Many times people go about pursuing a desired outcome by this method:

Naïve Model of Goal Striving
1. Commit to goal.
2. ???
3. Profit!

But goal commitment alone is not enough (see Gollwitzer and Sheeran, 2006). So others recommend a different approach:

Magical Wish-Fulfillment Model of Goal Striving
1. Fantasize about a desired outcome.
2. ???
3. Profit!

When step two is a story about brains or spiritual “laws” or the “subconscious mind,” this approach may even sound plausible. Unfortunately, it is false.

Scientific study of positive fantasies shows that indulging in the good feelings of thinking about desired outcomes can backfire (see Oettingen, 2012). In fact, thinking negative thoughts is more likely to be associated with goal success, perhaps due to considering possible obstacles and spontaneously making plans to overcome them.

In making plans, we have the beginnings of a more reality-based approach to goals:

Naïve Rational Planner Model of Goal Striving
1. Decide upon goal.
2. Make a detailed plan for how to accomplish the goal.
3. Execute plan.
4. Profit!

Yet plans often fail due to not accounting for potential obstacles along the way:

Mature Rational Planner Model of Goal Striving
1. Decide upon goal.
2. Make a detailed plan — which includes likely obstacles and how to overcome them.
3. Execute plan and adjust plan as needed.
4. Profit!

Now we are dealing with reality on its own terms. Still, how do we decide upon a goal and make a plan in the most effective manner? When do we execute the plan and when do we instead adjust the plan or even abandon the goal?

We can apply several key concepts from the psychological literature on goals to help us answer these questions. But the scientific literature is not exactly organized in such a way as to be immediately practical.

We can also apply a concept from systems theory and cybernetics (also found in Lean Startup ideas), that of the feedback loop. By applying feedback loops, we can create cycles which allow us to learn from each attempt at reaching our goal.

Goal pursuit is not exactly a linear process from A to B in X steps. Using feedback loops allows us to adjust to reality more flexibly, branching out in different directions in response to what we learn and how our environment changes. This way, we can become “antifragile” in our goal pursuit. To be antifragile is to be beyond robust in continuing to pursue our goal despite obstacles. Instead, we can actually learn and grow from stressors, challenges, and unexpected obstacles.

The model I’ve come up with for goal striving thus looks something like this:

Goal Ecology Model of Goal Striving

1. Choose a feasible, desirable, and challenging wish.

2. Starting with an aspect of the desired future, mentally contrast thinking about the desired future with an aspect of the present reality that is an obstacle. Repeat 0-3 times or so.

3. Create one or more, low-risk if-then plans that specify the where, when, and how of goal-striving, especially for all-known obstacles to goal achievement.

4. With an experimental and curious attitude (growth mindset), try out your initial plan(s) and observe carefully what happens as a result.

5. If you did not reach your outcome, return to step 2. If your goal is no longer feasible, desirable, or challenging, mental contrasting may lead to abandoning or modifying your goal. Feel free to do that if the goal no longer meets these three criteria.

6. If you did reach your outcome, keep up the good work and review your if-then plans until they are habitual. If it stops working, return to step 2 for new obstacles.

7. Consider also not striving for too many challenging goals simultaneously based on predictions of how many learning loops will be needed to complete a goal, and contextual obstacles that arise like lacking time or energy for goal pursuit. (This is technically already included in feasibility and desirability estimates, but it can be good to make explicit.)

The Creative Solutions Generator

I’ve put together a working prototype of just such a method I’m calling The Creative Solutions Generator. It is a science-based technique for pursuing challenging personal development goals such as getting in shape, quitting a bad habit, becoming more productive, or just about anything else that you would like to have happen which you find feasible, desirable, and challenging.

I’ve already tested version 0.1 with 7 or 8 people (besides myself) and got pretty good results. My beta testers were exercising more, meditating regularly, and cultivating creative habits as a result of just an hour of coaching with this method. But I learned that one session is not enough, as sometimes our solutions work for a while and then stop working, or even after trying to predict all possible obstacles there are still more unexpected ones that come along.

So now I’m doing an experiment that includes feedback loops over multiple sessions in v0.2. In the month of January 2013, I will be looking for up to 3 people who would like to try this method. The structure will be 4 coaching sessions over the course of the month of January wherein you and I decide upon a goal intention (or two) and then work together, using the science-based methods in the Creative Solutions Generator, to try out approaches to pursuing your goals, for the purposes of learning what works and what doesn’t work in attaining your chosen outcome. I suspect the success rate will be even higher than that of my initial group.

To find out more about the pricing and how to sign up for this experimental coaching, please go to my new site Scientific Goals.

Let’s start with a hypothesis. I won’t present arguments for it, which itself could take many long posts or books, just what follows if we posit it.

“Capitalism is Sociopathic” Hypothesis: Capitalism is structured in such a way that rewards sociopathic behavior, i.e. maximizing personal gain and corporate profits for a minority, inevitably leading to things like inequality of wealth amongst the population, etc.

If the Capitalism is Sociopathic hypothesis is true, then everyone not at the top is effectively enabling sociopathic behavior (by being a Loser laborer not paid a rational wage or a Clueless middle manager who’s main job is to hide the class struggle) and/or participating in it (e.g. with investments in publicly traded corporations, entrepreneurs, etc.).

One option for a Loser at the bottom of the economic pyramid is to do just enough work to skate by. This is one rational (cost-benefit calculating) choice known as being a slacker.

Those who overperform end up becoming members of the Clueless, aka middle management, and their reward is dedication to a firm that is not dedicated to them. This requires a certain kind of constant inauthenticity.

Some Losers are groomed to become Sociopaths. They do this by taking big risks (e.g. entrepreneurial endeavors inside or outside the firm).

I find inauthenticity intolerable and I make rational calculations about how to spend my time and energy. Thus I have wavered between being a Slacker and trying to become a Sociopath. But I also have a strong moral conscience–in fact my ethical views are less evil than more than 99% of the population according to a test on “dark triad” personality traits. I find economic inequality completely unethical as a system and I’m not willing to cause more of it.

The Clueless are increasingly irrational because firms are being restructured, joined, and destroyed at ever increasing rates by Sociopaths. So it is becoming more and more popular for business advice to follow the lines of “don’t be a sucker, you too can be the oppressor!” We are all encouraged to be our own boss, i.e. to become a Sociopath running our own mini empire with 1000 “true fans.” We are even encouraged to personalize capitalist structures by exploiting global currency differentials between rich and poor countries by making U.S. dollars while living in a developing nation, or hiring “virtual assistants” to do our busy work freeing us up to do high-leverage activities which really bring in the money, thus asserting our status on the top of the pyramid with our own cadre of Losers serving our amassing of capital.

