Motivating others to study and PRACTICE self-help material

[Farid Behnia]

Hi,

I thinks the topic says it all! From time to time I've been able to
encourage others to read such books but often times they don't put it
into practice and they find it useless.

What approaches will you take to motivate people around you?

Thanks for any hints.

[Dennis C. During]

I think the only approach that MIGHT work online is to
1. Lead by example
2. Encourage others to make 'public' commitments to their goals and to the
specific process for achieving them.
3. Encourage others to 'publicly' report their progress.

Working against this, people seem to often view internet communication as
something a lot less meaningful than communication to family, friends, or
colleagues. It can at best provide an opportunity for someone to find
fellow-travelers in the self-change process.

Books on personal productivity are a natural focal point. GTD, Do It
Tomorrow, and Do It Now are three examples I'm familiar with. Are there
more ?

What some in those groups find is that they need to work harder on
developing new habits or overcoming some particular pernicious emotion or
habit of mind in order to accomplish what others find more straight-forward.

I had been interested in the general idea of 'self-experimentation'. Now I
believe that what is more necessary and useful is to focus on the general
idea of systematic self-directed behavior change. I believe that a
course-like approach may be the most productive. As in my previous
teaching, I find that my own profound need for such an approach is what
leads me to put out the effort to get such a thing going.

Dennis C. During

"To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law
into contempt." - Elizabeth Cady Stanton, American women's rights advocate
(1815-1902)
"What is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth." - Richard P.
Feynman, Nobelist, physicist, raconteur, bongo player, safe-cracker

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SelfExperimenters/

[Mike De Bruyn]

Mostly I don't.  I think the idea of motivating others is flawed.  People can only motivate themselves.  Motivating others is really another way to say "nagging".  If a person is not self-motivated, all you can do is nag and get the usual predictable result -- ill will.

--
Cheers,
Mike

[drumdance]

> Mostly I don't. I think the idea of motivating others is flawed. People
> can only motivate themselves.

Agreed. An old saying: "When the student is ready, the teacher
arrives."

About the only thing you can do is lead by example. I used to have a
boss who always knew not only what she was supposed to be doing but
also me. She didn't come across as a micromanager, but she definitely
made sure I didn't let things fall through the cracks, so I
psychologically felt like I had to be on the ball with her. This was
before GTD was published. In one of Merlin's podcasts with David he
mentions that you can map your waiting-fors to other people's to-dos
and make sure to review them periodically.,

[Farid Behnia]

<Posting on behalf of Li Wei, who accidentally sent it only to me>

Hi,

It's always easier to read than practice isn't it. :)

I agree with Dennis about leading by example, but more because it
allows you to understand the process and help others get out of it.

But helping others is also different because you can't assume that
telling them alone will work. You have to try to understand how they
work and steer them in the right direction in a way that works best
for them. And I feel the most important thing is to make them want to
do it for themselves, because after that they can do it themselves.

Remeber that 'self-help' is just that, helping yourself. Helping
others is totally separate skill we have to pick up :) And I'm also
trying!

Li Wei
http://brighterlife.110mb.com

[Farid Behnia]

On May 11, 8:36 pm, drumdance <dscru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Mostly I don't. I think the idea of motivating others is flawed. People
> > can only motivate themselves.
>
> Agreed. An old saying: "When the student is ready, the teacher
> arrives."
>
> About the only thing you can do is lead by example

Sounds reasonable. Esp because I think leading is different from
nagging/forcing others to do sth but rather a way of guiding people
with enough POTENTIAL.

>. I used to have a
> boss who always knew not only what she was supposed to be doing but
> also me. She didn't come across as a micromanager, but she definitely
> made sure I didn't let things fall through the cracks, so

> psychologically felt like I had to be on the ball with her. This was
> before GTD was published. In one of Merlin's podcasts with David he
> mentions that you can map your waiting-fors to other people's to-dos
> and make sure to review them periodically.,

I think I can remember that podcast. It was about using GTD for
teamwork right?

[Farid Behnia]

On May 11, 9:08 pm, Farid Behnia <beh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <Posting on behalf of Li Wei, who accidentally sent it only to me>
>
> Hi,
>
> It's always easier to read than practice isn't it. :)
>
> I agree with Dennis about leading by example, but more because it
> allows you to understand the process and help others get out of it.
>
> But helping others is also different because you can't assume that
> telling them alone will work. You have to try to understand how they
> work and steer them in the right direction in a way that works best
> for them.

> And I feel the most important thing is to make them want to
> do it for themselves, because after that they can do it themselves.

How can you make them WANT to do it for themselves? Just wait for an
opportunity to arise, say e.g. when THEY ask you what they should do
once the heat has gotten so hot?

>
> Remeber that 'self-help' is just that, helping yourself. Helping
> others is totally separate skill we have to pick up :) And I'm also
> trying!
>

> Li Weihttp://brighterlife.110mb.com

[Dennis C. During]

As a practical matter, I think there MIGHT be other things to do, but you would have to have a lot of patience, at least.  Most of the time being an *attractive* example of the change is the most you can do.  Even a loving spouse with great intentions and skills is unlikely to be able to motivate the other spouse effectively.

Of course, we have learned a bit over time about the mysterious origins of a person’s OWN motivations, at least enough to make us skeptical about ‘free will’.  It seems quite possible to influence someone to do some specific behavior, if enough conditions are right.  Motivating someone to do something complicated that requires sustained effort, like writing an essay, quitting smoking, or leading a good life is far beyond what can be done under all but the rarest of circumstances.

On the other hand, there is the phenomenon of the Pied Piper, of charismatic (sociopathic ???) gurus who have a strong influence over others (Rasputin, Svengali, Mesmer).

Dennis C. During

"To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt." - Elizabeth Cady Stanton, American women's rights advocate (1815-1902)
"What is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth." - Richard P. Feynman, Nobelist, physicist, raconteur, bongo player, safe-cracker

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SelfExperimenters/


> -----Original Message-----

[db]

Nagging is not the only choice.

Try encouraging, expressing sincere concern for them (and not your
agenda), simply asking questions, or modeling the behavior you hope
for.

In some cases you can place conditions, rewards, deadlines, etc. and
offer to help.

Explaining why something is important can help.

Treat them like an adult and you will more likely get an adult
response.

[Li Wei]

Multiple replies coming up!

MIKE: I can't argued that it's not flawed, but trying to help does not
necessarily have to be nagging.

It turns into nagging when you approach the problem as you would for
yourself, often in a way that makes you as a 'helper' feel
comfortable, and that is the 'flawed' part. The idea is cater the
suggestion to the person you're helping.

