If you’re an internet addict like me, you probably look for answers online. For me, the web has proved to be an invaluable source of solutions to problems of any kind. I don’t understand how people managed to live without it.

However, I have realized that despite all the advantages the internet brings to us, it is still far from a perfect solution provider. This article aims to identify the internet’s inefficiencies in solving problems, explaining the underlying reasons and presenting potential solutions.

Understanding the Issue

I started to understand the issue at hand when a friend told me about a useful technique for preventing procrastination. His advice was to ask myself four questions every time I found myself on the verge of procrastination:

1. What are the advantages of starting this right now?
2. What are the disadvantages of leaving this until later?
3. What excuses am I using to avoid doing this right now?
4. What reward can I give myself for starting this?

Asking these four questions really helps me, and I am very happy I have learned to use this technique.

What really surprises me is that I never came across this technique before. I had done extensive research on procrastination, without finding any solution that proved to be as helpful as this one. (The research I conducted provided the basis for my own article on procrastination.)

How can that be? We’re living in the age of the internet, with abundant information and perfect transparency, right? I’m sure this technique has helped many people before me, so why didn’t I come across it in the course of my research?

If this oversight occurred only in this one instance, I wouldn’t mind. Having had similar experiences with other problems, however, I became interested in really understanding the issue.

Google’s Shortcomings

When searching for solutions on the net, most people would start with Google. Unfortunately, Google has several shortcomings for finding solutions to a specific problem, as described below.

1. The Right Keywords
   First of all, it is not clear which key words we should use to find solutions to our problem. For example, we could type:
    
   - “Fear of heights” (which returns a lot of information about the problem, and not only solutions) or 
   - “Fear of height solutions” or 
   - “Techniques against fear of heights” or
   - “Methods preventing fear of heights” or 
   - “Vertigo remedies” 
   - Etc.

   These entries all mean the same thing, but we get different search results by using different keywords – and we risk missing out on other solutions for the word combinations we didn’t come up with.
    

2. “Patchwork” of Solutions
   Google does not return a well-structured overview of all possible solutions, but rather a list of links to many different sites, each containing a couple of solutions. Due to this patchwork, we re-read information about the same solutions many times, which wastes time that could be better spent looking for alternative solutions.
    
3. No Indication of Quality
   When finding a description of a solution on a website, we usually don’t have any indication of (a) how many people this solution has actually helped, or (b) how reliable the source is. We therefore have to assess “how good it sounds” and try it out ourselves.

   Wouldn’t it be useful to have an overview of all the possible solutions to any specific problem, ranked in accordance with the number of people that specific solution has helped?
    

4. Good New Solutions Not Found
   Google rewards sites that have been around for a long time. New sites, even when containing good content, don’t show up in Google’s search results because not enough sites are linking to them (which is the core of Google’s ranking mechanism).
    
5. No Further Development of Solutions
   The solutions we find through a Google search are mostly on static sites which are not designed for further development. A future “solution website” would need to have Wikipedia-like features, where users can further develop the content.
    
6. Only Website Owners Have Incentives to Provide Solutions
   Let’s say you come up with a great solution for a problem. What is your incentive for sharing it, or your method for doing so? Unless you are a website owner interested in getting more traffic to your site, most likely you will not actively share information about your solution. Or, if you are nice, you will mention it in a forum or as a comment on a blog post (but probably only upon request).
    
7. Google is Subject to Manipulation
   The top Google results are not always the best websites. For example, type “migraine solutions” into Google’s search engine and look at the results. Which of those sites is ranked highly because other people found them truly useful and chose to link to them? Without a doubt, SEO and other practices are more heavily responsible for what you see in those search results.

Conclusion: Google is an important tool for finding solutions on the web, but it is not perfect.

Specialist Sites

An alternative to using Google is turning to “specialist sites,” such as forums or communities that deal with specific issues. However, these specialist sites do not always have the answer:

1. Need to find the specialist site (takes time)
2. Limited number of specialist sites (there is not a specialist site on every problem, and especially those that are uncomfortable, but not life-threatening such as a fear of public speaking, a fear of heights, hiccups, etc.)
3. No indication of how many people each stated solution has helped
   
4. No unified structure (no long list of solutions, so it takes longer to find solutions)
5. Not always an open platform (where users can edit existing solutions and/or contribute new solutions)

Question & Answer Sites

Shouldn’t Q&A sites, like Yahoo! Answers, be the answer?

Surprisingly, although they frequently rank high in Google, Q&A sites rarely provide what solution-seekers are looking for. For example, sites under the Yahoo! Answers domain appear on the first page of Google’s search results for each of the following problems:

• Pimple solutions
  
• Chewing gum stuck to hair
  
• Toner error in printer
  

Unfortunately, none of them provides a comprehensive, high-quality set of solutions. The reason for this may be:

1. Questions are closed once they have been “answered” (users cannot add new solutions).
2. There is no ranking mechanism of solutions (only one answer gets voted to be the “best”).
3. Only users of this specific community can add solutions (e.g., Yahoo! members).
4. The incentive to add solutions are relevant only for members of a small community (e.g., Yahoo! Members can collect “points,” but this is irrelevant for many other people who may know about good solutions).