Some Sociopaths who left the firm because they found it irrational to be paid unequal wages created courses on how to make it on your own outside corporate life. But the only people who succeeded at such were those who did as they did, not as they said, and started their own scams teaching how to make money on your own, doing what you love. The product is the hope of no longer being a Loser or Clueless but joining the powerful as a Sociopath, but few are willing to so fully give in to the dark side.

I did that for a while, unknowingly being a Sociopath, branding myself as a life coach who could help people to find their dream job. I had gone to the dark side by imitating the Sociopath Tony Robbins. It worked–both financially and sexually–which scared me, so I stopped. I didn’t want to keep going down that well-worn road to “success” aka Sociopathy.

I also tried taking the Sociopath route of becoming an entrepreneur. I didn’t realize it was a Sociopath thing though until I encountered the harsh reality of startup culture, which is populated primarily by Sociopaths and Losers aspiring to be Sociopaths (who are largely destroyed by the more practiced and natural Sociopaths).

So what other options exist? That is what I am contemplating now.

I think perhaps why I have been negatively fascinated with Sociopaths is because I am to become the opposite. There is no word that I like for the opposite. “Saint” is too otherworldly, and stories of real saints show that these human beings we ascribe saintly qualities to are all-too-human. I think just as we call others evil to deny our own evil deeds and participation in evil deeds, we call others saintly to deny our moral duties to be and do good things. Perhaps anti-sociopath is a good start, or ordinary heroism, as in Philip Zimbardo’s expression “the banality of heroism” borrowed from Hannah Erendt’s “the banality of evil.”

Anti-sociopaths and sociopaths actually have a lot in common, which is probably why I have had so many tremendously evil people in my life and on my radar. We both seek to do something based on our own principles which defy conventional morality. Sociopaths seek to do what benefits them regardless of what is right, whereas anti-sociopaths seek to do what is good, regardless of what benefits them. But it is not quite so simple, for successful sociopaths must hide their true motives by seemingly going along with what appears to be right. The best sociopaths seem to follow the rules all the while bending and twisting them so that they get what they want while appearing to be moral and legal. (Tim Ferriss is a particularly good example because he is so explicit and forthright about it, yet still is quoted for being a “kickboxing champion” and “setting a Tango world record” in the media despite these achievements being completely fraudulent yet technically accurate.)

Anti-sociopaths also must attend to their needs and appear to be going along with conventional morality and social norms, despite not caring at all about convention for convention’s sake and largely disagreeing with most if not all conventions, often on ethical grounds. For instance, I couldn’t care less about giving gifts at Christmas. I think it is terribly inefficient at people actually getting what they want, plus tremendously wasteful of resources, encourages mindless consumerism, destroys the planet, and the whole event is completely inauthentic and phony (“christmas cheer” is nothing more than fabricated inauthenticity, especially at the darkest time of the year right before it becomes the coldest). Refusing to participate in giving gifts which one is required to give exposes the whole game as not being about charity or generosity at all but social obligation. Anti-sociopaths who refuse to play the game on some moral grounds become alienated as they frustrate the Clueless who encourage such game playing and keep the capitalist wheels spinning (“its good for the economy” aka good for the Sociopaths). The more alienated an anti-sociopath becomes, the less effective at actually making any positive changes to society. So anti-sociopaths must learn to fit in somehow, either playing the game and thus joining the Clueless, or finding some principled way to play the game (e.g. trying to come up with thoughtful presents, making something handmade or recycled, giving cash, or making a donation to charity in lieu of more cheap plastic junk nobody wants anyway but pretends to be so thankful for around the Christmas tree). Luckily after many years time, my family has mostly learned to either tolerate or even welcome my anti-sociopathic stances around Christmas, and for better or worse I have compromised a lot of my hard ethical stances around it as well, which has made the whole thing more enjoyable for all while also less wasteful.

So both sociopaths and anti-sociopaths learn to successfully blend in with the masses, meanwhile neither are very good at it.

Another way sociopaths and anti-sociopaths often interact is through Sociopaths taking advantage of Anti-sociopaths’ ethical commitments and pollyannish views of others. Anti-sociopaths often think others are also motivated by basically good intentions and thus make easy targets for Sociopaths who can easily hide their evil intentions. Naive Anti-sociopaths are also easily manipulated into doing favors and other “good” things for Sociopaths due to their moral and ethical principles.

I think it is more common than people want to admit that Anti-sociopaths can switch sides and become full-blown Sociopaths. I feel I have some personal experience with the matter in fact. I have felt the temptation. When someone is freed up from social conditioning, there is nothing outside of one’s own commitment to one’s principles that can stop it in fact. There is nothing anyone could do to shame me out of doing what I think is right, for instance. I am well-practiced in defending my views against shaming and other attempts at manipulation. But if I was to become corrupted, thus putting my selfish desires over higher ethical principles, then what social pressure could stop me from pursuing my selfish desires over anything else? Autonomy is a double-edged sword. And that is exactly how cynical, corrupted anti-sociopaths become sociopaths. Of course a strong dose of self-deception is also required, which is why I am constantly on the lookout for ways in which I am attempting to rationalize my vices as virtues.

So again, what other options exist? Due to my moral commitments, I am unwilling to be a slacker anymore, just doing enough to get by. I am also unwilling to be a full-blown Sociopath entrepreneur, trying to maximize profit by gathering other Losers to work for me for unfairly low compensation.

Some solve this dilemma by actually believing in the capitalist ideology that “I am rewarded financially to the extent that I help others.” A very, very few seem to be actually doing this–more common is to use this line to justify their wealth accumulation as fair. In other words, most people are not truly considering the inherently unjust structures of labor (Losers) vs. capital (Sociopaths). Those that do take injustice seriously tend to create businesses that are actually employee owned, for instance. Or they create co-ops or non-profits, or super small businesses that barely turn a profit and too small to have any appreciable hierarchy, because putting good over “me” isn’t rational, in terms of maximizing self-interest/profit. Far too many others simply ignore the problem and join the Sociopaths by becoming content with accumulating wealth (i.e. siphoning wealth off of Losers and the Clueless), using the rhetoric of virtue to justify their actions as good.

One option I see is to “be so good they can’t ignore you” as Steve Martin quipped and personal development bloggers often recite, almost as a mantra. Except I interpret “good” not simply as skilled, but also as “virtuous.” Become so ethical, so moral, so virtuous that when your actions and your way of being communicate a purity so bright it blinds the Sociopaths and challenges the would-be anti-sociopaths to become better human beings and to do good. I suppose this could work wherever one is in the economic structure–Loser like me, or Clueless but waking up, or maybe even Sociopath.

I don’t know how that works yet as a practical career path though. At this point it is a matter of faith even that such a thing might work out in anything other than crucifixion (metaphorically, if not literally). But is there really any other choice but to seek to do good? Everything else seems unsatisfyingly lame to me.

