play it on your own time less. It’s gotten bound up with the money, and if there’s no money, there’s no incentive to play for yourself.

Focusing on value creation and delivery, on the other hand, feels a helluva lot better. And here’s the thing: it works better by miles, too. My theory is that it works better because as you improve your production capacity, you get a bigger hammer to drive in this small nail. You can keep developing until a small tap crushes the nail right into the wood.

Grades are the same thing: you can try to focus on getting grades, or you can focus on becoming a better student. The second will work a lot better and you’ll have a lot less anxiety. And as you improve your ability to be a student, your grades will improve as a natural consequence. This is related to the idea that you don’t just get a certain goal (ie a certain amount of money or grades), you become the kind of person that gets that goal (ie a productive value-creating person, or a conscientious and effective strategy-using student).

BTW, if you’ve noticed the lack of posting lately, it’s because I’ve had the worst month of my life. Worse than the time I failed all my courses and worse than the time our house burned down…so it was bad. Good news though is that things are better but I’ll be very busy going forward, so posting will be spotty. Sorry.

THIP is where you decide you’ve had enough and make a real committment to change the way you’ve been doing things. You may say or think, “I dunno what’s on the other side of this change, but there’s gotta be a better way”. It’s a sort of faith that there is a better way. And motivation is strong, and you can tell by your actions. Commitment is measured in action, not in the strength of your words or how often you say you’re committed. Even before you hit your THIP you may make the motions of change and perhaps even try hard, but you’re not really committed to giving up your old ways and seeking something new.

This means that sometimes you have to let the people around you fall and hurt themselves a bit before they themselves want to improve things. If you keep them artificially above from their THIP point, that can sometimes work out worse in the long run. However, there is the possibility that they won’t ever reach their THIP, even if they’re in the worst possible condition. Rock bottom is still above their THIP. It’s unfortunate, but sometimes you have to let go of relationships with love and compassion, but let them go.

This is also hard because we tend to think of ourselves as good people who wouldn’t let someone suffer around them without doing something. It attacks our very identity as a good person. And we may feel guilty about it. But you have to trust that this is the best thing for them at this time, and that sometimes to be a good person, it means to let people you love to suffer a little. It hurts and your sense of compassion may be screaming at you, but you have to let people live their lives, otherwise they won’t learn for themselves.

You can clean a child’s room to have a clean room, but the real point is for the child to clean the room itself. Ideally the child will have intrinsic motivation to clean the room and do it happily. Sometimes people need to suffer for a bit, hit their THIP and find their own motivation and make their own decision about change. You can push them to change, and they might change, but it won’t be because they want to, and soon as you’re gone, they’ll just revert back. They need to become sick of it. Keeping people above their THIP artificially is a bit like cleaning the child’s room yourself. Then the child learns nothing. Perhaps the child needs to stay in its mess for a little while before it says, “To hell with this, I’m cleaning my room and keeping it clean from now on”. That “little while” may take a long time depending on the situation. Years sometimes.

Not everyone reaches the THIP, of course. To successfully transition from a bad situation into a good one, people need to take responsibility and recognize that they are the ones that will fix things. You. Likely alone. If you need help, there will be plenty available, but that you have to do it. But taking responsibility isn’t easy. Accepting that your current life is largely a matter of the decisions you made or the decisions to do nothing you made is hard. That’s where the distinction between responsibility and guilt comes in. But, there is power, too. You still have that power of decision and you can decide differently now.

If I told you I wanted to sell you an old piece of cloth on a wooden frame with some oils on it for a “measly” $100 million dollars, you’d look at me like I was crazy. The materials cost of this thing would probably be less than $20. If I gave it to a goat, it’d just eat it and probably get no nutrition from it. However, if I told you that it was a canvas, 500 years old, drawn by the legendary Leonardo da Vinci, the oils depicted the Lisa de Giocondo and was called the Mona Lisa, you’d probably wonder what the catch was because that painting is “worth” or “valued at” at least $670 million dollars and I’m offering it to you for “only” $100 million. My previous description of the Mona Lisa is still accurate; it is still some old oils on a cloth on a wooden frame and its material value is no more than about $20, however its other value is so much more as a great work of art, as a milestone in the history of art, as a work of the great Leonardo da Vinci and as an accomplishment for all of humanity, as well as an object of intense curiosity and study.