How-to Sites

How-to sites with wiki-like elements (with users contributing and editing content), such as Wikihow and eHow, may come closest to an ideal solution site. However, although they are quite popular, they don’t provide the quality and depth which would make them the one-stop-shop to find solutions. Why?

Possible explanations:

1. Restrictive Guidelines on What Can be Posted
   Wiki-like sites provide clear guidelines on what can and cannot be posted. For example:

   - The provided solution has to fit into the structure of the site (e.g., not one very long answer if all others are short).
   - It may not include links to other sites.
   - The solution has to be formulated in an objective, or impersonal, fact-based way.
   - Commercial products cannot be mentioned / advertised.
   - Etc.

   Why should users not get the opportunity to freely talk about how they solved the problem, mentioning everything which is necessary? If it includes information other users find inadequate, it will get enough “thumbs down” so that it will not move to the top anyway.
    

2. Unclear How Many People the Stated Solutions Have Helped / No Ranking Mechanism

3. Users Can Overwrite Other Users’ Solutions
   What prevents me from contributing my solutions to these sites is that I know other users may delete what I have written. Yet if this solution really worked for me (and therefore may also work for others), why should it be deleted just because it sounds a little strange?

   This may be a key difference from fact-based sites like Wikipedia: Wikipedia provides facts which are either true or untrue, allowing the community to work collaboratively towards a single output, the completed Wikipedia article. In contrast, solutions are different: what works for some may be inadequate for others. Solutions are very subjective.

   Therefore, it may make more sense to adapt a Yahoo! Answers-site approach, where users contribute solutions and other users can comment on them, but cannot change them. Allowing a user to remain the “owner” of a solution has another advantage: he or she can get credit for it by knowing how many people he or she has helped with the provided solution.
    

4. For-Profit Sites
   Most of the well-known Q&A sites (e.g., Wikihow and eHow) are for-profit sites. For-profit sites are not bad per se, but these sites depend on volunteers contributing their solutions and ideas for free. Making a profit on their goodwill must leave a foul taste in the mouth of some of the contributors, and it inhibits the creation of a really enthusiastic user community. The solution should be a truly Wikipedia-like site, focused on sharing solutions with others in order to help them solve their problems and building up an engaged community contributing for the greater good.

Initial Ideas for a New Solutions Website

Based on all the points noted above, a possible solution website would have the following features:

• Non-profit – its sole target is to find solutions and provide them to help others
• Providers “own” solutions – others cannot edit the solution, but can only comment to it
• Ranking mechanism – users should be able to vote on which solutions have helped them, which results in a long list of solutions with the most helpful solution shown on top; users can also give a negative rating (“thumbs down”), which weighs heavier than a “thumbs up” (e.g., three “thumbs up” are required to compensate for one “thumbs down”)
• Users are allowed to post (almost) everything – for example, they can cite specific products or link to external websites if they were helpful in solving the problem
• Users can comment on solutions and thereby suggest potential improvements; other users can rate these comments again, so that the most useful comment/ improvement for the solution gets to the top
• Display how many people solutions have helped – this provides an incentive for solution providers to help the community, because they get rewarded by knowing how many people they have helped; this information could be shown on other sites, such as Facebook or MySpace
• Simple, but good-looking design (a la Facebook)
• Good structure – duplications are avoided and problems/solutions can be found easily
   

I am looking for volunteers to further develop this idea and to build the site. I’ve given it a first (amateur) shot at www.solutionbay.org. However, the site needs substantial improvement, such as a better design, better structure, and a way for users to log in and edit their solutions. But I thought it would be a good idea to get this rolling.

Please provide feedback!

For that reason, I recently bought the following book (written by the presenter in this interesting video):

It is a good book that is well written and contains useful techniques for mental calculation. As with most books, the core ideas can be listed on a page or two (reading the entire book isn’t necessary), and that’s what I’d like to do with this article.

The book also contains more sophisticated calculations (e.g., multiplying two five-digit numbers), but these skills usually are not required in everyday life.

Addition

For me, the main eye-opener in this book is the advice to add numbers “from left to right” instead of the other way around, as I was taught in school.

For example:

   723 
+ 259 

I used to add the last two digits first (9 + 3 = 12), remembering the “1” (12) and add it to the next level of digits (5 + 2 + 1). Now I know it is much easier to start from the left: add (7 + 2) first and work your way toward the right (the result is 982). With this technique, you also have the advantage of knowing quickly in what range the final number will be (7 + 2 is nine hundred….).

Try it yourself:

        274              329             538             732              321  
    + 125           + 428          + 417          + 321          + 972 
 

Subtraction

Subtraction, too, is much easier to calculate from left to right (use this as your default approach).

For example:

  47
- 23

… is 24 (4 – 2 = 2; 7 – 3 = 4).