Soon the light will come back into the world (literally–that’s what happens at the Winter Solstice, at least in the Northern Hemisphere). As we enter into the coldest and most depressing time of the year, I contemplate how we could live lives that do good and maybe help turn this upside-down world around, while also having enough to eat and staying connected with my fellow human and nonhuman beings.

Just today Guardian columnist and self-help critical author Oliver Burkeman wrote an interesting piece for Fast Company, entitled Why Setting Goals Could Wreck Your Life. He points out that the oft referenced “1953 Yale Goals study” which allegedly concluded “the 3 percent of graduates with written goals had amassed greater financial wealth than the other 97 percent combined” is an urban legend.

That’s right–the study never existed. Nobody can find any reference to it existing.

It bears repeating again: there was no 1953 Yale goals study. This is a myth, period.

“But I heard Zig Ziglar, Tony Robbins, and Brian Tracy all reference it! It must exist.”

Nope. It doesn’t. Here’s a statement from Yale.

Question: Where can I find the Yale study from 1953 about goal-setting?
Answer: It has been determined that no “goals study” of the Class of 1953 actually occurred. In recent years, we have received a number of requests for information on a reported study based on a survey administered to the Class of 1953 in their senior year and a follow-up study conducted ten years later. This study has been described as how one’s goals at graduation related to success and annual incomes achieved during the period. The secretary of the Class of 1953, who had served in that capacity for many years, did not know of the sudy, nor did any of the fellow class members he questioned. In addition, a number of Yale administrators were consulted and the records of various offices were examined in an effort to document the reported study. There was no relevant record, nor did anyone recall the purported study of the Class of 1953, or any other class.

Nor was there any such study at Harvard or any other Ivy League school. A lie repeated often enough is still not true, and in the Age of Information is easily refuted by doing a bit of Googling.

That said, psychology has been seriously involved in studying goals for over 50 years. I have just begun to dive into the literature, and it is fairly complex. One of the key elements I have taken away thus far is the distinction between a goal intention and an implementation intention (see this excellent meta-analysis “Implementation Intentions and Goal Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of Effects and Processes,” Gollwitzer and Sheeran 2006).

A goal intention is “I intend to reach Z!” It is literally just a stated intention of one’s outcome. An implementation intention is the where, when, and how one intends to reach one’s stated outcome, phrased as an if-then plan like “If I’m in goal-relevant context Y, I will initiate goal-directed behavior X!”

One example used in the literature is this: say I intend to be more physically active during the day in order to lose weight. The goal intention is “I intend to lose weight.” But an implementation intention is not clear yet. So let’s say I choose walking up the stairs instead of taking the elevator. So the implementation intention is thus “If I’m standing in front of an elevator, I will take the stairs instead!”

Got it? Good. So here’s the not-so-surprising finding from the research: when people just set a goal implementation, they are not as likely to achieve the goal as compared to when people also set an implementation intention. In other words, making a specific plan increases one’s chances at success more than just stating a specific goal.

It makes sense, but like many psychology findings that seem obvious, you are probably not implementing this finding as fully as you could, and probably even have sometimes thought that just setting a goal intention was enough when it clearly didn’t work.

For instance I currently have an overly long beard due to laziness. As I was driving I thought to myself, “I need to cut my beard.” That is the beginnings of a goal intention. But then I caught myself, because I had set this goal intention many times in the past few weeks and done nothing about it. So I took a moment to create an implementation intention, specifying the how, what, and where: “I intend to cut off my beard. If it’s Saturday (tomorrow) and I’m about to take my morning shower, I will get the clippers and razor out and chop off my beard and shave.” Then I added a bit of mental rehearsal and linked the visual cue of seeing what I see as I go into the bathroom with a visual image of myself chopping off my beard. All this took about 2 minutes time to do, but now I have a very specific plan.

So will goals help or hinder your life achievement? The answer is that they will most likely dramatically increase your life achievement–especially if you add implementation intentions.

Burkeman points out an important aspect of setting and working to achieve goals however in his article, which is that of committing to one goal and plan and having unintended side-effects from doing so. Does that mean goals could wreck my life? Maybe, but it’s probably not goals themselves (in the broad sense in which psychologists use the term). It may even be lack of having enough goals that is the problem.

For instance, Burkeman says, “Applied to the personal realm, it might mean, for example, achieving the financial wealth you dreamed of at the expense of your personal relationships: attaining your goals at the expense of ruining your life.” I think that’s a particularly good example. This excellent summary of some positive psychology literature having to do with money and happiness lends support to the notions that to be optimally happy, “Being richer will not necessarily make you happier,” “Avoid conspicuous consumption,” “Spend on others, especially people you are close to [vs. yourself only],” and “Don’t think too much about money. It will impair your savoring ability. It’s also bad for your family life,” among other things.

Saying you shouldn’t set written goals and implementation intentions is not exactly correct though. You may indeed have wealth and career goals, but these should be prosocial and secondary to relationship and yes, virtue-based goals if you want to optimize happiness. Anything else is irrational.

The problem of unintended consequences may also be due not only to setting anti-happiness goals but to not setting enough goals, or incomplete goals. If you don’t include your relationships in your goal intentions, then it is quite possible to ignore relationships in favor of pursuing wealth, especially if feedback is ignored (e.g. complaints from your partner or children that you are distant, don’t spend enough time together, etc.).

Integrating feedback and setting and adjusting goals based on feedback may be able to offset problems with unintended consequences (but I’m not aware of any research for or against this statement at this time, only anecdotal evidence–though my knowledge of the literature is that of an interested amateur at best). In addition, the literature of implementation intentions shows that having one specific plan does not backfire, even though we might think that it could through being rigid (see Gollwitzer and Sheeran, 2006). It’s also important to note (again from Gollwitzer and Sheeran, 2006) that implementation intentions are effective across a variety of goal domains, not just laboratory tasks as Burkeman critiques (“In most artificial studies of goal setting, participants are faced with a single task or simple set of tasks”). That’s the beauty of meta-analytic studies–they give a big picture overview, which in this case shows that implementation intentions are effective across multiple types of goals.

In any case, I have more hope than ever that this problem of unintended consequences can and/or will be (if it isn’t already) studied and indeed solved by the psychological scientific community. What I think we need is less speculation and more non-scientists diving into the research and trying to find out what those academics have already discovered.

My current view is that goals are inherent to how human beings function and thus aren’t going away any time soon. Our goals should be oriented towards pro-social and virtuous ends (which will also optimize happiness as a side-effect), be accompanied by if-then plans (including for when things go wrong), integrate relevant feedback, and be sufficiently flexible. Perhaps it is easier said than done however, which is why I continue to comb the psychology and neuroscience literature as well as develop practical methods that can hopefully help people to increase their chances at successful goal achievement, without wrecking their life.