Psychologists/psychiatrists/counselors have been guiding people for
decades, so there must be something that we can do. Yes, results vary,
but that's where your own skills as a 'helper' come in. Not everyone
is suited to helping. It requires a fine balance of technique and
temperament.

DRUMDANCE: That's a nice saying :) Do you think it's -possible- your
boss was a good manager able to cater her methods to suit your
particular working style, motivating you without you consciously
realising? That's the mark of a great manager/boss isn't it?

Dennis gets it spot on that we need patience. Sometimes we expect
others to change overnight simple because we felt we did. But what we
don't always realise is that we might have taken YEARS to develop the
motivation we have now, so patience is key.

Li Wei
http://brighterlife.110mb.com

On May 11, 7:59 pm, "Mike De Bruyn" <mikes.mail.li...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Li Wei]

> How can you make them WANT to do it for themselves? Just wait for an
> opportunity to arise, say e.g. when THEY ask you what they should do
> once the heat has gotten so hot?

Hmm. I can't offer a catch-all reply to that, and I'm still learning
myself.

Opportunities are important. There are times when we're more receptive
to suggestions, and it's true for everyone, good times or bad. I'm not
sure if suggestions given during crisis work very well though, simply
because we are focused on AVOIDANCE of the negative rather than
building the positive. Solutions will be used until a level of comfort
is reached again then very likely discarded. Having a fire inches from
your ass isn't very conducive for learning :D

I think WANTING something is being able to see it's benefits for you.
The greater the benefit, the more you'll probably want it. I've found
it useful to let them see what they have done it the past and the
outcomes they have generated. For examples, perhaps they have made a
particularly tough choice that actually turned out great. Let them see
that these habits you want them to learn are good for them.

A theory I'm trying out is trying to help others develop momentum. You
start by encouraging certain habits that could be good for them, and
once they have seen that the direction you're pointing them towards is
good for them, they'll pick it up on their own.

One of the great barriers to actually taking action on things you want
is confidence. If we have fears, of any kind, it makes things
difficult. Maybe if we fear enough we might even convince ourselves we
don't want something anymore. There are a number of books on this I
believe, I can't recall them right now. Many personal development
books talk about accepting fear and getting past it.

I have to admit that ultimately you can't force the DESIRE into
someone. If they won't eat it, stuffing it down their throats won't
make it any better. We can only let them have a taste of the good
stuff, and hope it seeps into their psyche. On our part it helps if we
learn to accept as well. That way it decouples our own desires of
theirs.

Li Wei

[bignoseduglyguy]

Li Wei

As a manager, coach and mentor, I have found Appreciative Inquiry[1] to be of great help in reframing my and others efforts, since I was introduced to it a year or so back.  In fact, I have become interested in it's wider application and plan to fly to the US for the 2007 Appreciative Inquiry conference[2] in September to increase my understanding and learn more from AI professionals.  As you have a post regarding Martin Seligman on your blog, it might interest you to know that he is amongst the keynote speakers.

bnug

[1] http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/

[2] http://www.2007aiconference.com/index.htm

On 13/05/2007, at 2:46 PM, Li Wei wrote:

Psychologists/psychiatrists/counselors have been guiding people for

decades, so there must be something that we can do. Yes, results vary,

but that's where your own skills as a 'helper' come in. Not everyone

is suited to helping. It requires a fine balance of technique and

temperament.

-- 

bignoseduglyguy

http://www.bignoseduglyguy.com

http://bigboysbrunch.wordpress.com

http://www.bignoseduglyguy.com/no8wire

[db]

On May 12, 10:46 pm, Li Wei <sngli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Psychologists/psychiatrists/counselors have been guiding people for
> decades, so there must be something that we can do. Yes, results vary,
> but that's where your own skills as a 'helper' come in. Not everyone
> is suited to helping. It requires a fine balance of technique and
> temperament.

LI, Much of what you say I don't disagree with, but regarding
"Psychologists/psychiatrists/counselors", you must remember most
folks
choose to see them, and those that are forced to often make little
progress. Thats not to say that a skilled person can't motivate
change
in others, just that most folks choose to see those skilled people.
A better comparison would be to a good teacher who knows how to
motivate students, who for the most part have little choice about
being there.

[drumdance]

> DRUMDANCE: That's a nice saying :) Do you think it's -possible- your
> boss was a good manager able to cater her methods to suit your
> particular working style, motivating you without you consciously
> realising? That's the mark of a great manager/boss isn't it?

I wouldn't say she was especially good in the sens of knowing what
motivated me personally. I liked and respected her, but wouldn't run
through walls for her. The main thing was, if I said "I'll do X by
next Tuesday," you could be that she would ask me about it on Tuesday.
It just made me much more aware of all the commitments I make. I still
struggled to track and meet those commitments until I latched on to
GTD a few years later, but it certainly made me more self aware.

-Derek

[Li Wei]

That is true. I was talking about it with someone else and she said
the exact same thing. You're right, perhaps a better example would be
a good teacher, or effective manager even.

Li Wei

[84Monte...@gmail.com]

I've found that you have to have a sort of "gateway drug" to get
people to latch on. Something small that they can apply that leads
them into a greater curiosity of what can be done.

Example: Last week a co-worker noticed that I had all my e-mails in
my inbox that were sent directly to me colored in blue (since they
were only sent to me, I was directly responsible). Once I showed her
1) how to do it and 2) the different colors to choose from, she's been
slowly questioning what she can do with her e-mail client and how to
streamline some of it.

Plant the seed and watch them grow.

[Mike De Bruyn]

On 5/12/07, Li Wei <sngl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Multiple replies coming up!

MIKE: I can't argued that it's not flawed, but trying to help does not
necessarily have to be nagging.

It turns into nagging when you approach the problem as you would for
yourself, often in a way that makes you as a 'helper' feel
comfortable, and that is the 'flawed' part. The idea is cater the
suggestion to the person you're helping.

Psychologists/psychiatrists/counselors have been guiding people for
decades, so there must be something that we can do. Yes, results vary,
but that's where your own skills as a 'helper' come in. Not everyone
is suited to helping. It requires a fine balance of technique and
temperament.

 

Two points here:

 

1) I thought the question was "motivation", not providing information, help, or guidance.

 

2) I disagree that psychologists, etc. help much.  The record of professionals in this area is dismal -- to say the least.

 

In my experience, if a person is not motivated, nothing will get him to move.

--
Cheers,
Mike

[Dennis C. During]

Multiple replies coming up!

Two points here:

-----

Mike:

Why doesn't behavior modification through positive reinforcement work in
most cases ? It may be difficult for the reinforcer to get outside his own
emotionally driven responses, but it seems as if it CAN be done.