However, it becomes tricky if the number you have to subtract from is smaller than the number you are subtracting.

For example:

  87
- 38

Here it would be easier to apply the following approach: round the number you are subtracting (38) to the nearest multiple of 10, which in this case is 40. Subtract this number from 87, which is 47 (easy). Then add 2 to this number (because you’ve rounded 38 to 40, with a difference of two) and you get the final result of 49.

Try it yourself:

  45           44           84           33           334
- 23        - 34         – 49         – 22        - 233 

Multiplication

For multiplication, you must know the multiplication table by heart:

As with addition and subtraction, you also multiply from left to right. For example:

  42
x   8

You first calculate [4 x 8] = 32. Because the “4” is in the tens position, you have 320. Then you multiply [2 times 8] = 16 and add it to 320. The result is 336.

As described above, in some cases it makes sense to use a rounding technique, especially if the number is not far from a multiple of 10. For example:

  78
x   9

You could use the standard approach (“addition-technique”) by first calculating 7 x 9 = 63, which would be 630, and then calculating 8 x 9 = 72 and adding these two numbers, getting the final result of 630 + 72 = 702. However, in this case it may be easier to round 9 to 10. That is, multiply 78 by 10 (=780) and then subtract (1 x 78), getting the same result of 702. When in doubt, however, use the addition technique, because selecting the technique to use may take longer than simply performing the calculation via the addition technique.

Now it’s your turn: 

   23           35           55           66           89
x    4        x   8         x   4         x  6          x  9

Division

How would you calculate the following problem without using paper?

 182
/     8

The easiest way seems to be the following. First multiply the latter number (8) by a multiple of 10 and see how close you get to the number above. So in the example above, I first calculate 8*10 and get 80. This is too low, so I multiply 8 by 20 instead and get 160, and then I already know the result will be in the 20-30 range (this can be calculated very quickly). The remainder is 22 (182-160); applying the same approach as before, the 8 “fits” twice in the 22, so I know the result will have to be 22… and something. The last part can be expressed as a fraction, with the remainder (22-16 = 6) as the numerator and the “8” as the denominator. In this case, the fraction is 6/8 or ¾. So the final result is 22 ¾.

The same principle applies for dividing a number by a two-digit number (e.g., 624 / 12), although of course it is more complex. Sometimes it may help to further simplify the calculations by breaking down the latter number into components. That is, you can split up the 12 into 6 and 2 and calculate 624 / 6 first (= 104), and then divide it by 2, getting the final result of 52.

Try it out: 

    34         454        122        442        984
  /   4         /    9        /   3        /  12       /   20

Other Advice in the Book

The book contains some other useful advice:

• If you need to calculate 25% of something, it is easier to halve the number twice. For example, 25% of $30 is calculated as 30/2 = 15, and 15/2 = 7.5.
• In most cases, an approximation is fine and we don’t need the exact result. So instead of calculating 8,261 + 4,754, round both numbers (e.g., to 8,000 and 5,000) and add them.
• You can do the same thing to estimate the price of your purchases in the supermarket. Round the prices for individual items to the next half-dollar (i.e., $1.20 becomes $1.00, $4.71 becomes $4.50, etc.) and add those numbers instead. Most of the time your result will be very close to the real sum.

I hope these techniques will prove useful to you!

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to my RSS Feed or Email Newsletter!

Here are some possibilities:

• A Happiness Pill
  This is arguably the most straightforward possibility. We’ll simply take a pill to change the chemistry in our heads in a favourable way, making us happier.

  Crucially, the pill must not have any negative side-effects, such as feeling worse later as a counter-reaction to the pill (“crash”) or becoming addicted. Unfortunately, all of today’s “happiness pills,” whether they be caffeine, nicotine, Ecstasy, Prozac or others, do have considerable side-effects.

• Gene Modification
  Happiness is inherited – at least partially. Scientists in Scotland and Australia who studied more than 900 pairs of twins found that genes play a significant part in determining how happy we are in life (read more here).

  As genetic modification becomes more feasible, the question is: Should we change our offspring’s genes in a way which makes them happier? Asked another way, can we accept responsibility for not taking advantage of these opportunities, thereby preventing them from leading significantly happier lives?

• Artificial Brain Stimulation
  Our brain creates the world (“reality”) based on the stimulation it receives through touch, smells, sight, or other senses. If we could control these impulses (e.g., as depicted in the movie The Matrix, where brains are kept in gelatinous substances stimulated artificially by computers), we could create fake, but happy worlds.
• (Other ?)
  

As these opportunities are not available yet, one may be inclined to wait until they become available and then consider applying. However, this could mean lost time. If we appreciate their anticipated outcome (which will be evaluated in more detail in future posts), we should actively aim to support their development.

Surprisingly, there are few focused efforts to develop these technologies (and discuss related questions, such as their ethical implications). I find this mind-boggling, considering that almost everything we do is directed at achieving happiness. Is it the fear of the unknown that has prevented us from searching for those technologies?

