My major discovery for my own development is the concept of the abundance mindset. I’ve had to piece together my knowledge from several disciplines to come up with my own ideas about what this means.  I think already it is driving some very profound changes for me.

Abundance-thinking has the power to revalue people and things in your life in radical ways – both up and down.   It also has the power to make you more selective, astute, and ultimately more discerning.   It has the power to give endurance and the power to give insights into hidden resources.

We should also examine its polar opposite, scarcity-thinking and the kind of valuations of people and objects that  having that mindset leads to.  We can almost be assured that most of the thinking that comes from advertising in capitalism is scarcity-linked – because companies have an interest in making us feel we have deficits and that, it follows, we must take advantage of ‘limited time’ offers.

Lets start with the major concept in the area of abundance psych.

Win/ Win

Steven Covey had Win/Win as Habit 4 of his Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.   Habit 4′s win/win type perspective is an example of abundance psychology.  Scarcity is based on the ‘zero-sum’ game, or the theory that ‘I am going to take X’, and “there is only one X”, so “You will lose X”. The Win/Win perspective is summed up by Covey:

“it’s not about getting a bigger piece of the pie, it’s about making the pie bigger!”

How is it possible to make the pie bigger?

The resource fight over an exclusive resource is the classic objection to Covey’s win/win.

When you’re arguing with someone who is stubborn.  The pie is getting smaller all the time.  Sometimes pulling out of a negotiation like that is making the pie bigger – because now you can reinvest.  Nothing so stupid as two stupid people going at it in some zero sum game.

I believe there are plenty of managers that are looking at win/win from the perspective that they will try for win/win as a slight improvement to simply the ‘win/lose’ position. That is:  “I’d like it if he won too, but its most important that we win all the time”.  Then they wonder why they end up in zero sum games with other ‘win/lose’ psychology managers.

Summed up, this is a gloss on ”win/lose’, its not a paradigm shift into true win/win psychology.  Covey saw this trap in how the habit would be adopted by the unthinking manager, and so he invented another concept to mark off his idea as a paradigm elevation/shift.  He called the shift to a new paradigm ‘the character dimension’ because it wasn’t going to be easy to shift thinking.   Basically the character dimension relies on maturity or to put it another way an : actual shift in the way we think about rewards .  The pull of ‘win/lose’ is extremely strong.  Actually we have to dig this plant up by its roots.

The bigger pie was always there.

More next post…

Women’s bodies are used to sell everything – from cars and cologne to kettle chips.

Now some women have taken on a very body conscious image as a means of exerting power in social situations.    While this always occured to some extent with beautiful women, who naturally have more power in social situations, it has reached the point where these women fail to see themselves as anything but a body.  I’ve met some of these women and dated them, and its a bit painful when you want to start the give/take that characterises real friendship and partnership.

The message they were told is that it is enough ‘just to look good’.

It’s an empowerment like pouring petrol on a fire – it’s a false empowerment.

Another worry is that men are also being increasingly objectified as well, with a small set of men thinking ‘it is enough that I look this way’.   Men and women are looking for a partners that support and give back.   The intoxication of attention a woman or man with a great body feels may indeed be quite exhilarating.   This wouldn’t be such a problem if looking good wasn’t such a plus for attractive people who invest in ‘designer’ bodies.

I love a great looking body.  We all do. We all look. Advertisers have taken to using very accentuated versions of healthy fit bodies.  They look good, but a bit weird.

For what I mean check out aboutface or genderads

People with great bodies get ahead in many paths of their life.  They get attention and lots of sex, when they want it.  Doors open. People fawn.  They get things cheaper. People want to be around them.  Jobs open and people are interested in what they say – at least for a little while.

Can you sell a shitty personality with good looks?  And, the answer is yes – for longer than you might think.

But satisfying relationships have to move into reciprocal support, honesty and giving.   For women and men the overemphasis on the killer body is ultimately going be a hurdle to overcome to engage in the generous and intelligent behaviour it takes to have anything more than a week-long relationship.   Looks are not enough.