Admittedly, this discussion seemed to be focused on motivating others
through some kind of on-line contact. It may be difficult in such a context
to administer appropriate positive reinforcement for anything except sending
well-composed and otherwise appealing e-mail messages. It would be
interesting to determine circumstances in which it could work and
specifically how to deliver appropriate postive reinforcement for self-help
efforts on-line.

[db]

Suffice it to say you have some unusual perspectives and, apparently,
experiences.

The question is motivated by what? What motivates a person? Is it just
"built-in" or is there an external component? If any is external, why
can't that include other people, or does it just have to be money and
hunger for food?

Were you never motivated by the cries or smiles of a mother or child?

Simplistic declarative statements add little insight, and often are
used to justify dismissal of others.

Where do you get your "record of Professionals"?

On May 20, 12:02 am, "Mike De Bruyn" <mikes.mail.li...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Dennis C. During]

I have just finished an excellent pop-psych book, Other People's Habits: how
to use positive reinforcement to bring out the best in people around you, by
Audrey C. Daniels. Generally 'Organizational Behavior Management' and
'Performance Management' are schools of thought/consulting practice that
address some of what you are interested in. The focus is on positive
reinforcement for small units of behavior and a lot of repetition.
Obviously this doesn't work if your target is someone with whom you will not
be frequently interacting.

There is another book 'Self-Directed Behavior: self-modification for
personal adjustment' that is used as a text in college psychology courses
that could provide a framework for self-improvement, with homework, etc.

I think that this lack of follow-through is why there are professions like
psychotherapy and coaching. The social reinforcement and semi-objective
observation are useful in motivating and getting follow-through.

Dennis C. During

"To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law
into contempt." - Elizabeth Cady Stanton, American women's rights advocate
(1815-1902)
"What is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth." - Richard P.
Feynman, Nobelist, physicist, raconteur, bongo player, safe-cracker

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SelfExperimenters/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 43Fo...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:43Fo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Farid Behnia
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:41 AM
> To: 43 Folders
> Subject: [43F Group] Motivating others to study and PRACTICE
> self-help material
>
>
>

[Li Wei]

> Two points here:
>
> 1) I thought the question was "motivation", not providing information, help,
> or guidance.
>
> 2) I disagree that psychologists, etc. help much. The record of
> professionals in this area is dismal -- to say the least.
>
> In my experience, if a person is not motivated, nothing will get him to
> move.

db's queston is valid here. Where does motivation come from? If you
believe that motivation is entirely internal, then you might very well
be right (and your experience may tell you so) But I'm guessing that
your experience might be quite an exception, compared to others who
have helped those around them. I suppose we're all asking HOW we can
help, and not simplying rejecting the idea that we can help. Rejecting
is a dead end isn't it?

[Mike De Bruyn]

Hi Dennis,

On 5/20/07, Dennis C. During <dcdu...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Mike:

Why doesn't behavior modification through positive reinforcement work in
most cases ?  It may be difficult for the reinforcer to get outside his own
emotionally driven responses, but it seems as if it CAN be done.

 

The initial post was, it seemed to me, to have to do with motivating others.  IMO, that can't be done.  Motivation must come from within.  One can nag, lead, cajole, argue, punish, reward, etc. but none of that is really motivation.  It is an attempt to get a person to motivate himself by making it rewarding, or punishing the alternative.

 

As to modifying one's own behavior, positive reinforcement does work, but, as you say, one has to kind of get outside of one's self in order to administer the reinforcement.  It can be tricky to do.

 

The real problem I see, in all change work, is keeping the effort going.  In the typical situation you (the rhetorical you ;-) decide you want to change your behavior.  Let's say you want to lose a few pounds -- to take one of the more common examples.  You decide you've had it with the current situation, you read some books, you make some plans and you get charged up.  O.K.  that's day one ;-)  Then the next day you see the deserts as you scan the menu and your old habit kicks in.  Alas, you've "failed".  That failure is demotivating and you are frustrated.  Now you not only have to get yourself "charged up" again, but you must ALSO overcome the negative motivation from failure.

 

A successful recipe is to:

 

- Set VERY small goals.  (Drink a glass of water before each meal.)

- Structure your environment for success. (Put the water bottle right on the stove, or in the middle of the kitchen counter.  Put signs all over the kitchen.  Etc.)

- Plan for "failure".  (Decide in advance that you will miss the target and see that as an opportunity to redouble your efforts and become aware of loss of focus.)

- Stick with the small goal until you have it habituated.  (Usually about three to four weeks.)

- Focus on the success you achieved and enjoy it.

- Set one VERY small next goal.  (Eat a salad before each meal.)  Etc.

- Have a system of rewards for each success.  (But not ones that undermine the overall goal.  I.E. no food rewards for diet success!)

- Get support.  (Find others who see your success as positive.  I.E. don't hang with those who will undermine you, such as perpetual dieters.)

- Make new friends.  (Hang with people who are naturally successful in the area you are working on.  I.E. people who are naturally thin and are not focused on food.)

 

There are other things as well, but you get the idea.  You have to see the achievement of any change as a major challenge.  And it is.  Realize that habits work to stabilize us.  That is necessary.  After all, how would you expect to keep on track after you did the hard work of change if you could not rely on habit to help you by keeping you doing your new activities.  Well, that is the same "habit process" which is now working against you.  Habit does that ... it helps you resist change.  It does not know what is good or bad ... it is simply anti-change.  (Note: this idea is very much against the new age stuff you hear that change is easy -- if only ...  Change is HARD and it NEEDS to be so.  That is not to say it is TOO hard.  It is also not to say that you can't find a way that is RELATIVELY easier than some brute force approaches.  But habit is a stabilizing force that resists change and therein lies the difficulty.)

 

So to see behavior motivation as resulting from "positive reinforcement" is overly simplistic.  That is one useful and perhaps necessary component -- but it is FAR from the only thing you need to do.  It would be like the captain of a ship saying that all he has to do is decide he wants to change course, have the first mate say: "Great idea captain." and all would be accomplished.  Well, not so much.  He has to actually turn the wheel (metaphorically speaking) and the engines have to alter speed, the rudder has to move, he has to watch the progress and know when to stop, etc.  There are a lot of mechanics to any process such as this.

 

I have been in the change biz for a long time now.  I have seen people succeed and fail.  I don't pretend to know everything that works.  I am deeply puzzled by some aspects of what makes change fail.  But one thing I have seen is that those who change easily and quickly have certain attributes of personality.  They WANT the change deeply and personally.  They don't conceive of any alternative to the change.  They are blind to the possibility of failure.  The won't listen to or tolerate nay sayers.  They put energy into the effort and stick with it and take pleasure in every success and "shrug off" as irrelevant any set back.
 