To fill the gap, I propose launching a new initiative: Happiness Engineering.

What is Happiness Engineering?

Here is a first shot at a definition:

Happiness engineering is the systematic application of scientific methods to create states which are perceived as happier by the individual(s) experiencing them (compared to the states when those methods are not applied) while minimizing the negative counter- or side-effects of creating such states.

Beyond the core task of developing happiness-creating technologies, the field of Happiness Engineering should focus on:

• Providing transparency on existing efforts to create happiness (and detailed explanations of their successes and failures)
• Evaluating possible outcomes of happiness technologies and contributing to ethical discussions
• Reducing the risks potentially posed by the new technologies
• Raising public awareness for the initiative and its goals and aims
• Raising funds to support the initiative

At this point, I’d like to know what you think about this. Should we pursue such an initiative, researching ways to create happiness through technology and actively addressing the ethical questions which result from those efforts? Or should we refrain from accelerating this development (which will come either way) and adopt a wait-and-see attitude?

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to my RSS Feed or Email Newsletter!

The world is too complex to make an exact prognosis, of course (honestly, we don’t have a clue what the future will be like just five years from now). However I believe some developments are outright logical and will lead to predictable results in the long run, even if they are hard to imagine today.

One of these developments is the increasing sophistication in achieving happiness. Eventually, I believe, we will be able to stimulate our brain however we want to and become maximally happy. It may even lead to the scenario depicted in the 1999 movie The Matrix, where brains are maintained in a gelatinous substance and stimulated by computers electronically in order to create a fake, but perceived-as-happy reality.

This may sound crazy, so let me give you the reasons why I believe this is going to happen.

1. Happiness is our primary goal
   First, we all aim to be happy. Even though happiness is only a by-product of evolution, it’s one of the most important goals in our lives (maybe the only goal with intrinsic value, as argued here). The happier we can become, the better.
    
2. We already “trick” nature
   Second, stimulating our brains artificially to achieve happiness would be nothing new – we do it all the time. For example:

   • Eating sweets
   Nature has developed an incentive system that rewards us for consuming foods containing high concentrations of energy (e.g., sweet fruits), because energy is crucial for survival. However, eating food with an unnaturally high sugar content (e.g., sweets) is an unnatural overstimulation of our reward system.

   • Consuming nicotine (or other drugs)
   I don’t know the scientific explanation for how smoking can be rewarding to the body, but I doubt it helps to achieve nature’s goal (survival & reproduction).

   • Having sex with contraception
   Nature “thinks” we reproduce, but we don’t! We just want to get the good part without the bad (no, I don’t hate kids ).

   • Engaging in other “unnatural” activities that make us happy
   Whether we’re playing video games, listening to techno music etc., most of the “modern-world” activities we perceive to be rewarding succeed in stimulating our incentive system in a positive way, but without necessarily serving nature’s goals. However, we don’t worry too much about that. As long as these diversions serve our purpose (achieving happiness) we welcome them.
    

3. It will be technically feasible
   Third, humanity will discover ever more effective ways to stimulate our inherited incentive system in a positive way (without negative side effects). Ultimately, we will also understand how the brain works (the brain is still largely a black box to science today) and be capable of creating the world we want – a world full of happiness, free of suffering.

Personally, I draw two conclusions from this: one positive and one negative. The positive conclusion is that paradise on earth is indeed possible. The negative conclusion is that you (if you are reading this before, let’s say, the year 2100) and I have been born too early to experience it. However, we should look on the positive side: we’re literate, we live on more than $1 a day, we live in times of peace, etc. This puts us ahead of so many unfortunate people today and in the past, so we should not complain about our lot in life.

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to my RSS Feed or Email Newsletter!

This post raises two related questions:

1. How effective is this incentive system (for the goal of reproduction) today?
2. Should reproduction be our ultimate goal?

1. How effective is this incentive system today?

Considering that the world’s population is quickly approaching seven billion people, the incentive model seems to work quite well. However, on an individual level, nature sometimes evaluates our actions incorrectly.

• In many cases, the incentive system demonstrates a chronic short-sightedness. For example, we don’t want to go to the dentist because it causes pain, but dental care is necessary to avoid much more severe pain and maybe even life-threatening consequences later. The incentive system of pleasure and pain cannot reflect this long-term approach, so our actions must be guided by other means, such as rational thinking.    
• Some of nature’s rewards are not in the best interest of reproduction. For example, we are rewarded for eating sugary and fatty foods, driven by the evolutionary scarcity of crucial calories. If nature “knew” that eating at McDonalds makes us fat, shortening our life expectancy as well as making us less attractive to the opposite sex, we would experience severe pain each time we bit into a hamburger.³

In other words, the incentive system of pain and pleasure does not always work as it should (from nature’s perspective) and therefore is imperfect.

2. Should reproduction be our ultimate goal?

Nature gave us the goal of reproduction and built an incentive system around it. However, do we need to accept this inheritance?