So, we are having to pay a price for all the emphasis on the perfect body – and its not just gym membership.

It made me feel angry and sad for us men.

I think many men will feel sad, and they ought to read the book or listen to the audio interview regardless to get a true sense of how men are exploited and disempowered – as a step to taking back their lives and making choices.

The book is informative on several topics.   For some others, I expect this book will be seen as a whinge by men – I think that view is immature and nitpicky.  Farrell comes across  convincingly on the audio that he wants a society that transcends women’s politics and men’s politics, and even if you disagree with him on some points, you will find that overall this is a valueable contribution.

Are men dispensable?

From being used as soldiers in battle to very high participation in dangerous jobs (mining, construction etc.) Farrell argues that men are the most dispensible sex.  He puts forward some facts which I agree with :

• The rate men kill themselves at is  5 times what it is for women;
• most dangerous jobs are done by men
• We also know that most wars are still heavily dependent on men putting their lives on the line in times of war, despite women being over 50% of the voter-base; and
• Men get less dedicated health care dollars.  Less TV programming is aimed at them.  Less popular media is aimed at them.

Women don’t get paid as much as men

He also digs underneath the fact that men get paid more than women.  They are – but at what cost? The hidden costs of higher earnings in stress and competition, and the longer hours and less involvement with family.   Apart from time povery, these high-earning ‘choices’ are really, very often come with payment obligations.  Farrell says we have to look at net worth as the real wealth is

total pay – payment obligations (eg. paying for household) = net worth

Men learn to gain status-achievement as a means of attracting the best looking women they possibly can.  Women are pressured to seek out well-paid partners as a means of having wealth and security.  Marrying a wealthy man means more free time and less stress.  Low-status men who fail in the status game, like garbage collectors,  have a higher risk of physical injury and are  almost ‘invisible’ to most women.

Women get more interested in me when they find out that I am lawyer.  But is this some kind of guarantee that I will be happy in the transaction with a woman who wants a high-achiever?

For instance, I was told to work weekends at my old law firm so:

“so you can sit in a spa with 3 women when you’re 30″.

Luckily knew then that that this statement was total hogwash and left that job for a better one.

To all the young law students out there, can I say there is very little happiness to be gained from long hours and the whipped up status that big law firms grant – if there are benefits, they’re largely style over substance.   Most women who hang around in spas with lawyers are hookers.

My conclusion is Farrell has a point and men will have to deal with to what extent they want to pursue externally achieved status.

Walking her home late at night

I got into the habit of walking women home, because it was the gentlemanly thing to do, and I’m generally a gentleman.

However, the role is also a cost on men to men like me, as Farrell rightly points out.  This doesn’t mean I will stop protecting women by walking with them late at night to their home or their car – but he is right that it is a bodyguard service that men take on, often out of social role – with no return.   There are countless ways I have performed this service – offering lifts home, going out of my way on bike rides, taking detours, walking when I didn’t want to walk because a women friend wanted to get out of the house at night.

Most victims of violence are men.

How often a year do I get paid for my bodyguard services?

Is it ‘ unmanly’ to even ask such a question?

Real equality

Farrell has other arguments, I can’t go into all of them here.

If you accept his point of view, you accept that, on average, men are trapped by the acceptance of damaging social roles.   I think this puts an onus on men to say what they want and relate their experiences of society.  I agree with Farrell that ordinary men have not spoken on their experience as providers, lovers, fighters and workhorses – and that part of the paradox is that honestly relating feelings is exactly what men are taught not to do.

Postscript

I received some questions on this post, and I want to make two things clear

a)  I do not agree with Farrell’s complete views.   I definitely don’t want to have to argue against Farrell, because other people have done that.  I think Farrell’s work, taken as a whole, is valuable despite some reservations I have.  I haven’t bothered to outline these reservations.

b)  I still think it is a very good thing to walk women home.   I feel the streets at night are far safer for single men than for single women and men have a valid role in protecting women (and male) friends by reducing the chance that something bad may happen.

c)  Someone suggested that I was saying women were oppressing men. Farrell himself stresses that its not women that are the oppressors, its historical structures both sexes find themselves in.  If my post gave the impression women are oppressing men, then that’s not what I meant to convey.   Painting men as victims of women is an unproductive idea.    There is an easy lapse into victimology in both feminisim and men’s rights movement thinking and we have to avoid it.