This should suggest something important to you: Not only are there many different kinds of value, all value is within our heads not in the world out “there”. The Mona Lisa has no value to a goat beyond being able to eat it. A bear would not notice it, and people who do not know about it would probably consider it a weird painting and not give it a second look if it wasn’t hanging in the Louvre. Honestly, I only know about its value because other people have told me its valuable. Different people can have different understanding of the same object.

Let me illustrate this with another example: if I told you that I wanted you to spend your valuable time doing something unejoyable for me and in return I will give you some pieces of a (perhaps) shiny metal and some pieces of paper. Or, better yet, I’ll simply just bump up some numbers on a computer somewhere, would you look at me like I was crazy? You might, but remember that that’s what money is. The value of money is entirely in our collective heads. It’s a little more complicated than that, obviously, however that’s an accurate (though not very useful) way to think about it. As Steve Pavlina and Warren Buffett say, money is a claims cheque for withdrawing from “society” value that is worth the agreed upon value of that money.

Value is usually not so obviously conscious. Often times, things just “stick out” in the environment for you. When you focus your attention on something, you are indicating it is relevant in some way. Relevance, salience, importance are all very important, related concepts but they’re tricky to nail down. For example, say you walked into your room and found two things that are different: a very attractive person on your bed and that the walls have gotten one shade lighter. Which would you pay more attention to? What would you drawn to pay attention to immediately? Odds are high you wouldn’t even notice your walls have gotten lighter. You wouldn’t have the thought, “Attractive person, walls slightly lighter. I think I will pay attention to the attractive person.” It’s usually not a conscious choice: you simply pay more attention to the attractive person. The attractive person…attracts your attention. Further, you probably wouldn’t pay attention to the things that did not change, such as your bed, desk or closet. You wouldn’t ignore the attractive person and look at your books.

What “sticks out” in the environment for you is a result of perceptual filters. If you know about the Reticular Activating System (RAS), then that’s what I’m talking about. Things in the environment just jump out at you. Generally, attractive people in the environment stick out and cause you to look at them. That filter on your perception is set by evolution. If you come up with a new goal, such as to stop smoking, you’ll suddenly find yourself noticing ads that advertise stop smoking, or randomly overhear conversations people are having about not smoking. Another example: ever notice how even if you’re in a crowded, noisy room and you hear your name, it comes across clearly even across the room? Your perceptual filters are set to bring your name to your attention.

So, to make money, you have to convince enough people to give you their money. You can do this by begging, of course; convince others that you “deserve” or “need” the money, and you can, of course, steal it. However, the best way is to give enough value–that they consider valuable–so that they will give you money in exchange for it, or to own a system or structure that delivers value for you and you can enjoy the profits. A good rule of thumb is that anything people want is valuable for them. I want and value convenience or mobility and I’m willing to exchange one form of value (money) for it, when I buy a laptop rather than a desktop.

The value mindset understands that value is being created all the time, simply because other people perceive it as such. For example, if I have made someone laugh, I have created value because they perceive it as such. If I said or did the same thing and another person did not even smile, then I have not created value for them because they did not perceive it as such. Not everyone reacts to the same object the same way, nor in the same location or the same time. What value is exchanged for money is largely a matter of convention and need. For example, even if you go to a professional masseuse and get a nice relaxing massage, they created value because you feel that was a valuable experience and you expect to exchange value in the form of dollars or favours for it. If, however, your girlfriend or boyfriend who happens to be a professional masseuse gave you a nice relaxing massage which was also full of love, they have created greater value than going to a spa, but if they asked you for money, it would be really strange.

This is the big difference between a “scarcity” or “cost/expense mindset” and the abundance or “value mindset”. The cost/expense mindset has a very narrow definition of what is valuable to other people and it is generally based on what is valuable to you. We often don’t know a whole lot about other people, so we fill in our understanding of other people with liberal helpings of our understanding of ourselves. A mistaken understanding of what is “valuable” enough to be exchanged for money is what is at the core of the difference between the two mindsets.