Most people who answer “yes” to this question are convinced of the intrinsically good nature (i.e., the belief that because something is natural, it must be good). I am very sceptical of that conclusion, for several reasons.⁴ 

If we don’t regard reproduction as the ultimate end-goal in itself, what should take its place? In an earlier post, I argued that happiness should fill this role, despite being only a byproduct or a means-to-an-end-tool from nature’s perspective.  

Conclusion

The takeaway from all this is that pleasure and pain should not be regarded as untouchable. Instead, we should keep in mind that:

• Pleasure and pain are an incentive model with clear weaknesses
• We don’t have to agree on the goal implied by the model
• We should deliberately try to maximize pleasure and minimize pain as much as possible

Continuing this line of thinking, a future post will discuss how we can reduce pain or uncomfortable feelings. Until then, I welcome your feedback, as always!

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed or email newsletter! 

—

1) Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1789.

2) Or, more precisely, for our genes’ reproduction, as evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins pointed out. Our cousins also carry our genes, at least in part, so we should be interested in their reproduction as well. Read more on this in Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene.

3) Many similar examples like this exist, and perhaps the most dramatic is that of taking drugs. The direct reward (in terms of happiness) could not be higher, yet the effects on our capability to reproduce (quick death) could not be more disastrous. 

4) To avoid any misunderstandings: I like nature very much, in the sense that I love walking in the woods, climbing mountains, enjoying the view, being impressed by the sublime and vast sky, etc. However, I also understand that nature is only the result of how it has developed. I am not religious, and I don’t believe anyone masterminded this Greatest Show on Earth.

If I remember correctly, I started to question the concept of intrinsically good nature (which every kid is taught, either directly or indirectly) when I began to understand the horrible consequences of natural disasters, such as hurricanes and tsunamis, which kill hundreds of thousands of people. These phenomena are nature in its purest form. I recently watched a documentary on TV, showing the remains of a herd of zebras that died painfully after their source of water dried up. This made clear to me again that nature is just how things came about, without the intervention of a higher power and without mercy. 

I am not religious. However, this post is not about my beliefs (or non-beliefs), but rather about whether religion should be regarded as a good thing. For me, being primarily interested in people’s happiness, the question is: does religion bring more happiness into the world, or not?

The Advantages of Religion

What’s good about religion?  

• Religion can provide a strong feeling of security
  Believing in a higher power who looks over the world can provide substantial comfort. It simplifies people’s lives and diminishes feelings of incomprehensible and overwhelming complexity, as well as concern about the lack of order and uncertainty, which can be very unsettling.
• Religion can reduce the fear of dying
  Fear of death is in our bones, and everything which reduces it can be beneficial to our happiness. Religion does this by telling us that God will take care of us and that our life will continue in some form after our death.
• Religion can give us hope
  No matter how bad the situation is, the belief in a divine power which metes out ultimate justice can provide an almost inexhaustible source for hope and optimism from which we can draw new strength.
• Religion can give us a mission and energy
  Any task we believe in can be a very strong source of energy and motivation. Religion can provide such a task. Think about Mother Theresa: her belief gave her the energy to help increase people’s happiness and decreate their suffering, all while making herself happier. Even atheists must struggle to not develop sympathy for the driving force behind these actions!
• Religion can give us guidance on how to behave in society
  It’s true for the Ten Commandments and all similar rules: having guidance that directs people to do what is good (e.g., don’t steal) can be very beneficial to the happiness of the individual obeying these rules, as well as for the happiness of the society (provided they are good rules, of course!). This is especially true in cases where there would be no other “law” to take its place (leading to chaos).
• Religion can make people socialize
  Meeting with others for religious events is more than just practicing faith. It is an opportunity to meet old friends and make new friends, sing together and socialise. This can be a very powerful source of happiness, as many research studies in the field of happiness have shown.
• (?) – Please add your ideas below!

The Disadvantages of Religion

I only see one main disadvantage of religion, but it is a big one: Religion poses a threat to logical reasoning, and therefore puts at risk all the benefits we receive from analytical thinking and critical reflection.

For example, the price we pay for the feeling of security and simplicity (see above) is that we don’t reflect on our belief which we’ve accepted as the truth (otherwise, it does not work). If this state of non-reflection is “locked” in a belief which is causing unhappiness (e.g., kill everyone who denies my god) it can be fatal – literally.

Religion’s threat to critical thinking can be observed in many situations. For example, a staggering 29% of Americans believe that creationism should be taught in science class in schools (either exclusively or along with evolution). This does not provide a healthy ground for human progress, which is based on logical reasoning and constant reflection.

Conclusion I (for you are not religious)

Religion offers major benefits, as well as a substantial drawback. So how should we deal with this two-faced power?

Firstly, get an appropriate view of religion. Non-religious people, such as me, should acknowledge that religion can be a major contributor to people’s happiness. It may be a source of happiness we are unfamiliar with and don’t think we need (maybe because we were lucky to have sufficient alternative sources of happiness), but we should not try to take it away from other people – especially not by arguing that there is no god, which misses the point entirely.

