I think that there are two kinds of knowledge — internalized knowledge and intellectual knowledge. Think of intellectual knowledge as the potential for internalized knowledge. Intellectual knowledge is what you learn passively, from things like reading books, watching documentaries, or taking instructional courses. It's entirely conceptual, while internalized knowledge only reveals itself on our behavior.
For example, I know from 48 Laws of Power that I should "think as I like, but behave like others" (Law 38), but at work I still have difficulty biting my tongue when my values run against what is commonly accepted, and occasionally it gets me in trouble. There are times that I remember this law and hold back, but it's not habitual yet. Intellectual knowledge turns into internalized knowledge when it becomes ingrained in our decision making; when a theory transitions into a behavioral habit.
Robert Greene references the German term "Fingerspitzengefühl," which was made popular by Field-Marshal Erwin Rommel, who was nicknamed the Desert Fox during World War II for the fearsomely successful strategies he used to repeatedly beat the Allies in North Africa. The literal translation is "finger tips feeling," but the interpretation is that once you have achieved mastery of a given skill you operate without thinking, and instead rely on a certain level of intuition or "touch" — your "finger tips feeling" or Fingerspitzengefühl. It is at this point that intellectual knowledge becomes internalized knowledge, when all of the study and learning unconsciously become permanent parts of our behavior.
The hardest part about internalizing knowledge is that more study won't help you. You have to actually implement the concepts to develop internalized knowledge, and it takes a tremendous number of repetitions and failures before the behavior becomes a habit. Acquiring more intellectual knowledge will definitely help you get better insight and expand your mindset. But are you doing anything to turn these theories into actions?
I recently got into a discussion about how I feel my highly regimented dietary and lifestyle choices impact me. Ironically, I said that having a strict routine actually made my life feel easier and less stressful, instead of feeling restricted like you would expect. I would attribute this in large part to the fact that the way I have my life organized means I don't have to think all the time.
While I haven't read it yet, the book The Paradox of Choice has been cited in a number of other books I've read. The Paradox of Choice says that making decisions is a stressful process for people, and the more options a person has the more stressful it becomes. Having a wide range of choices increases the pressure we feel to make a perfect decision, since more options means there is a better chance for us to find the perfect fit. It also increases the opportunity for buyer's remorse, since there will be more items for us to think back on and wonder "Would I have been better off picking that one instead?"
Humans are exposed to more options, and have to make more choices, today than ever before. 48 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every few minutes. You can carry tens of thousands of songs around with you in the palm of your hand. All of these choices are overwhelming us. This is why I feel having a strict routine for myself is actually liberating — all of my decisions are pre-made.
Take, for example, my thought process when choosing food. The first question is, "Is it Saturday?" If yes, I eat whatever I want and don't feel the least bit guilty about it. If no, I eat a meal that conforms to the Slow Carb Diet. Problem solved.
Compare this to the person who goes out to eat with no principles to guide her. She wonders whether or not she can afford to eat an unhealthy meal, because she has to go to the beach this coming weekend. Even though the fried calamari looks delicious, maybe she should get something healthy instead. Well, what does "healthy" mean? No carbohydrates? Lots of fruits and vegetables? High in protein? Vegan? As you can see, there are far more places to drive yourself crazy during the decision making process this way than there are if you've come up with a set of rules for yourself ahead of time.
This is where the art of pre-made decisions comes into play. If you spend a small amount of time in advance determining your objectives and the lifestyle choices it will take to get you there, you will already know which path you're going to take whenever you encounter a situation that would have normally required you to make a decision on the spot. It's like putting your life on auto-pilot. Rather than deal with the hassles that come from navigating life on your own; setup a system that runs everything for you so you can focus your attention on bigger things.
Most of my recent posts have in some way involved the concept of thinking long-term, particularly by resisting the pull of immediate distractions and petty urgent problems. While I've worked hard at developing this kind of mindset, I would still like to be better at it. One area where I was failing and didn't know it was letting all the exciting things I hope to accomplish eat up my attention and force me into a state of indecision.
I use a slightly modified version of Tim Ferriss' Dreamline to first identify the things I'd like to achieve the most, and then work towards accomplishing them. In essence you pick four things you want to have, four things you want to be, and four things you want to do; then out of the twelve items you select the four that excite you the most and start working on them.
Filling out the list of possibilities was never a problem for me, like it can be for some people, who over the years have settled into their routines and lost their desire to push themselves in a new direction. I used to think having a large list of fun and ambitious goals I wanted to accomplish was a good thing, and I still do, but now I realize that it can also be a source of problems if not handled properly.
The issue is that after you've selected the four things you want to work on, the other eight items that didn't make the final cut still creep into the back of your mind. This is especially true when you experience setbacks, because you start to wonder if you should have picked a different objective instead of the one you're currently stuck on. It's even an issue if you have success though. If the four goals you've currently picked are all going well, it can cause you to try to add another item to your list — over-extending yourself in the process.
