The Inseperable Entanglement Between Our Messages And Our Perceptions

I was scanning through my LinkedIn page the other day and I came across this post by someone (paraphrased):

I'm seeing a lot of people writing on LinkedIn, saying that they need to distance themselves from the negative individuals around them. Or maybe they're saying how some people have a toxic negative mentality. I'd like to share this story about another negative thinker, as food for thought:

When RMS Titanic hit the iceberg, engineers on the ship quickly went to inspect the damage. After examining its extent, they rushed up the to captain and gave him the bad news. "Captain", they said, "the damage to the hull is significant and we  estimate that the ship will have sunk in two hours. We suggest manning the lifeboats immediately." To this the captain replied, "I will not have negative thinkers on my bridge!"  

I felt compelled to add my own commentary to this statement.

Are the negative people around us actually addressing real problems, and we are being ostriches and putting our head in the sand? Or do people's over-negative mentalities rub off on us, debilitating us in our ability achieve things and painting a gloomy picture? Well, it's both.

The Titanic Story muddied the water a little bit. When people talk about negative thinkers, they're talking about Negative Nellies. Naysayers. People who's cup is always 'glass half empty' (GHE). This a whole different type of messenger relative to that found in the Titanic Story, where it was necessary to address negative issues so that a solution can be found.

But on top of that, there are those who receive this news as well (the captain of the story). And in this situation, there are two ways to respond. There are those who are receptive to the news, and there are those who aren't.

Ultimately, we were comparing apples with oranges, yet the paraphrased quote was still a good insight that illuminated a larger picture.

There are the two forms of messenger:
1. The GHE's.
2. the people who address real negative issues so that a solution can be found.

Then there is the recipient:
1. Those who are receptive.
2. Those who are unreceptive.

The act of giving and receiving negative issues can all be described by a matrix (and there would be a mirrored version of this for receiving positive issues):

But this then begs the question... what are the defining attributes that separate the 'cup half empty' group from those who address real negatives problems? If we knew this, we would know how to refrain from being a GHE, as well as know when to reject the messengers who are GHE. For this, I can turn to to Aristole's three "ingredients of persuasion" (with a bit more development within Pathos to account for recent ideas in psychology):

1. Logos (Reasoning):
How big of an issue is this problem, within the context of a larger perspective? Is it urgent and needs to be addressed straight away, with grave implications if it is not addressed? Is it minor and is a benign imperfection, which won't have any negative implication if not addressed?

In business, the reverse of this (weighing up and prioritizing positive development activities) is done through the use of a "cost-benefit analysis". This is where all possibilities are sketched out, then the finite labour force is assigned work which that has the most benefit at the least cost... it is also the domain where management terms like "low hanging fruit" are thrown around. In reality, a 'cost-benefit analysis' and a 'cost-detriment analysis' ('business continuity plan') should work hand in hand, so that the worst case scenarios are mitigated in parallel with the most efficient development tasks being carried out.

What does this means in terms of the messenger/recipient matrix? The messenger needs to be logical in analyzing the implications of each problem, and then relay the problem to the recipient. The recipient then needs to weigh it up again, within the context of their own information. What this means for the captain in the Titanic Story (where the recipient is an authority that should hopefully have greater context than the messenger) is that he needs to weigh it up relative to all other problems in different areas (such as services to the customer, etc) and do his own cost-detriment analysis.

2. Pathos (Emotions: emotional receptiveness & fears):
Ultimately, the captain seemed to reject the engineer's message due two potential reasons. The first potential reason is the message's negative emotional associations. A message highlighting problems potentially makes us feel bad. 'Potentially' - because this is based on how emotionally receptive or resilient we are. By rejecting a bad message because we don't like it's emotional associations, we're allowing ourselves to be scared of the emotions we'll feel and ignoring the message: being an ostrich and putting our heads in the sand. For success in this domain - which is addressing the problem while still remaining upbeat - we need to have some emotional resilience or be emotionally unreceptive, to some degree. This could be simply to acknowledge that a message has negative emotional associations and consciously making a decision to be unreceptive and not to let that get us down emotionally, while still addressing the problem.

How does this information help us correctly address the real issues, both as messengers and recipients? By being aware that this fear of bad messages occurs, we can then first address our bias to ignore bad messages based on their emotional association, so that we can consequently analyse the message in a more level-headed way.

3. Ethos (Reliability of  the source of the message: Mindset)
The second potential reason that the captain rejects the engineer's message is that the captain doesn't respect the source of the message (the engineer). If the captain feels like the engineer is overly negative and only focuses on the worst case scenario - or worse yet - blows all bad scenarios up to a point where he paints an unrealistically negative picture of the situation, then the captain would be inclined to reject the message.

Ultimately, though, this would be very poor behaviour from the captain. If the captain had a bit of engineering knowledge, why didn't he employ his own logic from the information the engineer gave to come to his own conclusions of the implications? If the captain needed make a decision based completely on the judgement of the engineer, why did he employ someone to make these decisions, only to not trust the conclusion they came to? These are the two things we can bear in mind if we find ourselves being a recipient of these messages. As Reagan said during the Cold War negotiations: Trust But Verify.