We should also keep in mind that logical thinking (which we should value very, very highly) is not an end in itself, and we should not make it become “our god”. For example, imagine the following scenario: you are terminally ill and know you have only weeks to live. Despite having been a highly sceptical and non-religious being all your life, you now feel the draw of religion, which could remove your fear of dying and diminish your pain (just accept this scenario for a second, it may happen). Who would not turn to this method to diminish the pain, and why?

Conclusion II (if you are religious)

If religion makes you happier, appreciate that you have discovered this source of happiness. However, keep in mind that religion is not founded on a scientific analysis and that it poses a threat to analytical reasoning and critical reflection. Especially in situations where religion guides you to take actions that cause unhappiness for other people, it is important to keep this in mind.

Also, all proponents of religion should understand that being religious is a personal choice. As soon as that belief intimidates or otherwise negatively affects other people’s free choice in any form (e.g., by educating pupils based on a religious belief), it must be fought against rigorously. Everybody should consciously decide whether they want to follow a religion, being fully aware of its advantages and drawbacks.

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed or email newsletter!

Here’s my approach, based on what I’ve found on the net and some of my own thoughts:

• Remember: It’s a natural part of human life
  Breaking up and feeling terrible afterwards is nothing unusual. Billions of people have had this experience before, and it’s one of the most common causes of emotional pain. So remember two things: (1) you are not alone and (2) breaking up is a natural part of human life.
• Remember: Time heals all wounds
  No matter how bad you feel now, it will go away eventually. While knowing this may not reduce the pain directly, it may give you strength during the “shitty phase.”  

• Do something good for yourself
  You’ve taken a punch, and now it’s time to take care of yourself. Do something you want to do: watch a movie, read a good book, exercise (!), start a new hobby, buy the cool gadget you’ve always wanted, etc.

• Spend time with family or friends 
  Part of your “relationship life” took a hit. The solution? Take care of your other relationships. Spend time with family or friends and plan enjoyable activities with them ahead of time (especially on weekends). 

• Let yourself grieve, but not for too long
  It’s okay to feel sad. Cry, sob, and lick your wounds. However, after a couple of weeks or so, pull yourself together. Look to the future; don’t cling to the past.

• Make a clean break
  After the grieving period, don’t think about your ex. Remove things from the house if they remind you of him or her. Erase your ex’s telephone number from your mobile phone and delete all emails. It’s over, and it’s time to move on.

• Think: Better now than later
  Imagine what might have happened if you didn’t break up, but instead had got married, had kids, and then discovered things wouldn’t work out. What a mess that would have been. It’s better to set switch lanes now, even though it hurts. 

• Learn from the experience
  “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.” This saying has proven to be entirely true for me. Gathering new experiences is crucial for personal growth, although the process may not always be pleasant. 

• Don’t start dating again too soon
  As mentioned above, allow yourself some time for grieving. Don’t starting dating immediately after the break-up, or you’ll risk trying to replace your former boy- or girlfriend with someone else. This rarely works and it will make your new partner unhappy. Take your time, and you will be dating again soon enough. 

• Don’t blame the break-up for everything
  Sometimes we tend to channel our negative feelings in one direction, making them even more painful. A break-up provides a tempting invitation to do this, but don’t. If you feel bad, the break-up may not be the only reason. Make a plan for how to tackle the other areas you need to work on (e.g., identify your purpose in life, find a fulfilling job, etc.). 

• Write about it 
  Putting your thoughts down on paper can help. I’ve followed the recommendation to write a letter to my ex, but not send it. This gave me a lot of relief. I’ve also decided to blog about it – let’s see if it helps.  

• View the break-up as a new beginning
  A break-up allows you to take a fresh look at your life and to kick habits that previously held you back. It’s a new beginning, with great opportunities and new loving relationships waiting you!

Have I forgotten anything?

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed or email newsletter!

This happened to me recently: I have always wanted to see Billy Connolly, a Scottish comedian, live on stage. Unfortunately, I found out too late that he had toured London in January, and I missed my opportunity to see him!

I find this utterly strange. How can we miss out on these things even though we live in the age of the internet with information so readily available?

What I find even stranger in this particular example is that both the information provider (the event organizer) and the information receiver (I) had a strong interest in the exchange of the information. Nevertheless, it didn’t happen. Why?
 

I believe the reason is that the “information channels” we use today, such as newspapers, TV, RSS feeds, and e-newsletters, are too broad. Subscribing to them is tantamount to opting for information overload. Consequently, we’ve become very picky as to which information channels we subscribe to, and thereby miss out on interesting information and opportunities.  

I’ve come up with an idea which may help to solve this problem (at least partially) and I need your feedback!

The idea is to limit the number of messages sent. Continuing the example from above, if subscribers could opt to receive updates on Billy Connolly’s touring schedule once or twice a year, I would subscribe to it without hesitation. However, I would never subscribe to a general “Billy Connolly Newsletter” – this would be just too much information!