I bring all of this up because a post by Derek Sivers recently made me aware I was having this problem, so now I can work on fixing it. To be honest, I'm not sure exactly what about the post was so illuminating, but when I was done reading it I felt like my perspective had changed. I realized that when I pick my four goals at the end of the Dreamlining process, I am also actively not choosing the other eight items. That way, whenever they try to crowd my mental space, I can calmly say to myself "Yes, it would be great to accomplish that, and maybe I will some day, but I've chosen not to work on that right now." It helps kick the distracting thoughts out of my head so I can get back focusing on the goals I'm working towards now.
This post stands on the shoulders of:
Derek Sivers: "Trying to pursue many different directions at once?"
Tim Ferriss: The Dreamline process for setting and achieving goals.
The following section of a blog post by Bob Lefsetz, titled "Muse At Staples," caught my attention a while ago, and I realized it was because one of the themes in the article came up in a few other things I'd read around the same time.
We all get caught up in our day-to-day life sometimes, and we lose sight of the long-term reasons for what we're doing. Unfortunately for some, this becomes a permanent state. Ask them "What are you working towards?" and they will respond with a blank stare. The point to take away from the Lefsetz article and the two related book quotes is this: Whatever your specific goals are, your purpose now should be to prepare yourself for when you get a rare opportunity to excel. That way you are in a position to capitalize on it when it happens.
Bob says [bolding is mine]:
"You might be rolling your eyes now, saying it’s all about placement, that’s how you break, but Muse had been working for years before Ms. Meyer discovered them, "Twilight" was a lucky break. The key is to be in the game long enough to experience your lucky break. Most people give up too soon. Or expect it to come too early. Success comes to those who wait. And want it."This idea of perseverance and preparation came up in two books as well. In The Little BIG Things, Tom Peters cites Nassim Nicholas Taleb's The Black Swan and the idea of the "Unpredictable Extreme Event" (U.E.E.) [bolding is mine]:
"Well, if we can’t plan for it because of its, by definition, “difference-ness,” and we can’t let it distract us 24 hours a day every day, what can we do? There are no surefire remedies, but there is a line of thought ⎯ and a single word ⎯ that may be of practical use. The word is…resilience.And Malcolm Gladwell's thesis statement in Outliers [bolding is mine]:
To deal with the absurdly unlikely, we can consciously think about and hire people and promote those with demonstrated evidence of resilience and, hence, perhapse travel at least some distance toward shaping our organization to be more or less able to respond to a Black Swan." – p.45
"These are stories, instead, about people who were given a special opportunity to work really hard and seized it, and who happened to come of age at a time when that extraordinary effort was rewarded by the rest of society. Their success was not just of their own making. It was a product of the world in which they grew up." - p. 67The most difficult part about preparing for a distant unknown is the uncertainty that creeps in. You start questioning if it's worth it, whether you will ever get there, and whether or not you're making the right choice. The more you can think long-term, the better off you will be at achieving some level of perseverance.
This post stands on the shoulders of:
Bob Lefsetz: "Muse At Staples,"
Nassim Nicholas Taleb via Tom Peters: The Unpredictable Extreme Event (U.E.E.)
Malcolm Gladwell: Outliers
In 33 Strategies of War, Robert Greene makes the point that often speed and mistakes are inversely proportional. The faster you go, the more errors you make. The slower you go, the fewer you make.
"We live in a world in which speed is prized above almost all else, and acting faster than the other side has itself become the primary goal. But most often people are merely in a hurry, acting and reacting frantically to events, all of which makes them prone to error and wasting time in the long run."
"People hate the feeling of being rushed and are terrified of making a mistake. They unconsciously try to slow things down — by taking longer to make decisions, being noncommittal, defensive, and cautious."The key to being both fast and effective is "Grand Strategy." It allows you to see past your immediate situation and to stay focused on the future objective you are trying to achieve. This will prevent you from constantly reacting to circumstances dictated by other people, moving fast simply for the sake of moving fast, but frantically in every direction instead of with a clear aim.
Seeing the world around you with the kind of long-term clarity that Grand Strategy requires will also prevent you from being held back by the fear of making a mistake. Most people are afraid of mistakes because they over-estimate the negative consequences of making one. Recognizing that mistakes are unavoidable, and rarely fatal, allows the Grand Strategist to move swiftly and with a clear focus.
This is not to say she is careless. She does do her best to minimize errors, and having a targeted long-term objective makes this easier for her. But reaching her goal quickly and effectively is always the driving force behind the Grand Strategist's actions, not avoiding mistakes at all costs.
This post stands on the shoulders of:
33 Strategies of War by Robert Greene
A while ago, I posted the below comment on Seth Godin's Facebook page in response to this blog post. It got a good reception, so I thought it was worth repeating here.