So, we've gone from two individual scenarios and then related them together using context from a bigger picture. From there, we've addressed some causes for the behaviour in each scenario. I understand that some of you will now be reading this and thinking, "so how does this impact me again?" I believe that by understanding the cause of events happening around us we can make better decisions on how to deal with the situation. So if you agree (or not!) with my analysis of the situation, feel free comment below. And if you feel like you learnt anything...  or if you just enjoyed reading this, you can find more articles like this one at www.solidifyingnebulousideas.com

Suggesting Activities With Either Negative Or Positive Mentalities

I just insulted a friend by sending something to her that had bad insinuations. I wasn't focusing on that 'bad' part of the video so much - there were a few different facets of the video - but I recognize the mistake. In hindsight, I shouldn't have sent the video.

It got me thinking: is there a situation in which inactivity better when interacting with people? My old school friends used to joke that all the "cool" people at secondary school were so scared of doing something that might be perceived as unpopular within their peers, that they stopped doing anything at all, so that they could be accepted. They were a shell of their former self, in the name of popularity.

It all made me come to the conclusion: inactivity is best when you're dealing with someone with a negative mentality. People with negative mentalities dwell on the bad things that happen in their lives. In an extreme case, people with the highest form of negative mentality perceive the world through a sliding scale of 'bad' up to 'neutral'. Neutral things are things that didn't have anything negative associated with them. With this extreme case of person, doing nothing with them would be the best bet, as only that would always ensure the best result: which is 'neutral'.

On the other hand, as much activity as possible is best when you're dealing with the extreme end of a positive mentality. In their heads, everything ranges from 'neutral' all the way up to 'amazing'. If you do a lot of things, at worst it'll be considered as 'neutral', and at best it'll be considered as 'amazing'. In this way, the best strategy is to do loads of things and see what sticks.

In the end, the most extreme versions of a negative or positive mentality probably don't really exist in reality (or if it does, I'd wager in very small populations of people). Most of us are probably in the middle of the spectrum (if I had to guess, most of us are probably slightly towards the negative side, due to a risk averse survival trait. But maybe I'm just projecting). This means that really, you'll usually need to do more positive things that positively impact the other person than negative. But still, it's an interesting thought of how to proceed next time you meet someone and wonder whether to put something by them. Maybe you'll consider it next time, when you're wondering whether to suggest/recommend something to someone?

My Ambition Vs. My Body

Prologue:
There's a quote that I heard from Youtuber, Elliott Hulse, that has always stuck with me:
"Don't be a loser. Be a winner."

At first you'd think that he's saying the same thing in both sentences. But he's not. The first sentence is telling you to work at avoiding the traits that negatively impact your life, which lead you to failure. The second sentence is telling you to nurture the traits that positively impact your life, which lead you to success. Buddhists often say that enlightenment is found by 'unlearning' all the wrong things we learn in life. I.e: Achieved by not being a loser.

This idea is important in understanding the following blog post.

Body Vs. Ambition:
My body wants stasis.
My body wants quick dopamine hits from Facebook and Youtube.
My body wants to have lies ins for as long as I can lie in for.
My body just wants comfort: which means no work, no stress, no painful achievement.

But my body gets out the way and I'm able to move forward because my body also wants to avoid negative feelings (I respond well to negative reinforcement):
My body is scared of being told off for being late for work.
My body is scared of being judged to be lazy by my peers and colleagues.

These things that negatively reinforce me keep my body check, so that I can then use my time to get work done and don't spend too much time lying in bed or looking at Facebook.

But what if you take away the negative things that move me forward by negative reinforcement? That's what's happened when I became self-employed a few weeks ago. All of a sudden, my body didn't feel any repercussions if I stayed in late. My body didn't feel any repercussions if I stared at the computer for hours a day. But my ambition felt it. And my ambition was thrown into turmoil when I became self-employed.

I became self-employed to satisfy my ambition: so that I could have more time to dedicate to the things I wanted to do in life. I want to write a book. I want to create a product that I could sell under my own company. But something counter-intuitive happened when I carved out a lot of time in my week (by becoming self-employed) to pursue the things I wanted to pursue more: I ended up doing less.

"If you have work that you need to get done: give it to the busiest person you know." 

When I bought myself more time, I ended up removing the things that push me forward through negative reinforcement. The busiest person probably has five deadlines he needs to meet, which are scary and push him forward to get all of his work done. Negative reinforcement is a great motivating force.

This begs the question: how do I resolve the problem of continuing to move forward, when the previous negative reinforcement has been removed? How do I find negative reinforcement to get my body out of the way, so that my ambition has room to work? My ambition alone - which positively reinforces me by being something that I can run towards - is clearly not enough: I still need to maintain some negative reinforcement that gives me something to run away from as well. In my search for a good solution, there is one obvious initial requirement: a good solution involves keeping the large amount of free time that being self-employed grants me to use in fulfilling my ambition. I.e: going back to an employer - where I have a 9-5, eating up all my time - is not a good solution.