Admittedly, this discussion seemed to be focused on motivating others
through some kind of on-line contact.  It may be difficult in such a context
to administer appropriate positive reinforcement for anything except sending
well-composed and otherwise appealing e-mail messages.  It would be
interesting to determine circumstances in which it could work and
specifically how to deliver appropriate postive reinforcement for self-help
efforts on-line.

 

Alas, I think the effort will go nowhere.  Those who appeal to others for "motivation" are not good candidates for change.  That is not to say that people can't ask for advice or even some support.  But change has to come from within.  As a long time change worker, I see my role as more of an advisor than a motivator.  I turn away quite a few people who come to me with the "wrong" mindset.  It is not useful to waste their time or my own.  I know we like to think that everyone will succeed in everything, but it just is not the way life works out, I'm afraid.

 

 

--
Cheers,
Mike

[Mike De Bruyn]

On 5/20/07, db <dancin...@gmail.com> wrote:

Suffice it to say you have some unusual perspectives and, apparently,
experiences.

 

Not so much.

The question is motivated by what? What motivates a person?

 

It depends on the person.  What motivates you may not motivate me.  But put that way it sounds as if motivation is external.  That is due to our usual habits of speech.  A better, but more cumbersome, formulation would be: "The perceptions of the world and my place in it and the possibilities I see for my success cause me to motivate myself, while yours, though different, cause you to motivate yourself."  As I say, more of a mouthful so we use a shorthand that leads to confusion.

Is it just
"built-in" or is there an external component?

 

Motivation is largely built-in.  A first cut at it is to look at personality.  People who are moving and doing have one kind of personality, those who are sitting around, another.  That begs the question, of course: "What is personality?"  If only we knew.

 

As to the external component, it is largely perception of our external reality, so far as I have seen.  Everyone is "motivated" (and I mean that generally to cover every emotion) by one's perception of reality and one's analysis of how it will affect one, for good or ill.  So part is external (reality) and part internal (the perception and the analysis).

If any is external, why
can't that include other people, or does it just have to be money and
hunger for food?

 

It includes everything.  Reality is the external.  We all pretty much have the same reality -- maybe 90+% anyway.  But how we perceive it varies.  As children, many might be starving -- of those, some will feel motivated to become captains of industry while others will become thievs and others will curl up and die.  It all depends on how we see things and how we see ourselves and some fundamental essence which we are born with.  Anyone who thinks we are all "equal" is just living in a dream world.  You can look at a newborn infant and see either alertness or passivity.  We are different.

Were you never motivated by the cries or smiles of a mother or child?

 

???  I have no clue what you are asking.

Simplistic declarative statements add little insight, and often are
used to justify dismissal of others.

 

???  Simple declarative statements add a lot of insight when they reflect what is.  I find clarity useful to understanding.

Where do you get your "record of Professionals"?

 

???

--
Cheers,
Mike

[Dennis C. During]

-----Original Message-----
From:  Mike De Bruyn

Hi Dennis,

On 5/20/07, Dennis C. During <dcdu...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Mike:

Why doesn't behavior modification through positive reinforcement work in
most cases ?  It may be difficult for the reinforcer to get outside his own
emotionally driven responses, but it seems as if it CAN be done.

 

The initial post was, it seemed to me, to have to do with motivating others.   

Yes.  Positive reinforcement is the most basic way to motivate someone else.

 

 IMO, that can't be done.  Motivation must come from within.  One can nag, lead, cajole, argue, punish, reward, etc. but none of that is really motivation.  It is an attempt to get a person to motivate himself by making it rewarding, or punishing the alternative.  

I think that positive reinforcement, giving people praise or other rewards that you can afford to give repeatedly and that they value, is extrinsic motivation.   You are saying, apparently that only intrinsic motivation is 'true' motivation.  This is a novel use of language.

As to modifying one's own behavior, positive reinforcement does work, but, as you say, one has to kind of get outside of one's self in order to administer the reinforcement.   

I wasn't talking about self-reinforcement.  I was referring to the fact that much interpersonal communication is dominated by the communicator's own emotional needs rather than accurate perceptions of the needs of the recipient.  A program of reinforcement requires careful attention to the needs of the recipient.

 It can be tricky to do. 

 Both what I had been saying and repeated above and what you thought I was talking about are tricky to do.

The real problem I see, in all change work, is keeping the effort going.  In the typical situation you (the rhetorical you ;-) decide you want to change your behavior.  Let's say you want to lose a few pounds -- to take one of the more common examples.  You decide you've had it with the current situation, you read some books, you make some plans and you get charged up.  O.K.  that's day one ;-)  Then the next day you see the deserts as you scan the menu and your old habit kicks in.  Alas, you've "failed".  That failure is demotivating and you are frustrated.  Now you not only have to get yourself "charged up" again, but you must ALSO overcome the negative motivation from failure.  

I was not talking about this. 

 

Admittedly, this discussion seemed to be focused on motivating others
through some kind of on-line contact.  It may be difficult in such a context
to administer appropriate positive reinforcement for anything except sending
well-composed and otherwise appealing e-mail messages.  It would be
interesting to determine circumstances in which it could work and
specifically how to deliver appropriate postive reinforcement for self-help
efforts on-line.

 

Alas, I think the effort will go nowhere.  Those who appeal to others for "motivation" are not good candidates for change.  That is not to say that people can't ask for advice or even some support.  But change has to come from within.  As a long time change worker, I see my role as more of an advisor than a motivator.  I turn away quite a few people who come to me with the "wrong" mindset.  It is not useful to waste their time or my own.  I know we like to think that everyone will succeed in everything, but it just is not the way life works out, I'm afraid.  

I hope (but don't really expect) that hardly anyone besides me will be tempted to look for ways of delivering positive reinforcement for self-change programs on-line.  I don't need any competition.

--
Cheers,
Mike

Dennis C. During

"To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt." - Elizabeth Cady Stanton, American women's rights advocate (1815-1902)

"What is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth." - Richard P. Feynman, Nobelist, physicist, raconteur, bongo player, safe-cracker

dcdu...@gmail.com
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SelfExperimenters/

[Mike De Bruyn]

Hi,

On 5/21/07, Li Wei <sngl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Two points here:
>
> 1) I thought the question was "motivation", not providing information, help,
> or guidance.
>
> 2) I disagree that psychologists, etc. help much.  The record of
> professionals in this area is dismal -- to say the least.
>
> In my experience, if a person is not motivated, nothing will get him to
> move.


db's queston is valid here. Where does motivation come from?

 

See my answer to him and assess if that helps.

If you
believe that motivation is entirely internal, then you might very well
be right (and your experience may tell you so)

 

Not entirely internal, but mostly so.  That is to say, what we "control" (to use a word which is very undefined in this context) is the internal part.  But not even all of that.  That part of us which we call "personality" is not very easy to change, if we can change it at all.  The jury is not in on that one, as I see it.