Robert Greene has a concept called "The Death Ground Strategy," which Sun Tzu also spoke about in The Art Of War. In essence it says put your troops in a position where there is no option for retreat, and they will fight with exponentially increased intensity - since the only alternative is death. If you place yourself in this position, "It is a law of power that your energy will always rise to the appropriate level...You are more alert and inventive...This venture HAS to succeed and so it will."One woman responded negatively to the fact that "there is a lot of war and fighting the enemy going on in [my] approach." However, I've personally found looking at life in exactly that way — as a battle that I wage every day — to be helpful. Whether I'm struggling to overcome something internal like fear, Resistance, or the lizard brain; or something external like people trying to protect the status quo or their own self interest, this line of thinking is helpful to me because making progress requires that you overcome obstacles.
If what you are attempting to achieve were easy, you would already be doing it. Therefore, if you're not struggling — if you're not fighting — every day, are you really trying to get anywhere? Progress requires struggle. And if you are fighting, then "The Death Ground Strategy" can help you win more of your battles.
This post stands on the shoulders of:
33 Strategies of War by Robert Greene: The term "Death Ground Strategy," as well as it's modern applications.
The Art of War by Sun Tzu: The original philosophy of the "Death Ground Strategy"
"Put the article about [the famous pop-star] at the top. That's what I would be most interested in," he said.
I politely tried to explain how a different post, about a quirky science discovery, had gotten more attention from the audience that this e-mail was being sent to. He didn't get it.
Be careful whenever you hear yourself using phrases like "That’s what I would do." If you're expressing an opinion, that's one thing, but too often these words mean someone is taking their own beliefs and defining the rest of the world according to them.
The rest of the world is not just like you.
In fact, I'd bet that in most cases what we would do is drastically different from what the majority would do. There is an enormous amount of variation in people's worldviews, and more often than not your beliefs wind up falling into the minority.
The only solution to this is observation. Instead of judging the success of your creations solely based on your personal expectations and sense of aesthetics, observe them after they've been created to judge their effect and try to learn from it. Just because you would click on the article about the pop-star first doesn't mean your audience will.
Continually test your assumptions. Regularly try ideas that run counter to your intuition, but also show promise, rather than blindly extrapolating your views on to the rest of the world. Remember — more often than not your beliefs wind up falling into the minority rather than the majority.
This post stands on the shoulders of:
Ryan Holiday: Self-Absorbtion
Tim Ferriss - Testing and self-experimentation (See his book The 4-Hour Body)
"If the whole world decided, today, to follow you; where would you lead them?"
This question is posed as a motif throughout the song "Thinking About That" by Victor Wooten, and it resonated enough that I thought I'd attempt an answer:
The first thing that occurred to me was that, on a macro level, this is impossible to do with specific activities. If you demanded that everyone start exercising daily, which would help improve the health for everyone who needs more exercise, there would be large groups of people who, because of age, disability, or injury, would wind up worse off when forced to exercise. Almost every absolute decision like this hurts one group of people even while it helps another. Instead, the answer needs to be a broad framework that adapts itself to varying circumstances.
If the whole world decided, today, to follow me; I would lead us to these three ideas:
Openness
The first activity I would lead the world towards would be openness. Openness to new ideas, new people, new ways of operating, and anything that challenges the status quo and our way of thinking. When we encounter new information that is counter to our current worldview, we all try to find ways to undermine or reject it to avoid cognitive dissonance. This is just a bias of human thinking, but one that can be compensated for if you're aware of it and actively try to maintain your openness to new ideas.
Curiosity
Being open to difference is great, but I don't think it produces beneficial change on it's own. In order for that to happen, not only do you have to be open to new ideas when they come to you, but you also have to actively go to them. This is where I would lead people towards curiosity. Instead of just being passively open to change initiated by others, curiosity makes a person actively seek out new ideas. This change from being a spectator to a participant is crucial.
Testing
After leading the world to openness and curiosity, the last place I would take us would be to testing. Once we are open to new ideas and trying to seek them out through our curiosity, testing provides a framework for turning those new ideas into actions. Testing is simply the act of taking a new idea and proactively using it, while also tracking the results in some quantifiable way. By treating life as an experiment, it helps feedback the idea of openness and curiosity into our thinking, and also drives people towards action by providing some distance. It's a lot easier to try something new if you're thinking that you are "just testing it out," and that everything is not permanent but largely reversible.
In the song that inspired this post, Victor Wooten's answer begins "Before we can think about leading anybody, I think we should think about where we're leading ourselves." Even though there are plenty of times where I don't succeed, I would say that I do try to hold these three ideals at the center of how I live my life. And for all the times I fail, the impact of each success far outweighs the failures.
So if the whole world decided, today, to follow me; right or wrong, that's where I'd take us.
This post stands on the shoulders of:
"Thinking About That" by Victor Wooten - The question at the center of the post
Poke The Box by Seth Godin - The idea of curiosity as a key driving force in change
Tim Ferriss - Testing and self-experimentation (See his book The 4-Hour Body)
Ryan Holiday: Openness and cognitive biases