If you want to learn to use implementation intentions, I recommend you set this goal intention and meta-implementation intention right now:

Goal intention: I intend to use implementation intentions to reach my goals!
Implementation intention: If I set a goal intention, I will also think of a specific implementation intention that specifies the where, when, and how I will act to achieve my goal!

UPDATE 11/10/2012
Implementation intentions work!

Mindfulness is often defined as “bringing all of one’s attention to the present moment” or “paying attention in a particular way.” But how should one bring all of one’s attention to the present moment? And what should one pay attention to in order to be “mindful”? And for what purpose does a person engage in mindfulness?

A frequently used mindfulness meditation technique is to notice the breath as it goes in and out. This task is very boring and done over long periods sitting upright can be very painful. They don’t tell you that in the marketing though! The benefits emphasized are things like gaining a more peaceful mind, “changing your brain,” reducing stress, and improving concentration. Let’s take the last claim. What is concentration exactly, and what kind of concentration do we want to develop?

Langer, professor of Psychology at Harvard, challenges the conventional notions of concentration in the context of learning in her book The Power of Mindful Learning and in research she discusses in that book. Interviewing both students and teachers about what they think concentration entails, both students and teachers reported that concentration means fixing an image in your mind about something, and not seeing something from multiple perspectives or in several possible ways. This is frequently how information is presented in the classroom–there is one right answer, so memorize it and regurgitate it back on the test.

This kind of rigid thinking has been shown less useful for creative tasks–so-called “outside of the box thinking”–the kind of thinking that is essential for any application of information, even things like applying mathematics skills towards an engineering problem. Langer’s research has shown that teaching so that students are encouraged to see something in their minds in several ways or from several perspectives increases ability of students to creatively use such information in novel environments. It also makes learning more fun, and students taught in this way perform just as well on standardized tests.

Let’s face it–sitting in a rigidly upright posture and putting all of one’s attention on the sensations of the breath as it goes in and out is boring. Don’t believe the hype: there is nothing wrong with your mind if you don’t find this task inherently interesting. Perhaps the problem is with the task, with the kind of concentration being trained, like in the classroom when students fix a single image in their mind. Maybe it could be more fun and more useful to train a different kind of concentration or mindfulness.

Sometimes the instructions involve counting breaths or silently noting “breathing in, breathing out.” This is also boring. The instruction usually includes the injunction to let go of thoughts and bring the attention back to the breath, over and over. Most people find this task very difficult, nearly impossible at first. Almost nobody finds this activity naturally interesting and engaging.

Personally I get rigid and short-tempered when I do this too much, or even peacefully rigid and boringly concentrated. Langer herself points out how poor this task is for training an ability to pay attention in other environments because most contexts involve switching of attention from one thing to another, not focusing on just one thing for long periods. She still thinks the task might be useful for other reasons, but I have to agree that the positive carryover from such a task to the rest of life is minimal at best.

A much more fulfilling and naturally interesting task is to search for novelty, to purposely seek out the unexpected and new in ordinary experiences–even in very subtle ways. Here’s an example:

Take 30 seconds to close your eyes and imagine a tree. Notice everything you notice about that tree. Now go outside and compare your image of a tree to some actual trees. Pay attention to all the details that are different from your mental image, things you didn’t expect. When I did this I noticed my mental image was still, whereas all the trees I checked out had leaves and branches moving in the breeze. Futhermore, the trees are constantly changing, day by day, season by season. And these things are not just true for trees! Everything and everyone is constantly changing, albeit at different rates, ranging from the imperceptibly slow to the blazingly fast.

Langer’s version of mindfulness involves paying attention to novelty–how things are actually already always new and changing, and responding in a context-sensitive way to present-moment circumstances, instead of fixed ideas about things. Watching my breath is boring, but looking for novelty is always completely interesting.

Many mindfulness fanatics seem zombie-like to me. Groups of quiet people walking painfully slowly, a vacant smile upon their faces–what are they doing, exactly? That ever-quotable Albert Einstein is said to have said, “If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, then what are we to think of an empty desk?” Einstein was notoriously messy, so we can read this quotation not as “thou shalt clear thy desk” but that a perpetually clean desk indicates someone devoid of thought, a thoughtless and uncreative individual.

Interestingly, the mindfulness crowd overlaps with the minimalist desk crowd. Clean desk porn abounds online, with beautiful pictures of people’s meticulously organized, high-tech workspaces photographed and ogled by other connoisseurs of cleanliness. Nobody cares how messy Einstein’s desk was now though. In addition to his quotability, he is revered for his brilliance, creativity, and contribution to society. Do you want to be remembered for the cleanliness of your desk or for what you created when you sat there?

Langer’s kind of mindfulness doesn’t for me require the same kind of painful discipline of bringing one’s attention back to the breath, over and over like some sort of zombie. Nor does it end up with conforming to any fixed idea about enlightened living. Instead, in noticing how my fixed ideas about the world don’t quite correspond to what I actually observe, I am on the lookout for novelty. This naturally generates in me an attitude of curiosity, and doesn’t require any stillness or slowness or quiet whatsoever (nor does it necessarily advise against it). When I am mindful in this way, I am taking a dynamic and naturally creative stance towards a world packed with possibility.

Many people advocate mindfulness meditation in order to “tame the mind.” Taming the mind has long seemed problematic to me. Why would I want my mind to be tame? Such an approach presupposes that tame is better than wild, and puts me in a struggle against a playful monkey-like mind, swinging joyfully from limb to limb. Everyone I’ve ever met who says they have ADHD says so with a sense of shame in their voice, yet all of those same people are wildly and wonderfully creative individuals. Why control a wild mind? Why not utilize the wildness of our minds, use the novelty-seeking of compulsive Facebooking and Twittering to notice the novelty that is already present in daily life? …in the way the light casts a shadow on the desk? …in the way your ideas about a problem you have don’t quite fit the actual situation when you pay very close attention to the subtleties, thus freeing you from a fixed notion as to the resolution of the problem?

If you sit in the same position and notice the same breath and it feels the same, day after day, how can you call this mindfulness meditation? Unless you are noticing something new, or noticing the same thing in a new way, then what is being practiced is a fixed and rigid set of bodily postures and mental states. But if truly nothing is permanent as Buddha sayz, then trying to fix any state is ultimately futile and a cause of suffering. So if you choose to meditate, every day notice something new, because every day in every way something is new. No two days are the same, no two sits, no two breaths.

We can see Mindfulness then as the recognition of the continual newness of everything which comes from sorting for novelty. It is looking for things that you wouldn’t expect based on your ideas of the world, often which are very subtle. Reality is not subject to the dictates of our desires, so we’d better pay attention to what’s actually going on. And when we do, it’s always new!