 

I can see a person being "motivated" by external stimulus -- take the situation where the vision of a very rewarding outcome is presented if only a person acts.  The problem is that we can't reliably use that as a tool to manipulate others, as many want to do.  The reasons are many, for example:

 

- We don't know what any particular person would see as rewarding.  (Mother Teressa was motivated by suffering.)

- We can't sustain motivation in the face of obstacles if we are only motivated by the perception of the possibility of success..

But I'm guessing that
your experience might be quite an exception,

 

Not so much.

compared to others who
have helped those around them.

 

Those of us in the change biz usually think of ourselves as advisors, not "motivators" nor those who "have helped others".  If others attain a goal after talking with me, that is to their credit, not mine.

I suppose we're all asking HOW we can
help, and not simplying rejecting the idea that we can help.

 

Like asking HOW we can fly by flapping our arms and not simply rejecting the idea that it does not work and building a plane instead?  ;-)

Rejecting
is a dead end isn't it?

 

If the end is dead, then acknowledging that is very helpful -- unless frustration is what one is after.  Time and resources are limited and we need to apply them where they will accomplish something.  That said, if you want to go down a path I see as a dead end, don't let my opinion stop you.  Who knows, you might achieve some breakthrough in psychology and we will all benefit.  ("I'm pullin' for 'ya."  - Red Green ;-)

--
Cheers,
Mike

[triciawriting]

One external way that I think can help is reframing. Often a person is
stuck in one way of viewing something and it takes an external source
to help them see things from a different perspective. The classic
(some might say cliche) example of this is someone wanting to go back
to school but bemoaning that it would take three years. The reframing
comes in when someone says, yeah, but the time is going to go by
anyway and you can find yourself at the end of three years with a
degree or not.

I agree with the others in believing that most motivation comes from
inside, but I also believe it is possible to give a gentle nudge with
reframing.

Tricia

[Mike De Bruyn]

Hi Tricia,

On 5/22/07, triciawriting <tricia...@gmail.com> wrote:

One external way that I think can help is reframing. Often a person is
stuck in one way of viewing something and it takes an external source
to help them see things from a different perspective. The classic
(some might say cliche) example of this is someone wanting to go back
to school but bemoaning that it would take three years. The reframing
comes in when someone says, yeah, but the time is going to go by
anyway and you can find yourself at the end of three years with a
degree or not.

 

Yes, reframing is a powerful tool.

I agree with the others in believing that most motivation comes from
inside, but I also believe it is possible to give a gentle nudge with
reframing.

 

Where I disagree is that it is a nudge.  The person who wants to change must nudge himself.  You can show him a tool and he can either use it or not.  He can either make it work for him or not.  The motivation comes from inside.  I know you have met people who you can reframe things from sunup to sun down and they still will not change thier point of view.  I call them the "yes but" gang.  ;-)

 

In the end, I think your point of view on this depends a lot on your world view.  Do you view people as fundamentally powerful or powerless.  If you view them as powerless, then you will buy into the external motivation theory -- people are just wishy-washy and can be controlled from the outside.  In fact they MUST be, or they will come to harm.  It is our duty to make the world a safe place for everyone else and only we know what that means.  A psychological Socialism, if you will.

 

If  you believe in the fundamental power each of us has to control our own destiny and know what is right for us, then you will see motivation coming from within.

 

Or one can look at it from the frame of religion: are you a Baptist or Buddhist?  Do you think people need to be whipped by harangue of hell fire and brimstone, or do you believe it is wrong to step in and attempt to deprive any soul of the opportunity to learn and grow by his mistakes?

 

There are many interesting frames one can put around this one.  ;-)

--
Cheers,
Mike

[Mike De Bruyn]

Hi Again Dennis,

On 5/22/07, Dennis C. During <dcdu...@gmail.com> wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From:  Mike De Bruyn

Hi Dennis,

On 5/20/07, Dennis C. During <dcdu...@gmail.com > wrote:

 

Mike:

Why doesn't behavior modification through positive reinforcement work in
most cases ?  It may be difficult for the reinforcer to get outside his own
emotionally driven responses, but it seems as if it CAN be done.

 

The initial post was, it seemed to me, to have to do with motivating others.   

Yes.  Positive reinforcement is the most basic way to motivate someone else.

 

Oy.  LOL ;-)  I'll leave you to that viewpoint then.  Clearly you have some vested interests.

  IMO, that can't be done.  Motivation must come from within.  One can nag, lead, cajole, argue, punish, reward, etc. but none of that is really motivation.  It is an attempt to get a person to motivate himself by making it rewarding, or punishing the alternative.   

I think that positive reinforcement, giving people praise or other rewards that you can afford to give repeatedly and that they value, is extrinsic motivation.   You are saying, apparently that only intrinsic motivation is 'true' motivation.  This is a novel use of language.

 

Yeah, novel language ... that's the problem.  Perhaps Gmail will add a Gothic font to it's menu and that will make things look more stodgy and established.  ;-)

As to modifying one's own behavior, positive reinforcement does work, but, as you say, one has to kind of get outside of one's self in order to administer the reinforcement.    

I wasn't talking about self-reinforcement.  I was referring to the fact that much interpersonal communication is dominated by the communicator's own emotional needs rather than accurate perceptions of the needs of the recipient.  A program of reinforcement requires careful attention to the needs of the recipient.

 

Well, if that is what you said, you certainly did not communicate it clearly in the words I read.  I certainly agree that communication needs to be focused on the person being communicated to.

 It can be tricky to do. 

 Both what I had been saying and repeated above and what you thought I was talking about are tricky to do.

The real problem I see, in all change work, is keeping the effort going.  In the typical situation you (the rhetorical you ;-) decide you want to change your behavior.  Let's say you want to lose a few pounds -- to take one of the more common examples.  You decide you've had it with the current situation, you read some books, you make some plans and you get charged up.  O.K.  that's day one ;-)  Then the next day you see the deserts as you scan the menu and your old habit kicks in.  Alas, you've "failed".  That failure is demotivating and you are frustrated.  Now you not only have to get yourself "charged up" again, but you must ALSO overcome the negative motivation from failure.   

I was not talking about this. 

 

Well then ... as the old skit on SNL goes: "Never mind."  ;-)

 

Admittedly, this discussion seemed to be focused on motivating others
through some kind of on-line contact.  It may be difficult in such a context
to administer appropriate positive reinforcement for anything except sending
well-composed and otherwise appealing e-mail messages.  It would be
interesting to determine circumstances in which it could work and
specifically how to deliver appropriate postive reinforcement for self-help
efforts on-line.