The cost/expense mindset, however, has a much narrower definition of what “value” is that can be exchanged for money. Here are some definitions I have believed and discarded:

• If I work hard, I am creating value for other people. “Hard work” meant long hours, personal stress, being constantly on call and doing something I disliked. This is unsustainable. You can read more about it here.
• If I am the best or at the top, only then I am creating value and deserve money in exchange for it.
• If I am good enough, I am creating value. The value I am creating to others is being able to have ME and my time. This was largely egotistic.
• Value is objective and everyone agrees on what value is, rather than each person having their own idea of what’s valuable to them.
• Only the material cost of something is valuable. So, if a pair of shoes costs $5 to make and someone wants me to pay them $60 for it, they’re being greedy and unfair. The real “value” of that thing is whatever the cost is.
• Only the “function” is valuable. For example, an $100,000 Aston Martin and a used $10,000 Honda both perform the same function: transportation. So, an Aston Martin seems extravagant when a Honda will do, however the function is not the only kind of value of the Aston. Its fast, its the most beautiful car in the world. But only some people care about that stuff, many people just care that a car get them from point A to B. Don’t project your values onto other people.
• Value is created only by my personal effort and its all about me being good enough.
• Only my own original ideas create value.
• Only things with definite physical price has value. Things that give me a fluffy “emotion” or experience do not.
• Only things that last have value. Something transitory such as a massage does not have very much value.
• If I’m smart enough, or good enough, I am creating value or I can create value.

People in the cost/expense mindset tend to pursue money rather than attempting to give value. I’ve been there and during that time I did worse than I did otherwise and generally did not enjoy how I felt every day and about myself. I felt a bit like a cheat desperately trying to grab what he can. I do not recommend this path. Steve Pavlina has also experienced it and recommends against it. That said, you’re free to try out both and see which one works.

Value created is when someone else acknowledges that you have done something they value. They may return the favour in money, in other favours or in something else you may find valuable. They may do this implicitly by simply putting their attention on it.

This view transforms money into something to be valued rather than a scarce resource. Some people think there’s only a limited amount of money and it’s just wrong. Money represents psychological value, which is basically infinite. While before it would seem noble to not take a whole lot because others would not have enough, now you can have as much money as you’d like as long as you’re creating value. If there’s greater value than the amount of money out there, they can print money. It sounds pretty noble to me to create something people value. You’re helping other people in a way that may well not take anything away from you. Does that sound noble to you?

Footnote:

The “redefine it ’till its absurd” is a game I love to play. See what else you can apply it to? Movie theatres are places where we get to sit in the dark quietly listening to some sounds and having some light movements hit our eyeballs. And we get to pay money for the privilege.

Part 1 – Introduction

Part 2 – What is Value?

Part 3 – Practically Creating and Delivering Value

Part 4 – What is your Current Mindset?

Part 5 – Value & Self-Esteem

Part 6 – Value & Service

Part 7 – Value & Marketing

Unfortunately, I haven’t found a good, practical guide shifting to an “abundance” mindset, only indicators or markers of where it is. I have spent the past year or so creating my own understanding of the abundance mindset that brings together my knowledge of personal development, the way the world works, psychology, philosophy and economics. I want to share this understanding and my process for achieving it here.

What makes this guide special? My goal is to help you shift your mindset to an abundance mindset by delivering clear reasoning (instead of assertions) behind each of the pillars of the abundance mindset and contrasting it with the common mindset. You can then test out your results with the abundance mindset versus your previous mindset and decide which works better for you. The other guides I have seen have done some things I will avoid:

• included assertions rather than arguments
• have only described the final mindset without contrasting it with the “common” one
• have only talked about the “symptoms” of the abundance mindset (such as finding a ten thousand dollar a night for a hotel room acceptable) rather than why that is so
• made metaphysical assumptions about the nature of the universe such as for the law of attraction. There may be value there, but I will stick to a naturalistic understanding of the world whenever possible.

The criteria that define the abundance mindset are:

• it has to be ethical.
• it has to model the world as it is by explaining how people make money right now and accounting for why people don’t.
• empower us to make more money easier, better or faster, and deliver all sorts of results easier.

How this guide works This guide is written so that the next page will contain almost all you need to know about this mindset. It will be a sort of overview of the whole guide. The pages after that will contain greater detail, illustrations and depth about each part as well as my personal history with each idea. This is a work-in-progress. If some part of this guide could be improved or if you feel that some parts are lacking, please contact me and let me know so you can help create greater value for the other readers of this guide.

Table of Contents:

Part 1 – Introduction

Part 2 – What is Value?

Part 3 – Practically Creating and Delivering Value

Part 4 – What is your Current Mindset?