Mindfulness has little to do with noticing your breathing, or moving slowly, or silence, unless those activities help you to notice or do new things. The point of a gaining a quiet mind is that you can think new thoughts, to stop thinking repetitively in fixed patterns, not so that you can rigidly repress thinking. If you notice the same things about your breath as you did yesterday when you meditate, you aren’t doing mindfulness meditation, more like mindless breath watching.

Mindfulness is noticing that my lady is not the same as she was yesterday, or five minutes ago, and responding to who she is now.

Mindfulness is noticing that each day at 6:10 when I drive home, the amount and angle of sunlight is subtly different than it was yesterday.

Mindfulness is questioning fixed rules and habits, whether they apply any more to the present context, and responding to what’s happening now.

A huge number of personal development books and blogs are dedicated to the principle of leverage, also known as efficiency, the 80/20 rule, productivity, etc. But the thing is, many people use a “less is more” strategy far too early in the game.

In this great article “Is less really more?” I found via @andyfossett on Twitter, movement, strength, and conditioning coach Clifton Harski challenges the notion in exercise that less is always more.

He brings up three main points:

1. Efficiency for its own sake is often boring, and fun activities are often inefficient precisely because you are doing them for their own sake, not for some outcome.

2. As Harski puts it, “80% is a B-. Those 20% that people ignore, take you from ‘ok’ to ‘good’. They are not unimportant.” In other words, you can squeak by with a highly efficient program, but won’t get to good or excellent by simply being ruthlessly efficient.

3. “Less is more” recommendations originate from people already doing more–in particular, lots and lots more than you are likely to be doing unless you are at the professional level in that area.

We can think of this not just in terms of fitness programs but much more generally using the “law of diminishing returns.”

We can summarize this principle as this:

First more is more, until more is less. When more is less, then less is more. That’s the rule, more or less.

First More is More

If you are doing almost nothing, then first you need to get in the game. This is true whether the area is fitness, nutrition, business, learning in a particular field, etc. In all fields, newbies make rapid progress because in systems, more is more at first.

Newcomers to strength training make linear gains, putting up more weight every week if not every session.
People who go on diets to lose weight find that the first few pounds are the easiest to lose (and the last 10 to 15 the hardest).
More marketing for a business that has never done marketing leads to more customers, often in a linear dollars to customers kind of way.
Someone getting organized and “productive” for the first time can easily become 2-3x more productive just by making a to-do list or working on a Pomodoro schedule.

But inevitably, the law of diminishing returns sets in.

…Until More is Less

Then what happens is that for the same extra effort, fewer results come.

Strength gains were going up by 5lbs on each lift per session, then 5lbs per week, now nothing for weeks.
The first 30 pounds melted away, now you’re always hungry and you’re losing weight only at a rate of 1/2 lb every two weeks.
You keep spending money on marketing efforts which used to have a big payoff but now they barely even bring in what they used to.
You’ve gotten basically organized and productive with to-do lists and priorities, but you keep surfing productivity blogs and organizing files with no real productivity gains from these activities.

Only then do we get…

When More is Less, then Less is More

When we hit this arena of diminishing returns, some people double-down and waste resources. Other people give up entirely. Whereas the most effective strategy now becomes “more is less”–to focus on the most important elements and become efficient.

When a person or organization in this context focuses on putting energy towards priority tasks, then expending fewer resources (“less”) brings about more productivity, as measured by the ratio of inputs to outputs. Therefore less is more in this context.

But critical to this discussion is that less is NOT more until it is, until inputs have been maximized, until you are doing sufficient volume in the gym or really putting yourself out there in your marketing, etc. And even then, you might purposely choose inefficiency for reasons of fun, for artistic expression, or to develop excellence in a chosen area.

This incredibly buff 60-year-old guy has a workout that many people would call very inefficient:

He does 700 pushups, 10 sets of pullups, and 10 sets of dips, five days a week. It’s hard to argue with his results though, and he looks like he enjoys it. Can a person get fit and muscular on less than that? Absolutely. It’s all up to you how what you want to do with your life.

That’s the basis for this teleseminar series, Teaching What We Need to Learn.

The most likely answers will be things like “I get mildly angry at other drivers when I’m in my car.” This is of course not the biggest challenge the person actually has in their life, it is a harmless vice other people can relate to and won’t severely judge the person for, thus resulting in no loss of power. (See Law 46 of The 48 Laws of Power.)

This Q&A is similar to the infamous interview question, “what’s your biggest flaw?” The correct way to answer this question is to be honest yet inauthentic by framing a flaw as a strength, like “I sometimes just work so hard I forget to take care of my own needs.” Nobody ever answers this question by saying, “oh, that’s got to be my meth habit”…nobody with a job that is.

In both cases, the game is that the question appears to be about being honest and authentic to create a deeper relationship, but the subtext is that one cannot be honest and authentic or else the relationship would be threatened. In the case of the spiritual teacher, if they are honest they sacrifice their power and thus role as someone to look up to for spiritual guidance. In the case of the interviewee, honesty and authenticity would harm their prospects of employment.

But then there is a second layer which makes it a double-bind for the spiritual teachers, which is that they are expected to be actually authentic, to be radically different than smooth politicians and marketers in positions of power. We look up to them and give them power precisely because we expect them to be radically other, free from the corruptions of the world and the marketplace. So when they are asked the question, “what is your greatest challenge in life?” we expect more than an inauthentic answer. We expect a radical transparency. Anything less and the teacher is a phony just like you and I and thus has nothing to teach us about how to live.

What would constitute a radical act in this situation? I propose that a teacher could violate the rules of game by doing one of the following:

• By actually answering authentically, disclosing something deeply embarrassing like an addiction, a moral transgression like sleeping with a student or spending money from the spiritual community on personal luxury goods. This would of course destroy their source of power by being portrayed as “other,” but could possibly save their status as a legitimate teacher. Chogyam Trungpa pulled this sort of thing off and maintained his status as a spiritual teacher, despite sleeping with married female students and drinking to excess.
• Refuse to answer the question or participate in such an event. Emphasize that as a well-known spiritual teacher one cannot be fully transparent about one’s personal life, that this is just the nature of the role–like a psychotherapist or a politician. This risks exposing the game that is these kinds of marketing events and ensures that such a teacher will never be invited again, thus also diminishing their public power.
• To name the game but also play it. Similar to the previous example, one could say, “I won’t say what is actually my deepest struggle because that would be personally embarrassing in this public forum. But I will give an example of a minor struggle.” This is a less radical authentic act but maintains one’s power, although also risks being kicked out of the game.
• To mock the game by answering in an utterly over-the-top foolish way. For instance to answer the question by saying, “well, this is really embarrassing, but ok. I round up stray dogs and torture them until they are totally mean, and then I host dog fights every other Wednesday night at my ranch house. You know, you should come over some time.”