Using insults to generate rapport

In terms of content, all you need is a few insults, and then rest is a matter of body language and tone.  The formula is that you say what would be a cutting remark in a teasing way to someone you already have an acquaintance relationship with – so they don’t take it as an insult that is meant to humiliate or harm.

Insults like this shouldn’t be about personal appearance especially if you’re talking to a woman (‘You’ve got a face like a saint – a Saint Bernard’ is a no – no).  A good place to start is that somehow there is something odd that you can’t quite put your finger on.

“I’d like to say you’re great to work with… I’d really like to say that’.

“I bet most people find your unique views quite interesting”

and the more direct jibe, in the context of some ‘mistake’,

“Now I know why some mammals eat their children”.

“You have the intelligence of Albert Einstein…. with the attention span of daffy duck”

Or have a go at their clothes,

“Nice top…. did you get it from Oxfam?  Have you ever thought about modelling for Oxfam?”

My only signpost for you is that you have to do this with a certain vibe, otherwise it doesn’t work.  They should laugh not cry.

One example from my last weekend.  I was talking to a pale short waitress and she had a t-shirt that said ‘I’m a Latin Lover’.  I asked her what her t-shirt said, she told me. Then I said ‘If you’re going to be a latin lover you’re going to need more bronzer’.  It doesn’t have to be super funny, its just a way to break the ice.

The other game: Nasty insults and what to do about them

Today, I discovered a post on the verbal art of handling insults, written by Jay Morrissey. Jay has a wonderful blog that deals with some of the topics I talk about here on Don’t Believe Everything You Think.  Jay’s writing style and his clarity of thought were so refreshing to read, I hope you find his posts interesting.

Jay covers darker and more evil side of insults, as a means of trampling and demeaning, and what you can do about them.

To have healthy boundaries, you need 2 things:

• Know where your boundaries are
• Have some kind of system for protecting those boundaries.

The way I think of boundaries is like the boundaries of a country. So imagine you’re Australia, the country. The country has boundaries. Second, you’ve got coast guards and airport security, because without that the boundaries don’t really mean anything. To get into Australia people need a passport. So then you can imagine that you need also to set up some kind of system so that you can react when people try to get in illegally. For a country, that’s the customs and immigration system.

Precedent

When I was working with people in relationships with boundary setting, I naturally came across people in the middle of a set of relationships with little boundary control. Their boundaries were often not really enforced. So imagine that for instance, New Zealand decided to sent people over to live in Sydney, and Australia didn’t say anything. Imagine the passport officers and the customs officers were asleep at their desk. Precedent is really important.

People tend to look at abusive relationships and see one person as the bad guy, and the other person as the saint. In actuality, when you talk to people inside a relationship they tell you its more complicated than that.

All relationships have sets of precedents. For instance, when a man hits a woman, and she doesn’t tell him its wrong. They set a precedent. Or a friend is late to a meeting with you, and doesn’t get told off. That sets a precedent. Or do you say sorry for things that aren’t your fault? That sets a precedent. I think I have blogged before, that we teach people how to treat us. That’s where that saying comes from.

The power is with us to say what goes and what doesn’t go in our personal space. Can we change how we protect our boundaries? Yes, we can do that. But it’s much harder to evict 20,000 New Zealanders than it is to have firm boundaries in the first place.

The best time to protect your boundaries is the first time someone crosses them.

Three tips

• Learn from people around you.  Listen to how people politely say no or how they say they don’t like things being done to them.
• If you don’t like something – say something, anything, even as simple as ‘don’t do that’ or ‘stop that’ will do for starters.  I have a blog post here on how to do this well.
• Write your rules about how you wish to be treated and advertise them by talking to people about them.