So how can publishers convince subscribers that they will send only a limited number of messages? One possible solution would be to use a neutral platform that would actually limit the number of messages that could be sent. Knowing they would not be overwhelmed with information, individuals would be more likely to subscribe.

A beta version of such a platform has recently been launched: SpecificFeeds.com.

The limitation feature makes the most sense if it is possible to clearly state the maximum number of messages that will be sent in the future. Here are some examples (a few of which have already been set up on SpecificFeeds):

• Daylight saving time reminder (2 messages/ year max)
• A Valentine’s Day reminder, April Fools Day reminder, Mother’s Day reminder, etc. (each limited to 1 message/year)
• An alert if a favourite singer, comedian, band, or other performer publishes new tour dates (4 messages/year max)
• An alert if a favourite author publishes a new book (4 messages/year max)
• An alert if a lottery accepts applications (e.g., U.S. green card, World Cup tickets) (2 messages/year max)
• Joke of the week (1 message/week max)
• A full moon reminder (13 messages/year max)

The service envisions users subscribing to many feeds as they browse the net, receiving messages either as single emails or in their personal newspaper (all messages sent in a single daily email) and never again missing out on interesting opportunities!

Admittedly, the site still needs a lot of improvement, but great things have to start somewhere. I’d very much appreciate your comments and ideas on how to improve the service further! 

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed or email newsletter!

I analysed the matter and came up with a couple of techniques which have worked well for me. Let me share them with you.

When Do We Take “Action”?

If we want to make ourself do something, it is crucial to understand the basic structure of why we “do things” at all:

1. We Do “It”… If We Don’t Have a Choice

This scenario has two possible subsets:

• We physically don’t have a choice
  Example: We are at home and hungry. We have only vegetables in the fridge and all the shops are closed. If we want to eat something, we have to eat vegetables. Other options are physically impossible.

  

  For example, if you want to eat healthier foods, first remove all the junk food from your home. Then take some time (e.g., over the weekend) to cook tasty but healthy food for the whole week. When you come home from work on weekdays, your prepared food will already be in the fridge and you will have no other option.¹

• We don’t know about other options 
  If we don’t know that our favourite show is currently on TV, we don’t have the choice between studying or watching our favourite show, because the latter option does not exist for us. 

  

Crucially, the true value of these two techniques is more than just that they force us to do something. They are effective ways to reduce the pain associated with a task. Continuing the examples above, it is certainly easier to… 

           – … eat healthy food if you aren’t looking at a chocolate cake
           –  … study if you don’t know your favourite show is on TV

Why does limiting our options reduce the pain? One possible explanation may be that the role of pain (and pleasure) is to steer us toward specific choices. However, if we don’t have a choice, there is not as much need for pain.³

2. We Do “It”… If We Don’t Give Ourself a Choice (Mentally)
This differs from the above in that we physically have a choice (and know it, if asked), but we don’t consider any other options. No mental “arguing” occurs.

One example (for me) would be getting up in the morning to go to work. On an intellectual level I know sleeping in is an option (it is physically possible), but I don’t consider it, because I perceive it as an unquestionable task to get up and go to work. Importantly, I don’t need to picture all the negative consequences of sleeping in (making it appear as an unattractive option) which would be associated with arguing / evaluation (which is considered under section 3). Instead, I get up automatically, without thinking about it.

Most of what we do falls into this category. We breathe, scratch an itch, change gears when driving (assuming you are used to it), and do many other activities without thinking about them in detail. Arguably, this is the most powerful and efficient way to get things done.

Interestingly, we could provide logical reasons for why we do these things, although these are not actually why we do them. For example, if somebody asks you why you are breathing, you could say that failing to breathe would be fatal, and therefore not a good choice. This makes sense, but it is not the direct reason why we do breathe – we do it because our brained is programmed to do it (I don’t want to be a nitpicker, but I believe this is an important difference).

How can we make our brain carry out the things we know we should do without arguing or complaining?²

• Our brain does not argue if… we don’t let it

  One way to prevent our brain from evaluating different options is by simply not allowing it to do so. Reaching an internal resolve to do something beforehand and then implementing it without the slightest doubt is an invaluable skill (also called self-discipline).

  I believe this is one of the most crucial skills for getting things done. Like all skills, it has to be learned and practiced. Steve Pavlina, who has written a wonderful series of free articles on self-discipline, compares developing this skill with lifting weights: start with easy tasks and then gradually increase the challenge according to your skill level.

  

• Our brain does not argue if… it is used to performing the task

  Habits can be very powerful: they can make us do things “automatically” without leaving room for internal arguing.

  How can we establish good habits? Here, again, I believe Steve Pavlina came up with a very good proposal in the form of 30-day-trials. He suggests trying “it” out (not smoking, going to the gym, eating healthy food, etc.) for 30 days and only later deciding whether we want to stick to it. This makes it easy to start (after all, it is only for 30 days) and in many cases the new action becomes a habit, so that stopping almost requires an effort.