By actually playing the game, these teachers are identifying themselves as politicians primarily, not as spiritual teachers of authentic living, thus reinforcing power games and the notion that spiritual teachers are free from the kinds of struggles you and I experience in life.

]]> http://beyondgrowth.net/spirituality/authentic-spirituality-and-the-double-binds-of-power/feed/ 0 http://beyondgrowth.net/social-criticism/personal-development-and-justice-for-all/ http://beyondgrowth.net/social-criticism/personal-development-and-justice-for-all/#comments Mon, 07 May 2012 00:38:12 +0000 Duff McDuffee http://beyondgrowth.net/?p=3375 So much personal development and self-help culture encourages achieving personal financial goals so that one can help others, either simply through the invisible hand of the market or by one day becoming a wealthy philanthropist. I think it’s a crucially important part of one’s personal development to understand why this quest is a myth, ultimately failing to understand the structural violence endemic to global poverty.

Today I watched an excellent documentary, available free on YouTube, on the recommendation of a twitterer named Matthew Stillman. The documentary is entitled “The End of Poverty? Think Again” and makes a strong case for what the root causes of poverty really are (hint: it’s not lack of natural resources) and what real solutions might look like (hint: it’s not aid from first world nations).

I highly recommend that you check out this movie as part of your personal development.

]]> http://beyondgrowth.net/social-criticism/personal-development-and-justice-for-all/feed/ 0 http://beyondgrowth.net/personal-development/the-world-is-not-your-mirror/ http://beyondgrowth.net/personal-development/the-world-is-not-your-mirror/#comments Thu, 03 May 2012 18:13:50 +0000 Duff McDuffee http://beyondgrowth.net/?p=3353

“The world is your mirror” is a popular phrase in self-help culture. In reality the world is not a reflective glass surface. So this is a metaphor that means something like, “instead of blaming others, examine your own thoughts and behaviors and how you are contributing to the problem.”

This can be a very helpful strategy in many contexts. For instance, if you have the same kinds of problems in intimate relationships with partner after partner, finding yet another partner (“The One”) without determining your role in the situation is not likely to be a good approach. A better strategy is to introspect and change your behavior first. For instance you might ask yourself, “how do I manage to choose the same kind of partner again and again? How can I improve myself in this situation instead of blaming the other person? In what ways am I contributing to creating this problem?” This approach is commonly referred to as taking responsibility and is a sign of maturity.

The phrase “the world is your mirror” can also be used to avoid blame or responsibility. For instance if you confront a person about their harmful behavior and they deny causing harm, saying it’s your fault because “the world is your mirror,” they are implying that you must have created the situation somehow and that you should introspect and change your behavior instead of confronting them about theirs. This is commonly referred to as denial and is a sign of immaturity.

Some people always turn things back onto themselves and never confront anyone else. I did this for many years. This is commonly referred to as being a doormat and is a sign of a lack of assertiveness.

Too Much of a Good Thing

I’ve observed that in personal development culture, all too often people take a good idea and push it way too far. While it can be helpful to examine one’s own map of reality and habitual behaviors for areas of improvement, believing that the world actually is your mirror can trap you in a narcissistic hall of mirrors. Everywhere seeing only your own reflection, a person can become completely alienated in their own reality, unable to see anything but themselves. (Some Beyond Growth readers may recall that I’ve covered this before.)

Here’s a quotation that illustrates this sort of thing (source):

“All of your relationships are inside of you. There’s no relationship out there. There is only the reflection of what you are doing inside yourself and how you’re dealing with relationships inside of you, not out there. It may look as if a relationship is you with another person or with other people, but it is always you within you, and relationships are one of the greatest mirrors you can have for yourself-your patterns, your beliefs, your conditioned responses.”

-John-Roger

First off, this quotation begins with a direct falsehood. Relationships between people are between real people, not merely ideas. We have ideas about our relating and ideas about other people, but the relating and people are actually real and not reducible to our ideas about them. While I’ve found that improving relationships with various parts of myself has improved my relationships with other people, it does not follow from doing so that I don’t really relate with other people or that other people are really just projections of my consciousness.

To give an example, in second grade I had a crush on a girl for the first time. Since I never approached this girl and shared with her about my feelings, my idea of our relationship became very distorted compared to the actual relating we did. Our actual relating consisted of being in some of the same classes, but did not go much beyond that. My fantasy of our relationship on the other hand involved a mutual romantic interest. If my relationships were only inside of me, I couldn’t even make this comparison between the idea of our relating and our actual relating.

This narcissistic reductionism traps us in a hall of mirrors, the exact opposite of the purpose for saying the metaphor “the world is your mirror.” The whole point is to see that we are driven by our maps of reality but that the map is not the territory. Our ideas about the world are not the world. If our ideas about reality were equivalent to reality, then there would be no need to introspect because it would be impossible to update them to be more accurate and useful.

The world is not our mirror–the world is the world. The truth is we can never completely know the world, and the world was not created for our introspection or our personal growth. Introspection and personal growth are choices we make in response to life situations, and can be very helpful at times. But we should not confuse our choices for some Ultimate Truth. If I love others only because I believe they are truly part of me or were sent here to teach me about me, that’s not love at all, but selfishness disguised as love.

Other People are Other People

The one distinction that has most improved my intimate relationships more than anything else is to treat the other person as an other, as precisely not me. Other people have their own thoughts, feelings, beliefs, reasons for doing things, personality styles, and personal histories. Other people make their own decisions, which means I cannot force anyone to love me, or want to be in a relationship with me. I also cannot force anyone to change. This means giving up on any attempt to manipulate someone to be more like how I’d want an “ideal” partner to be. I can make requests, but the other person can just as easily deny my requests. Most of the time when people deny my requests, they provide me with information that I wasn’t aware of, reasons why the request I was making doesn’t fit for them. When I consider the other to be other, I am more open to actually listening to this information, even though it is often difficult, precisely because I cannot know it a priori.

Many times when people are in arguments they will say things like, “I just don’t understand why he did that.” But rarely do they say next, “…and I’d like to know, so I’m going to go and ask him.” But since other people are not reflections of me, I can’t know until I ask. Even more disturbing is that they might also not know, for as human beings we are also strangers to ourselves, no matter how much introspection we’ve done or how many personal development workshops we’ve attended. Our inner workings are forever mysterious, changing, and never quite completely fit our ideas about them.

Here’s an exercise for you that I’ve found interesting:

1. Close your eyes and allow an image of a tree to come to mind. Notice all the details about it–the shape, the size, etc.

2. Now go outside and compare your image of a tree to a few actual trees. Notice what’s different from your image compared to the real trees you see. Focus especially on subtle details that are different or that you didn’t expect.

3. Now think about some quality of a person you know that you consider to be true and unchanging. For instance perhaps you think of a friend as quick to become angry.