But she said : “I’m sorry”.

That really surprised me and shocked me.  I thought in my head “what kind of self-esteem do you have?”.

Later, one of the bosses coming out of a meeting room, we almost collided.  It only took a split second, she looked at me with a shocked look on her face and I just felt the words stumble out of my mouth: “…I’m sorry”.  But it was her fault.

I find myself saying at the room of someone’s office:   “Sorry to bother you but could you discuss this email with me”.

Sorry Sorry Sorry.  And not one real apology.

Are you, like me, one of those people who says ‘sorry’ at times when you don’t mean it?

My theory about this is that its a learned behaviour to cope with anxiety.   It is probably an effective short-term response, that kind of works for people short-term to settle situations down and avoid conflict, and so they keep using it.  It also comes I think from owning too much responsibility for situations.  If you came from  a family where sorry was the magic word to end a conflict, then no wonder you would want to achieve a state of relief from your anxiety but uttering that word ‘sorry’.  The trouble is, its not a magic word in the adult world.

In the workplace, having the sorry disease it is not a good long term strategy at all.  It shows weakness and low self-esteem.  You know how dogs roll over and show their throat to more dominant dogs?   That’s what most of these false sorries are, they’re just rolling over into a submission position in the hope the other dog won’t see you as a threat.  Its one way of showing submission and seeking a quick return to ‘normal’.  And if you do it repeatedly you won’t be trusted as a person who can stand up for themselves or live with tension.  Other submissive traits are a rising vocal inflection when saying sorry, and averting the gaze.  So, its not just the words, there is the body language too.

One thing you could do to try and change is to  stop saying ‘sorry’.  How do you like these?

• You want to interrupt someone:  “I’m interrupting you I know…” instead of “Sorry for interrupting you”.  It acknowledges that you’re conscious you’re invading privacy or someone’s space.
• You bump into someone an exclaim “Whoa!” or “Wo there” and smile… instead of “Sorry!”  with worried expression.
• If someone points to a mistake in your work or says something about you that you might be tempted to apologise for just say: “I’m glad you noticed”.
• Use the words, “I would like to apologise for X behaviour…”, for a real apology.  Again, you’re forced to give a proper apology when you really do feel sorry.

I think at deeper levels I could also do more work on myself, which will bolster my new found habits and create more of a foundation for a new way of relating.  As a general rule,  people fear conflict and developed maladaptive ways to deal with possible conflict scenarios – avoidance is the most popular – hence the many ‘sorry’s we hear each day.  It is OK to acknowledge that this has worked for us in the past in some short-term way – but now we’re letting it go.

One last word. Where I live ‘sorry’ can be a polite acknowledgement, its not such a bad thing to be polite.  It is why I have used it for years, for example when interrupting anyone at work.  However, I try to not do it anymore.  I think its a fine thing to be polite, but sometimes you have to take a stand and try and change your behaviour by just cutting all the sorry behaviour.

Although life is no doubt messy by nature, its beautiful to think that perhaps we can add elegance to parts of it.

For example:   Breaking up courtship in 9  stages so you can “close” a girl.   This kind of pseudo-scientific approach became a tool for a few people to make money from selling a ‘secret method’.  And all these theories served to make men anxious that they were being left out of hot-baking sex with beautiful women because they didn’t know a recently discovered secret.  That’s the darkside of companies like the famous Love Systems Ltd (I love the company name!).

I think the pick up community provided a forum for men to express their desires and feel comfortable talking to other men – how often do men get together to share experiences? Rarely.