The initial answer seems obvious: I need to find some new source of negative reinforcement. However a lot of people find negative reinforcement by putting themselves at a disadvantage.

Sink Or Swim
Giving yourself some negative reinforcement is the kind of thing people are trying to achieve when they jump into the deep end by quitting their job to set up a yoga class (even though they have no idea how to run a good company) because they "want to follow their passion" and they know that they'll never do it, unless they go for the 'sink or swim' route. The scary prospect of sinking might be the only way we'll ever swim. Yet these people have only achieved one thing: they're not being a loser. They've removed the things that stop them from being successful (being in bed/staring at the computer all day) by pushing their body into running away from the scary prospect of sinking. Sadly, they have no idea how to do the other requirement: being a winner. Being a winner requires knowing how to run a good company, which may require years of learning. Sadly, due to the huge learning curve of starting your own company, this approach is usually doomed to fail: people look for negative reinforcement so badly that they achieve 'not being a loser' at the expense of 'being a winner'.

Luckily I haven't gone for - and don't believe in - a 'sink or swim' mentality. My previous job as a development engineer - which involves developing new products through careful steps - strictly taught a mentality against the 'sink or swim' one.

"Bold hearts may leap into the abyss, but rational minds develop a strategic plan for descending gently into it"

Rational thinking is what is nurtured in a development engineering environment: when we need to learn how to make something new (learn how to swim), we need to learn a process of doing it while easing in slowly: so if things go south, we don't sink.

In this way, I've become self-employed and still have a salary from a 2-day-a-week job. In this way, I've created a stable financial foundation so that I won't sink while I'm learning to swim.

A True Solution
So how do we find good negative reinforcement this isn't at the expense of being a winner? After examining the 'sink or swim' model, it's clear that the first step is to create a good financial foundation to support you while you learn to swim.

Now you've done that, you've removed the scary prospect of sinking again. So the second step is to find new ways of reminding yourself about the idea of sinking. After studying this idea, I also realised that negative reinforcements in turn create habits, forming two hierarchies of behavior that I need to change. I need to change the habit, and I need to change the root of the habit (which are positive & negative influences):

1. Change habits: my body wants to stay in bed, look at Facebook or be lazy. If we recongise this, and recognise that we've remove the previous negative reinforcement, we'll see how our habits get worse. Just enforcing the habit of not allowing any more than 5 minutes in bed should help push towards better forward movement.
2. Recognise that I need to continue to practice how not to be a loser: Give myself some negative reinforcement. I hate running. So if I don't do at least 8 hours work and live by my own set rules (e.g. getting up within 5 minutes) then I'll have to go for a 30 minute run. And I'll get fitter if I'm lazy. It's a win-win.
3. Practice how to be a winner: continue to invest time in learning how to achieve the things I want to achieve.

Spending Time To Work Out How To Spend Time

I've recently left my job as an engineer to help a friend start up his company. One core thing that a big company does for you when you work for them is give you direction. You don't have to look at where you want to get to and work out how to forge a path to get there: usually you go into a company and your manager tells you what to do. Then you go ahead and do it.

One of the hardest things I've found so far is to give myself direction. After coming out of a corporate environment, it's all too easy to feel lost, not see a clear path to go down, and then procrastinate by watching Seinfeld (my latest addiction) all day. I've found that I need to start spending a bit of time in the morning, taking a step back, thinking about the work that needs to be done, before I'm able to go ahead with my work for the day. This is the time I spend working out how to spend my time.

I'm lucky that I had a little bit of complexity in my last job, to acquaint me with how to overcome unknowns. The more complex your job is, the more unknowns you'll need to address and then illuminate before getting your work done. In my last job, I had what I'd like to call 'micro unknowns'. I knew the task, but I didn't know how to get from where I was to a point where the task was complete: at least not completely. When you're given micro unknowns, you're given a direction & an end-point, your job work out the path from where you are to the end point.

Now, I've got two unknowns. I've got micro unknowns, but I've macro unknowns as well: working out what the tasks are. This involves thinking about all the potential things that I could do, the market for those things, the skill-set I have to achieve these things, and why I'd want to do them. The macro unknowns are what give us direction and an end-point.

And then, at the simpler end of the spectrum, you can choose to do a job that requires no unknowns. I've lately experienced this after becoming a Deliveroo rider for a while. There's something strangely rewarding about doing a low-skill, labour intensive task. I think it's because there are no micro- or macro- unknowns. All you need to do is: get the food. Give food to customer. Rinse and repeat. You know exactly what you need to do, all that's left is to do it. You can get into flow without constantly coming up against barriers of the next unknown. And then when your shift is over, there are no loose ends to tie up. You know exactly where you stand and you can completely forget about the job until next time.

It's a skill to manage unknowns in your job, but I feel like I'm learning how to deal with them. And this blog post helps: the first step to solving a problem is understanding the problem.