4. When you are actually interacting with that person, look for what’s different from your idea about this person and the quality you thought was true and unchanging. Again, focus on subtle details that are different from how you imagined this person to be.

]]> http://beyondgrowth.net/personal-development/the-world-is-not-your-mirror/feed/ 0 http://beyondgrowth.net/personal-development/anthropology-grad-student-looking-for-help-with-research-project/ http://beyondgrowth.net/personal-development/anthropology-grad-student-looking-for-help-with-research-project/#comments Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:39:10 +0000 Duff McDuffee http://beyondgrowth.net/?p=3348 We recently received a request from an Anthropology graduate student looking for people involved with personal development programs. I am sharing this person’s request here:

Hi Beyond Growth Readers! My name is Araba, and I’m an anthropology graduate student at UC Berkeley who is conducting research on personal development programs, identity, and narratives of self-help in the U.S. I’m currently looking for personal development program participants who are interested in taking 30 to 60 minutes out of their day to reflect on their experiences with me.

Whether your participation in a personal development program has led to subtle changes or radical transformations in how you think about and frame your life experiences, I am interested in hearing your story. If you live the in the Bay Area, I would be happy to meet up for coffee or lunch to talk. For non-Bay Area residents, I will be conducting interviews over Skype. Please email me at araba [at] berkeley [dot] edu if you would like to participate or have any questions about what will be covered during the interview. Thanks!

-Araba

Please contact Araba to help with the research project if you are interested.

]]> http://beyondgrowth.net/personal-development/anthropology-grad-student-looking-for-help-with-research-project/feed/ 0 http://beyondgrowth.net/technology-of-the-self/kinky-intimacy-games-more-on-the-authentic-man-program/ http://beyondgrowth.net/technology-of-the-self/kinky-intimacy-games-more-on-the-authentic-man-program/#comments Tue, 03 Apr 2012 20:21:05 +0000 Duff McDuffee http://beyondgrowth.net/?p=3289 In a recent blog post, I shared my observations about “Circling”–a group process similar to Encounter Group Therapy that plays a significant part in the group called Authentic World (also Authentic SF/Authentic Man Program/Authentic Women’s Experience and now Integral Center in Boulder). There was a long discussion about it on Facebook.

Many people disputed my conclusions, especially that “Ken Wilber and Integral have historically been associated with many toxic groups, authoritarian leaders, and religious cults, so this new community center [Integral Center in Boulder] seems to be making decisions consistent with past problematic associations.” Others disputed my conclusion that the purpose of Circling was to induce abreaction, claiming that the technique has evolved and no longer emphasizes abreaction (but it still occurs sometimes), and that circling in general is not aggressive.

There is a video currently on the Authentic Man Program YouTube channel that supports my conclusions, especially that of an authoritarian, dominant or aggressive communication style present in the methods of Authentic World.

In the following video posted to YouTube, Travis Decker aka Decker Cunov–president and founder of Authentic SF (also Authentic Man Program, Authentic World, Authentic Woman Experience)–has an intense conversation with a young woman called “Sandra.” This video is a sample from a $147 downloadable program teaching men how to create emotional and sexual intimacy with women called “Getting Her World.”

(Trigger Warning: themes of psychological and sexual control)



In this clip, “Decker” uses his knowledge of techniques that I believe originate from various psychotherapies including Gestalt, hypnosis, and Transactional Analysis along with dominant body language (leaning in; unblinking, continual eye contact), curse words, and sexual suggestion for an unspecified outcome. (Edited on 4/4/2012 at 4:26pm for factual clarity after comments from Decker in the Facebook thread. New text in red.)

Gestalt and Hypnosis Techniques

At 2:34 the conversation goes like this:

Decker: I don’t even remember your name.
Sandra: Huh. See? This is bad.
D: Is it?
S: [eyes up and to the left] Umm…
D: Stay with me.

Eyes moving up and to the left is usually in terms of NLP a sign of accessing “visual constructed” internal processing. What that means is that a person’s eyes moving in that direction usually (but not always) indicates they are thinking, possibly by constructing inner pictures. Why did Decker say “stay with me” here?

One possibility is that prolonged eye contact is a method of trance induction. It’s also commonly interpreted a sign of either aggression or intimacy or both. By holding intense, unblinking eye contact for several minutes, most people will go into a trance-like state. This trance-like state might be interpreted by Decker as “emotional intimacy.” If that’s the case, he might interpret breaking eye contact as breaking the intimacy and therefore gives the suggestion “stay with me.” Indeed, Sandra drops noticeably into trance at 4:18-4:30 (she stops talking, facial muscles relax, blinking stops, etc.).

An interpersonal trance state like locking eye contact certain does create a kind of emotional intimacy, but it’s important to note that emotional intimacy occurs in both life-affirming and harmful contexts. For instance, locking eyes with a gang member in a dark alley is a very dangerous kind of intimacy. Being emotionally connected does not necessarily mean that the connection is mutually beneficial, consensual, or appropriate, or that some other game isn’t being played.

Another possibility is that this is a technique from Gestalt psychotherapy. Gestalt emphasizes working “in the here and now” instead of the verbal content of the conversation.

At 3:39 in the following classic video demonstration, Fritz Perls’, founder of Gestalt Therapy, says, “I disregard most of the content of what the patient says and concentrate most on the nonverbal level as this is the only one which is less subject to self-deception…on the non-verbal level, the relevant gestalt will always emerge and can be dealt with in the here and now.”

At 7:11 Perls’ points and says, “now what are you doing with your feet now.” “Gloria” laughs and says, “I’m afraid you’re going to notice everything I do!” This strikes me as similar to Decker’s suggestion “stay with me,” although without first pointing out her eye movements.

Transactional Analysis Techniques

At 3:44 Decker says, “you don’t have to [remember other people's names], but they better. That’s the game you play.” Pointing out what game other people are playing is a technique from the Transactional Analysis (TA) school of psychotherapy called “name the game.” Games are ways in which people relate by playing various roles, especially ways that are problematic. TA was popularized in the 1964 book Games People Play and the 1967 book I’m Ok, You’re Ok. Many people adopted principles of TA into daily conversation after the popularity of these books.

After “naming the game,” at 4:10 Decker gives two options: either a man plays Sandra’s game, or…

“I don’t fall for that shit at all. And then where I’m left is, I take you home tonight, I make you cum, I enjoy our bodies together, but I don’t know how much further I’d go. Because if I’m willing to put my cards on the table, and you’re not? Then I’ll enjoy you, like ‘oh that’s cute.’ But I’m not gonna [pants like a dog] do all the work.”

Decker expresses his intention to have a one-night stand with Sandra at this point in the video, but couches it in ambiguous language so it’s not clear whether his embedded commands are statements of his real intentions or just talking generally. He says “if I’m willing to put my cards on the table” but at no point during this short clip has he said anything at all about himself. He has put none of his cards on the table.