The positive is that hopefully we are left with men who, after chatting with other men, are getting comfortable talking to women, appreciating themselves, and also being able to take their banter up a notch into flirting – which is a natural playful state.  Flirting involves jibbing, teasing and joking, like we do with most of our good friends.  It keeps relationships fun.  And then there is taking initiative and leading, because in our society the man has been assigned the gender role to lead – its a cultural thing.  And I think it is good to know its up to men to go for the basic transitions on dates – asking her out, taking to her in a bar, taking her to a cafe, or taking her off the couch and onto your bed.   For instance, I really enjoyed learning you could just pick up your date from the lounge room and drop them on your bed!  Its surprisingly easy, but someone had to suggest it before I knew it was ‘OK’ to do something like that.

However for men venturing into the ‘seduction community’ I have 3 warnings:

1.  There are some men who believe women are a) evil b) bitches c) fundamentally flawed in some way.  These men not getting much out of their relationships.    Look for other men who, deep down, appreciate women, love women and have learned from them.

2.  Beware of too much emphasis on secrets, strange-sounding scientifically named techniques, and ‘proven’ 42 – step plans, 11-DVD sets, they’re usually just money making schemes, and make men feel bad when they don’t measure up.   Look for people who have used female input into their writing – and who value female feedback.    An amazing guy can say  ‘I approached her go get her number, but she asked for my number first so she could call me’.  For me, that kind of possible experience flips cheesy ‘pick up’ on its head and licks its balls.  I have read and heard good things from  for instance from guru Zan Perrion and the Authentic Man Program – both commercial programs, although I can’t endorse either of them fully because I haven’t shelled out for very much of their material.  Hats off to men who are getting parts of their life they need sorted – sorted.

3.  Your love life is on life support from ‘routines’ unless you actually have a life. What I mean is that if you’re in  bar telling a chick about your great mountaineering expedition to impress her – I would expect you actually do go climb mountains.  The idea is you can tell great stories and have the life to go with them.

First of all, there is no such thing as pick up.  As with any interaction, there are two people involved, so the idea you can pick someone up like you can pick up a saltshaker from a table is nerdy way out notion.

The idea that some sort of elaborate techniques or series of questions will somehow hypnotise someone into doing exactly what you want is a very enticing idea. It is also a pretty damaging one for guys, because it negates the other half of the equation. The results are guys who get increasingly frustrated with themselves: ie. I did everything right, so whats going on, why didn’t she feel anything?; and also guys who also begin to see their relationships as some kind of battle – if I do X, she does Y, if I do Z… etc etc.    Actually, its also a common feature in some chick-lit too, so girls are reading into the same techniques too which is some kind of cosmic payback.

Neil Strauss, wrote The Game, the most famous book about the seduction community to date.   The Game put it into mainsteam, generating numerous columns, an industry for ‘seduction’ experts, and TV shows in the UK and the US dedicated to ‘game’. Its a fantastic book to read for any guy or gal – I heartily recommended it.  Its a fantastically entertaining book – as a fictional work.

I really like Neill.

Neill Strauss is an incredibly charasmatic guy.  He is well travelled, wrote for the New Yorker and Rolling Stone, has a great wardrobe, is a funny, intelligent guy, who vibes with women, cares about them, and appreciates them. Someone with a good sense of self and great sense of humour.   When you listen to interviews with Neill (who is not hard to find on the internet) you realise that this guy is not going to be left without something to say. He’s written books and toured with Motley Crue.  Now you take Neill and compare him to some 21 year old dude who just got out of school, who’s had the life experience of an indoors Chihuahua, never travelled, had limited challenges, who has not done anything with his life – you take that kid and teach him the same techniques that Neill learnt and he is not going to have anything near the success Neill had in the dating world.  In fact its going to be quite hard on the poor kid.

You tell him to go up to some girl and say, on cue, on script:

“You’re kinda cute, but you look like too much of a nice girl for me”.

A ‘line’.

Well, and then what… whats the follow up?   She might say “What?  What did you just say? Could you repeat that?“. Or simply “Why do you think that?“

Have we got a scripted answer for that too we can give ? Can we script a whole conversation?  Without lines, we’re relying on confidence and personality.

You see, I like the idea of young men approaching and talking to women.  Most women like that idea too.  Thats why I want to write about the whole game – because it interests me.

To be continued….