Part 5 – Value & Self-Esteem

Part 6 – Value & Service

Part 7 – Value & Marketing

I took dance classes not too long ago and it was a lot of fun. I highly recommend it. The benefits of taking even one dance course are numerous: you get to meet interesting people, you get to experience the richness of life, prevent boredom, learn a new skill, other kinds of dancing also improves (not just the one you take), you become more comfortable in your body, you learn that no one else knows what they’re doing while dancing so you stop being self-conscious, and you enjoy yourself! If you’re in college or university, check out your gym, they will probably have dance classes. There might also be dancing clubs. If you’re not, check out your local gym, they may have dance classes or be able to refer you to some good places. Or google, “(hometown) dance lessons” and substitute your hometown for the word. One of the most enjoyable experiences I’ve had.

I should make this clear: in my class, the guys did the leading and the women did the following. However, the instructor explicitly said that that did not have to be the case. So, any time I say “guys” just substitute in “leader” and when I say “women” you can put in “led”. At least one lesbian couple chose one of the partners to be a leader and the other person to be led. Leader and the led are just roles in dancing, in this case filled by guys and women. I’m not sure dancing where both try to lead or be led would work well. You can find dance lessons that are alternative-lifestyle friendly if you ask around.

At the beginning, everyone is awkward and unsure of what they’re doing. However, an odd thing happens with the instructor starts to dance with someone: they look beautiful together. When the instructor starts to dance with a woman, it’s like she knows the moves, even though she’s a beginner like everyone else. This puzzled me. It took me a while to figure this out but here it is: he was leading her firmly and clearly. The guys weren’t doing that so it all looked like a mess. So, why didn’t they all do it?

There’s a number of reasons why the guys weren’t doing that. The first was that the guys weren’t really sure of the dance moves themselves, so they didn’t really have the attention to spare to lead the woman. The second was that the instructor didn’t explicitly teach leading and just taught the steps. I don’t know whether this was just something he did but didn’t know he did (implicit vs explicit–watch this entertaining video by Tim Ferriss for his dance story). This is important because leading works two ways: you have to be teach how to lead but also to be led. To lead, you have to send clear signals with your arms and body. To be led, you have to keep a taut stance to be sure that you receive the signals through the arms. Finally, I think that a lot of people just aren’t very comfortable leading. There may be self-confidence issues there such as, “who am I to lead?” and others may be in the love-hate relationship with the masculine role that guys seem to have. A guy should be strong and lead, but also allow the woman to lead? A lot of guys get confused by the mixed signals they get about the nature of manhood.

In any case, I started to lead with confidence even if I didn’t feel it and everything went wonderfully. Everyone I danced with had a lot more fun and we looked great. I realize that the role of the leader is a sort of stewardship. You have to fulfill your responsibilities to the other person, as well as listen to them while working towards a common goal. You can try bossing your dance partners around, but it doesn’t work very well. Sometimes your dance partner will tell you clearly what isn’t working through her body. She’ll refuse to do a move or be very resistant to it. How is dancing a metaphor for life?

Life is a bit like dancing. Your life is your dance partner and if you don’t lead, it will be a mess. The vagaries of chance, circumstances and past habits will lead you and you’ll end up with something you didn’t really want. Life will often tell you what’s not working and you won’t get the results you want. You have to listen to your dance partner. But you also don’t want to make assumptions about how life is. Don’t let timidity make you assume that you shouldn’t lead or that something is not possible. Try it and you’ll find out quickly. Let life tell you what’s working and what’s not and learn to listen to it, just like on the dance floor.

Even if you’re wrong, be confident and keep leading. Even if you make a mistake, you’ve learned something and the other person’s learned something and keep leading. Right after a mistake is when leading is needed most and that’s when most people stop or lose confidence. A lot of the dancers got thrown off by a mistake in the dance, lost their confidence and messed up the rest of the routine. If you keep leading, though, the mistake is barely a hiccup and people will often miss the mistake because you don’t make a bit deal of it and just keep on dancing. If you lose a job but go right into following one of your dreams (like living in Spain), or getting another job or starting another business or volunteering, the job less will barely look like a hiccup and it will just like it’s part of the plan. But if you lose a job and just sit at home, you’ve lost confidence after a mistake and ruined the rest of the routine. But you can start dancing and leading again at any time. Even if you’re wrong, you’re right so keep leading the dance.

Life is your dance partner. If you lead clearly and strongly, people can see a beautiful dance and go, “boy, they’ve sure got a great life”. If you let life lead you, you’ll often end up somewhere you didn’t want to. Live consciously.