 

Alas, I think the effort will go nowhere.  Those who appeal to others for "motivation" are not good candidates for change.  That is not to say that people can't ask for advice or even some support.  But change has to come from within.  As a long time change worker, I see my role as more of an advisor than a motivator.  I turn away quite a few people who come to me with the "wrong" mindset.  It is not useful to waste their time or my own.  I know we like to think that everyone will succeed in everything, but it just is not the way life works out, I'm afraid.   

I hope (but don't really expect) that hardly anyone besides me will be tempted to look for ways of delivering positive reinforcement for self-change programs on-line.  I don't need any competition.

 

It's pretty much too late.  Change work is very popular and crowded ... it is far too easy to promise the big rock candy mountain and deliver some CDs at great cost which do little or nothing.  It is a very tempting way to churn money and so there are many people doing it.  I suspect the market is basically limitless however, so you need not worry much about competition.

 

Good luck with your project.


--
Cheers,
Mike

[triciawriting]

On May 11, 4:59 am, "Mike De Bruyn" <mikes.mail.li...@gmail.com>
wrote:
...

> Where I disagree is that it is a nudge. The person who wants to change must
> nudge himself. You can show him a tool and he can either use it or not. He
> can either make it work for him or not. The motivation comes from inside.
> I know you have met people who you can reframe things from sunup to sun down
> and they still will not change thier point of view. I call them the "yes
> but" gang. ;-)
>

...

I see people as scattered along a spectrum, rather than only gathered
at one extreme or the other. When the 'want' is there and it's only
the perceived insurmountability of the obstacle that keeps them from
moving forward, then helping them see that the obstacle may not be
insurmountable after all is indeed helpful. I see that as a gentle
nudge. The 'want' is inside the person. I'm not making them do or say
anything that is not already there. Not all will want that kind of
reframing. Some are more comfortable having their world view
reaffirmed. That's fine. That, as you say, is their choice.

My point, however, is that while we may believe we know how people
will react, we really don't. Human beings can get into ruts of beliefs
as much as any other kind. Sometimes it's based in how we were raised,
sometimes it's based in our fundamental personalities, sometimes those
beliefs are picked up as we grow up and move through life. Imo, a
comment that offers an alternate perspective is not harmful, as long
as it's done is such a way that leaves off judgment and coercion.

That gentle nudge I believe can possibly help someone. Why prejudge
them? Why not give them the chance to act? How they use the
information is up to them. They may, indeed, ignore the information.
That's fine. It's their choice, but at least I've given them a choice
they (possibly) didn't know they had. I do not see the harm in that
gentle nudge of reframing. I do, however, see harm in coercive dogma
couched in terms of 'suggestions' or where the sub-text of the words
is more 'I'm right and you're an idiot not to see that' than 'here's
an idea.'

Tricia

[triciawriting]

On May 11, 4:59 am, "Mike De Bruyn" <mikes.mail.li...@gmail.com>
wrote:
...

> Where I disagree is that it is a nudge. The person who wants to change must

> nudge himself. You can show him a tool and he can either use it or not. He
> can either make it work for him or not. The motivation comes from inside.
> I know you have met people who you can reframe things from sunup to sun down
> and they still will not change thier point of view. I call them the "yes
> but" gang. ;-)
>

[triciawriting]

On May 11, 4:59 am, "Mike De Bruyn" <mikes.mail.li...@gmail.com>
wrote:
...

> Where I disagree is that it is a nudge. The person who wants to change must

> nudge himself. You can show him a tool and he can either use it or not. He
> can either make it work for him or not. The motivation comes from inside.
> I know you have met people who you can reframe things from sunup to sun down
> and they still will not change thier point of view. I call them the "yes
> but" gang. ;-)
>

[triciawriting]

On May 11, 4:59 am, "Mike De Bruyn" <mikes.mail.li...@gmail.com>
wrote:
...

> Where I disagree is that it is a nudge. The person who wants to change must

> nudge himself. You can show him a tool and he can either use it or not. He
> can either make it work for him or not. The motivation comes from inside.
> I know you have met people who you can reframe things from sunup to sun down
> and they still will not change thier point of view. I call them the "yes
> but" gang. ;-)
>

[triciawriting]

On May 11, 4:59 am, "Mike De Bruyn" <mikes.mail.li...@gmail.com>
wrote:
...

> Where I disagree is that it is a nudge. The person who wants to change must

> nudge himself. You can show him a tool and he can either use it or not. He
> can either make it work for him or not. The motivation comes from inside.
> I know you have met people who you can reframe things from sunup to sun down
> and they still will not change thier point of view. I call them the "yes
> but" gang. ;-)
>

[triciawriting]

On May 11, 4:59 am, "Mike De Bruyn" <mikes.mail.li...@gmail.com>
wrote:
...

> Where I disagree is that it is a nudge. The person who wants to change must

> nudge himself. You can show him a tool and he can either use it or not. He
> can either make it work for him or not. The motivation comes from inside.
> I know you have met people who you can reframe things from sunup to sun down
> and they still will not change thier point of view. I call them the "yes
> but" gang. ;-)
>

[db]

Tricia,

You can delete all but one of those; click on more options top right.

db

[Li Wei]

On May 23, 4:01 am, "Mike De Bruyn" <mikes.mail.li...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > If you believe that motivation is entirely internal, then you might very well

> > be right (and your experience may tell you so)
>
> Not entirely internal, but mostly so. That is to say, what we "control" (to
> use a word which is very undefined in this context) is the internal part.
> But not even all of that. That part of us which we call "personality" is
> not very easy to change, if we can change it at all. The jury is not in on
> that one, as I see it.
>
> I can see a person being "motivated" by external stimulus -- take the
> situation where the vision of a very rewarding outcome is presented if only
> a person acts. The problem is that we can't reliably use that as a tool to
> manipulate others, as many want to do. The reasons are many, for example:
>
> - We don't know what any particular person would see as rewarding. (Mother
> Teressa was motivated by suffering.)
> - We can't sustain motivation in the face of obstacles if we are only
> motivated by the perception of the possibility of success..

Mike, thanks for your replies (to many posts).

If you say that a person can have his/her 'motivation' influenced by
external stimulus, isn't it possible that as an 'advisor' a person can
introduce the right stimulus to influence someone's motivation? True,
reliability is an issue, as is absolute certainty as to what would be
viewed as rewarding. Isn't that where the hard work as an 'advisor'
comes in?

And how would you think motivation is sustained, if not by the
perception of the possibility of success?