  

• Our brain does not argue if… it sees how the task directly relates to a greater goal, mission, task or purpose it has already fully accepted

  Most tasks are performed in the context of a greater task or goal. For example, if you’ve fully bought into the idea of working for a charity, the task of “meeting with the other charity members” directly relates to this greater task and therefore does not get “questioned” anymore.

  To tap this source of energy:
  1. You need to have a greater goal, mission, task or purpose which your brain has fully bought into and
  2. The task in question must be directly connected to achieving the greater goal

  How do we get there? As this source of energy a very important one, a future post will dive into it in detail. For the time being, please read Steve Pavlina’s How to discover your life purpose in about 20 minutes.

  

Please note: When applying these techniques, I realized that they can be useful if applied individually, but they become really strong when combined.

These techniques are the major ones which came to my mind. This is certainly not a complete list.⁴ If you know any others, please describe them below!

3. We Do “It”… If We Perceive It to Be the Best Option

If we have several options, we pick the best one. “Best” refers to how attractive we perceive the option to be versus all the other options available to us. Therefore, the challenge becomes making “it” as attractive and appealing as possible, while making all alternatives as unattractive as possible.

Techniques for doing this will be described in a follow-up post. In the meantime, I welcome your feedback, as always!

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed or email newsletter!

–

1.) However, keep in mind that this technique creates some inflexibility. For example, if you want to focus on studying and you lock yourself in a room with a time-lock set for two hours (physically removing the option of going into the living room to watch TV), it may create problems (or foster some serious creativity!) if you then realize you have to go to the bathroom.

2) Warning: We must keep in mind that these techniques aim to cancel out our rational and conscious thinking, and may therefore be dangerous. Some people are capable of doing terrible things because they accept “it” as an unquestionable task and stop reflecting on it (which may lead to disastrous results, such as war crimes). These techniques can be a powerful source of energy and drive to do things, but they must be applied with care!

3) I say as much need for pain, because only some elements of pain can be reduced by limiting our options.

For example, a certain type of pain (or uncomfortable feeling) is experienced directly when doing something, such as eating healthy, less-tasty food while looking at a chocolate cake. This uncomfortable feeling can be reduced by limiting the options (e.g., by not knowing about the cake).

Another type of pain provides deterrence, such as physical pain, which clearly instructs us to make different decisions in the future (don’t touch the fire!). This type of pain cannot be reduced by limiting our options. The pain does not diminish if we are tied to a chair (no options) and pain is inflicted.

Pain perception can play a crucial role when trying to get things done. A future post will dive into this topic (and that of how to reduce perceived pain) in greater detail.

4.) Basically everything that removes alternatives in our brain can be used to help us focus on the things we should do. Here’s one more example: Some people find it useful to schedule a task on their calendar. This can make it feel as if the decision to do that task has already been made, preventing internal arguing when the time arrives (this works especially well if you respect your calendar as something “holy” and committal – it won’t help if you don’t usually use a calendar).

Therefore, I was delighted to find out about TED, an organization which holds an annual four-day conference for top speakers to share their ideas on almost any topic (motivated by three US $100,000 prizes). Most presentations are limited to 15-20 minutes, which ensures that the speakers stick to the key messages.

Attending this event requires an invitation and a US$6,000 fee (the prize money has to come from somewhere), so it is great that TED posts all the presentations online for free viewing.

Below please find a selection of what I consider to be “must-see” presentations:

1. Ken Robinson: How schools kill creativity
   
   

   Click here to view the embedded video.

2. Steve Jobs: How to live before you die

   Click here to view the embedded video.

   
    
3. Benjamin Zander: On Music and Passion

   Click here to view the embedded video.

   (For more information on how to enjoy classical music please have a look at this blog post)
    

4. Marc Pachter: The Art of The Interview

   Click here to view the embedded video.

   
    
5. Dan Buettner: How to live to be 100+ 

   Click here to view the embedded video.

   
    
6. Rory Sutherland: Life lessons from an ad man

   Click here to view the embedded video.

   
    
7. VS Ramachandran on your mind

   Click here to view the embedded video.

   
    
8. Murray Gell-Mann on beauty and truth in physics

   Click here to view the embedded video.

   
    
9. Jill Bolte Taylor's stroke of insight

   Click here to view the embedded video.

   
    
10. Thulasiraj Ravilla: How low-cost eye care can be world-class

    Click here to view the embedded video.

Other presentations I enjoyed watching (among many others):

• Charles Anderson discovers dragonflies that cross oceans 
• Arthur Benjamin does "Mathemagic" 
• Brian Greene on string theory 
• Hans Rosling stastistics 
• Scott Kim takes apart the art of puzzles 
• Barry Schwarz on the paradox of choice
• Steven Pinker on the myth of violence
• Sunitha Krishnan fights sex slavery 
• Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi on flow
• The Raspyni Brothers juggling
• Steve Truglia: A leap from space

Did I miss any?