In a debriefing with AMP trainer “Garrison,” Decker again reiterates his willingness to have a one-night stand with Sandra at 6:14:

“I’m not willing to entertain you and be a little wind-up toy. And, if I’m not going to do that I’ll still fuck you, I’ll still enjoy you, for a night, but I’m going to look elsewhere for someone who’s willing to actually play, not hide out.”

“Play” is a particularly interesting choice of words in this context considering Decker’s use of Transactional Analysis with Sandra. What game is Decker playing with women? It seems to me the rules of Decker’s game are the following:

• There are two players in this game: the Opener, and the Opened.
• The game is played on a heterosexual date.
• The Opener is played by a man and the Opened is played by a woman.
• The role of the Opener is to get the Opened to become emotionally intimate, for example to cry, by first refusing to play the Opened’s game, and then by using techniques of Gestalt, Transactional Analysis, curse words and sexual suggestion, along with unflinching eye contact to induce trance and/or abreaction in the Opened.
• If the Opened is not willing to play properly by crying or otherwise expressing emotional intimacy, trance, or abreaction, the Opener may still choose to pursue using the Opener for his own sexual enjoyment.
• If the Opened is willing to play by crying or becoming vulnerable, then the Opener may decide to continue the game.
• The game ends when the Opened refuses to play, and after the Opener has used the Opened for his own sexual enjoyment.

We could call the game Decker is playing in this video, “let me see how fast I can break you open.” Decker plays the role of the Opener, who demands “emotional intimacy” and who’s role is to break the other person psychologically until they cry or otherwise show a strong emotional response.

How To Win a Game

The question I have is, “why does this woman, who doesn’t know this man, owe him sexual or emotional intimacy?” According to RAINN, 1 in 6 women in the United States have been the victim of attempted or completed rape, 54% of which have never gone reported. 2/3rds of sexual assault are committed by someone the victim knows.

Given this context, why should a woman like Sandra open up to a man like Decker on a date, or be willing to have sex with him that night? His language was “I take you home tonight, I make you cum, I enjoy our bodies together.” Language of consent is conspicuously missing from these sentences. His present-tense statements about his intended actions presuppose that she has no choice in the matter or has already consented.

At 5:22 Decker makes assumptions that Sandra consented: “she doesn’t feel insulted, it’s a safe place for her.” But in this short clip at least, he never asked. Perhaps they cut out this section and he’s quoting her? Or perhaps he’s doing more mind-reading.

Instead of developing a trustworthy relationship through time that proves he’s not a rapist, Decker in the role of Opener demands that this woman open to him now, and will not take “no” for an answer. In fact, a “no” to the intimacy game (a phrase also used by Authentic World-associated groups) he is playing means he intends to “enjoy our bodies together” anyway.

At 7:43, Garrison asks Decker, “Now, would you have delivered something like this on a date.” Decker says, “Totally. Absolutely. With this much fun. … What’s more interesting to me is this dance, not the content.”

So Decker’s dates involve this same kind of conversation: unflinching eye contact, the “let me see how fast I can break you open” game, a willingness to use a woman for his own pleasure if she doesn’t want to play his game.

In the theory of Transactional Analysis, the only way to win a game is to refuse to play, as Decker refuses to play Sandra’s game. To refuse to play Decker’s game however means to refuse to open emotionally and sexually–to walk away–and also to refuse Decker’s judgment of what that means about you: that you are “hiding out” (versus having reasonable doubts about his intrusive psychological interrogating).

(Interestingly, my refusal to play a similar game–minus the sexual intimacy–seemed to be the thing which most upset most “Authentic World” members in the Facebook thread about my previous article. The same thing happened when I refused to play the game in the men’s group which I was briefly a part of that did the circling exercise I described.)

Is This Game Abusive?

Whether this sort of thing constitutes abuse is a matter of extent and consent. There’s a big difference between being chained up and whipped in a dungeon without consent vs. with consent. The former constitutes kidnapping and assault, the latter just some fun role play between consenting adults. If we assume this game is explicitly consensual, the best we could say is that it is some sort of kinky psychological role play, and possibly therapeutic–just as going to a Dominatrix might be therapeutic for a control-freak executive.

In response to a question about whether he would engage in this kind of conversation on a date, Decker says “absolutely.” He doesn’t specify whether he alerts potential dates to the kind of kinky psychological games he is absolutely willing to engage in and whether they want to play too, and understand the rules.

We all engage in less extreme versions of these techniques and games in daily life. For instance you might point out an anxious tic in someone by saying, “I noticed you keep brushing your hair behind your ears–are you nervous?” In small amounts, this kind of “calling out” is certainly not abusive or coercive. Therapy and hypnosis however take these kinds of normal, everyday behaviors and amplify them for the purpose of making significant changes to personality and behavior. Because of that, consent is built into legal structures around the profession of psychotherapy to prevent abuses of power.

In my opinion, a man using the tools of therapy in an intense encounter or interrogation of a woman, for the purposes of dating, and without consent is the worst form of “dual relationship.” Even if these ways of communicating aren’t called therapy, they certainly can create a dependent, power-imbalanced sexual and emotional relationship. If there is explicit, verbal consent, we could consider this a kind of “lifestyle D/s” (Dominance and submission role play as a lifestyle), or perhaps just an occasional kinky D/s encounter, depending on how often you play. Either way, the practitioners of such techniques have an obligation to get explicit, verbal consent, and to make the nature of the power game being played clear, as well as how to stop playing at any time. Even then, there is never any guarantee that consent is always present. (See Safe, Sane, and Consensual vs. Risk-aware consensual kink–links obviously NSFW.)

In another video described in this blog post on Integral Life, Decker talks with his wife, presumably in a similar fashion, until she begins crying in his lap. Perhaps the introduction of a “safe word” could be helpful for those couples who wish to play such kinky intimacy games. Otherwise there is no clear way for a person to stop playing if it becomes too much for them. Making assumptions about consent when using powerful psychological techniques on your partner is not a particularly good way to make sure everybody is enjoying the game.

Because these safe guards do not seem to be in place within the dominating therapy techniques employed by Authentic World and it’s subsidiary groups, my recommendation to readers is still to avoid these groups and their products…unless you’re into that sort of thing. There are many safer alternatives that are not playing power and control games for those of us who don’t wish to play, yet still want to develop good communication skills for mutually-beneficial, drama-free, mature and harmonious relationships.

Since comments are still broken due to comment spam overwhelm, let’s do comments on Facebook again. Or you can email your thoughts to info [at] beyondgrowth [dot] net.

]]> http://beyondgrowth.net/technology-of-the-self/kinky-intimacy-games-more-on-the-authentic-man-program/feed/ 0