> > I suppose we're all asking HOW we can help, and not simplying rejecting the idea that we can help.
>
> Like asking HOW we can fly by flapping our arms and not simply rejecting the
> idea that it does not work and building a plane instead? ;-)

Isn't building a plane an answer to how we can fly? ;-)

> Rejecting is a dead end isn't it?
>
> If the end is dead, then acknowledging that is very helpful -- unless
> frustration is what one is after. Time and resources are limited and we
> need to apply them where they will accomplish something. That said, if you
> want to go down a path I see as a dead end, don't let my opinion stop you.
> Who knows, you might achieve some breakthrough in psychology and we will all
> benefit. ("I'm pullin' for 'ya." - Red Green ;-)

About this, I was wondering if you've achieved any breakthroughs with
your own philosophy that we can learn from?

I'm also interested in finding out more about cases that you have
encountered of people who had the 'wrong mindset' that you mentioned
in another reply. How was it wrong? Also, what has your experience
been with people who you classify as 'not motivated' (and unmovable)?

[Mike De Bruyn]

Hi Again ;-)

On 5/24/07, Li Wei <sngl...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 23, 4:01 am, "Mike De Bruyn" <mikes.mail.li...@gmail.com >
wrote:

> > If you believe that motivation is entirely internal, then you might very well
> > be right (and your experience may tell you so)
>
> Not entirely internal, but mostly so.  That is to say, what we "control" (to
> use a word which is very undefined in this context) is the internal part.
> But not even all of that.  That part of us which we call "personality" is
> not very easy to change, if we can change it at all.  The jury is not in on
> that one, as I see it.
>
> I can see a person being "motivated" by external stimulus -- take the
> situation where the vision of a very rewarding outcome is presented if only
> a person acts.  The problem is that we can't reliably use that as a tool to
> manipulate others, as many want to do.  The reasons are many, for example:
>
> - We don't know what any particular person would see as rewarding.  (Mother
> Teressa was motivated by suffering.)
> - We can't sustain motivation in the face of obstacles if we are only
> motivated by the perception of the possibility of success..


Mike, thanks for your replies (to many posts).

 

Welcome.

If you say that a person can have his/her 'motivation' influenced by
external stimulus, isn't it possible that as an 'advisor' a person can
introduce the right stimulus to influence someone's motivation? True,
reliability is an issue, as is absolute certainty as to what would be
viewed as rewarding. Isn't that where the hard work as an 'advisor'
comes in?

 

It comes down to viewpoint, I think.  I find it more useful to see it from the perspective of the person being "motivated".  From his point of view, it all comes down to what he desires.  No matter what carrot you dangle in front of him, if he does not "generate" the power to "move", then he does not move.  IOW, neither the carrot nor the stick "move" a person, they just give him a possible incentive to WANT to move.  In the end, it is up to him to decide how to respond.

 

It is useful to view it this way, IMO, because the person being motivated is the one who will bear the consequences (good or bad) so he is the only one who really has a dog in the fight, as it were.

And how would you think motivation is sustained, if not by the
perception of the possibility of success?

 

Again, how motivation is sustained depends entirely on the person.  I think, as a good general rule, feedback is crucial.  People vary as to what constitutes sufficient feedback and incentive.  Some, often called "self starters" seem to generate everything from nothing.  They seem to be "born ready".  They are always looking for something to do to improve their lot in life.  Some wait at the starting gate for the rabbit to start down the track and then take off in chase of it.  But some people just don't care, no matter what.  If they are not fed, they starve, or muster up just enough energy to get the next meal, and perhaps stay out of the rain and cold.

 

To take the extremes there: in the first case, nothing you say or do will change the self starter, he is already gone and out of ear shot.  In the last, nothing changes him because he is in his own world and not listening, or caring.

> >  I suppose we're all asking HOW we can help, and not simplying rejecting the idea that we can help.
>
> Like asking HOW we can fly by flapping our arms and not simply rejecting the
> idea that it does not work and building a plane instead?  ;-)


Isn't building a plane an answer to how we can fly? ;-)

 

Not in the way I intended the example.  Building a plane is all we can do, and so it is useful and gets the job done.  But if you don't HAVE a plane, or can't build one, you can't fly.  If you can truly fly, like a bird, you just do it.

 

But more to the point ... if we assume that some outcome is possible, and it is truly not, then we waste energy in attempting it.  It is a crucial part of problem solving to decide what is possible and what is not (given the existing conditions).  To decry anyone who thinks outside the box and sees the initially stated goal as not possible only distracts from the solution to the problem.  If you throw rocks at the person who, correctly, points out that we don't have wings and so need to build a plane, then no plane gets built.  The first step in solving any problem is eliminating the impossible or unworkable.

 

Here is a better example:  "I want to be rich."  The first step is to eliminate unpromising plans (most of it done subconsciously and without awareness).

 

- Robbing a bank is not a good idea.

- Marrying a rich person would work, but what are the odds like?  Reconsider it later, perhaps.

- Wishing to win the lotto would work, but what are the odds?

- Etc.

 

What distinguishes a healthy from an unhealthy approach is how we analyse the problem.  Some people DO win the lotto ... someone has to ... but is that a viable PLAN?  How many people buy tickets all their lives just to fund those handful who do win?  Most!  Some people see robbing a bank as a good plan -- but not many have done it and enjoyed the wealth they have gotten.  It seems that a structured program of working and investing is one of the few ways one can reliably control the outcome.

 

Now there are those who would say that my analysis is negative.  What makes me think that they can't win the lotto?  That is just defeatist talk and I should go away and leave them alone.  I should not reject the idea.  Well, I would say that the person who rejects the idea that buying long shot chances to win money is the person who is in tune with reality and will more likely succeed.  Yet millions buy tickets every week and are purchasing only a dream.  Each week someone hits it big, and millions lose a little bit.  Over time, a handful hit it big (some VERY big) and millions lose a LOT, bit by bit.  The way I see it, gambling is not a good plan for accumulating wealth.

>  Rejecting is a dead end isn't it?
>
> If the end is dead, then acknowledging that is very helpful -- unless
> frustration is what one is after.  Time and resources are limited and we
> need to apply them where they will accomplish something.  That said, if you
> want to go down a path I see as a dead end, don't let my opinion stop you.
> Who knows, you might achieve some breakthrough in psychology and we will all
> benefit.  ("I'm pullin' for 'ya."  - Red Green ;-)


About this, I was wondering if you've achieved any breakthroughs with
your own philosophy that we can learn from?

 

Breakthroughs?  My use of that term was ironic.  I don't see my life as a series of "breakthroughs".  I see it more as gradual alteration in course.  In fact, I think looking for breakthoughs can be something of a hindrance in one's growth.  If one is always looking to "break through", one can miss the gradual changes which are the stuff of which life is made.  Moreover, gradual change is more likely to "stick".

 

Basically, with regard to this discussion, I have changed my orientation from seeing every problem as having only one solution to seeing many possible solutions.  I have also come to see that each person has his own sovereignty and ultimate responsibility for his own life.  I now do not see people as being "wrong" or "broken", but simply on a different path, seeing different solutions than I, or having different information or different methods of solving life's challenges.  In this context, I don't see any need to "motivate" others.  I think that view is somewhat disrespectful of others.  It implies that we know what is right and they do not ... that they are wrong and we are right ... that they are broken and we are whole.

 

I am in the change biz, as I have mentioned here before, and as are some others here.  When people come to me ... well, they come to me, not vice-versa.  I don't go to them and tell them that they need motivation.  In coming to me they take the primary responsibility to change and acknowledge that fact.  Of course, many still harbor the underlying idea that there is a pill of some kind and I will really do something TO them, but we talk about that at the outset.  At any point if they say: "Why is this not making me change?" I reply: "Why have you not decided to change yet?'  I like the philosophy of NLP:  There are only actions which lead to results.  If you don't like the results you are getting, change your actions.  It is not that you are broken, just that you are not getting the results you like.  You are obviously "working" because you are getting SOME results.  You just don't like the ones you are getting so simply change the actions and the results will change.

 

The new age self-help crowd use the example of Edison to make the point of persistence, but it is much more fundamental than that.  ("I did not fail, I simply learned 1,000 ways to NOT make a light bulb.")  They are much too narrow in their approach.  The wider principle is that EVERY action has some result and failure is only a question of quiting before trying the one that gives you the result you want.

 

No person can "motivate" another, nor "fix" another, nor "make" another change.  In my work, I can help people understand why they might be "stuck" and help them find a new way of seeing things so that they can have a clear road ahead of them ... but they have to walk the road, not I.  Moreover, they have to WANT to walk the road, I can't make them or persuade them, or even honestly tell them that they SHOULD.

 

One might wonder if motivational programs work at all.  In my work I have learned that EVERY method of change works for SOME people and NONE works for all.  As to the specific programs such as "positive thinking", "affirmations", "subliminal" material, etc., one only has to note that the people who use them seem to use one after the other, in a never ending search for THE one that works.  Which to me indicates that few of them find one that does.  With all of the people out there selling tapes and CDs and books, you'd think that everyone who wants one would have one by now and there would be no more need for them ... yet the market remains brisk.  This tells me that that approach simply is not effective.

 

Closer to home, one need only observe those who are looking for the ULTIMATE organizational system.  They move from one to another.  They try different implementations.  They discuss the right pen, ink, and log book to use.  It never seems to end.  The story about the management consultant to some tycoon (I forget who now) who was asked for ONE bit of advice to help him become more organized is on point here.  He said: "Make a list of the most important things you need to do.  Number it in rank order by importance.  Start on the top one and don't move on until you have finished."  That simple advice was taken, found to be effective, and no more needed.  But that is the difference between someone who focuses on results and those who focus on tools, methods, and programs. The simple TO DO list is the most powerful organizational tool devised.  For those who do not know what their goals are, making a list of them is another powerful tool.  The rest of it is fiddling around the edges.

 

I would say that if one cannot make a list of one's goals, write a list of ten things one wants to do, in priority order, and stick to that list until they are all done, then the more complex and fiddly systems will simply not help.  They won't help because one does not know WHERE one is going (goals list) and WHAT needs to be done next (TO DO list).  Until one solves those two problems, worrying about the best labeler to use to make pretty files seems much beyond the point of it all.  One will have pretty files but still not get the important work done on the goals which one wants to make one's life fulfilling.

I'm also interested in finding out more about cases that you have
encountered of people who had the 'wrong mindset' that you mentioned
in another reply. How was it wrong?

 

I don't remember the context in which I used that term.  I suppose I was referring to those who wish to be "fixed", or expected someone on the outside to reach in and "motivate them".  If that was the context, I can tell you that they are pretty much where they were before.  I'm sure that some have found new paths.  Some have "awoken" to the truth that it all comes from within.  Some have just tired of going no where and started moving.  I honestly think that the biggest factor in personal change is simply boredom.  People tire of the rut they are in and move on.  Not all ... not always, but many do.  They get tired of working in low paying menial jobs and one day find they have shaved, gotten a hair cut, and bought a suit and are now working in a more meaningful job, have gotten married, etc.  In this case it is called "growing up" ... a bit delayed, perhaps, but that is the nature of human growth.

 

If that is not what you meant, please ask more specifically.

Also, what has your experience
been with people who you classify as 'not motivated' (and unmovable)?

 

I don't see anyone as "unmovable".  Or perhaps it would be better to say that I see EVERYONE as unmovable -- in that the motion has to come from within and they cannot be "moved" from the outside.  ;-)  But as to those not motivated, as I said, there are only a few options and I see them all.  They wake up and start moving on their own; they work with someone (such as myself) who can show them a new way of seeing things and then decide they can do it and start doing it; or they continue drifting.

 

How is the landscape in the general population?  I don't know, but judging by the talk around the coffee pot in the morning being largely about what happened on the TV sitcoms and reality shows last night, I'd guess that most people are not living much of a life -- by my standards, anyway.  But again, it IS their life.

 

Last point, don't you think it is funny that there has sprung up a new class of TV show called a "reality show"?  I mean, the concept just boggles the mind.  That something made for TV and edited by producers to excite an audience is called "reality" -- and if that is reality, what is sitting at a desk and earning a living?  UNreality?  As I say, it boggles the mind.  ;-)

--
Cheers,
Mike

[db]

You can kick a man when he's down, you can help him up, or you can
walk away and say it's 100% up to him. Choice 3 is really a choice to
ignore the very real implications of 1 and 2.

[Mike De Bruyn]

Or you can:

 

4} Call 911

5) Buy him coffee

6) Buy him a hat

7) Buy him a cat

8) Buy him a cat in a hat

9) ... 1,000,000) etc.

 

That's the trouble with propositions of the: "you can either ... or ...".  Even if there are only that many alternatives, it is not always true that you have identified the right alternatives.  Prescriptive ethics has, historically, ignored human nature -- or has defined it to support the desires of those who are selling that ethical code.  I love it when what human nature is becomes secondary to what it is wished it were.  (Well, actually it is tragic, but it will continue, if past is prolog.)

 

Well, be that as it may, I have decided that anyone who does not speak Esperanto is an imbecile and needs to be inturned in a "reeducation" camp.  I mean, if others can dictate what people do with their lives, why can't I?  ;-)

 

O.K.  Now that the discussion has moved from science to religion, I think I'll bow out.

--
Cheers,
Mike

[db]

> O.K. Now that the discussion has moved from science to religion, I think
> I'll bow out.

When did it move to religion? Philosophy at best, but truly cold hard
decisions.