Overarching Societal Patterns 1: The Appeal to Tradition

I spend a lot of time meditating about the overarching patterns that are building as our society moves forward. My thoughts are generally in an attempt to seek out arbitrage opportunities. Finding future arbitrage opportunities is one of my obsessions. Here is the first installment of Overarching Societal Patterns.

The logical fallacy of “The Appeal to Tradition” is probably weaker today than it has ever been in human history. It does, however, still exist very strongly. Wikipedia defines the Appeal to Tradition as: “A common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it is correlated with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of “this is right because we’ve always done it this way.” Anytime you hear someone say, “We do it this way because that is the way it’s always been done” they are committing a logical fallacy.

It’s very likely that for most of human history this fallacy didn’t even really need to be spoken. Generations of people passed without relative change. Hunting was always relatively the same; fishing was always relatively the same. People’s lives were always relatively the same for thousands of years. The amount of loss a person could incur by committing this fallacy was lower over history because the pace of change was slow. However, the world as it presently is changes more in five years than it did between years 0-500. As such, the penalty, and cost, for following the ways of the past has become higher than ever. World War 1 is a great example of the cost of The Appeal to Tradition.

World War 1 was one of the bloodiest conflicts ever recorded in human history. It left the European continent absolutely decimated. It is interesting to look at why the military casualties were so high. Oddly enough the appeal to tradition played a massive part in this carnage. The generals in both armies failed to recognize the change in war technology. As such they used historical strategies that were no longer efficient. This led to inappropriate era tactics paired with better warfare technology. The result was massive carnage. Men walked right into automatic gunfire. As the war went on old tactics were dismissed and new tactics took their place. As it happens, World War 1 was also a significant societal step forward as technology began to really increase the pace of change. The appeal to tradition was costly for our ancestors but it has the potential to be incredibly costly for us. World War 1 is one such example; but how about an example in normal/everyday life.

Lighted intersections are much, much, much less efficient than traffic circles. Intersections result in more accidents, more fatal accidents, higher fuel efficiency, and higher time efficiency. Plus they’re prettier. We as a society know this. Why do we continue building intersections? Obviously there are specific instances in which an intersection makes sense; however, the average intersection could easily be made more efficient with a traffic circle. The angles at which accidents happen in intersections are much more prone to be fatal. Head to head collisions and blindsides lead to thousands of deaths per year. Why don’t we save those lives by installing a traffic circle instead? Because we know intersections, it is just how we’ve always done it.

There are hundreds more examples of how the appeal to tradition is hurting us; both individually and as a society. The appeal to tradition is still causing thousands of needless death per year. Each appeal to tradition is an arbitrage opportunity waiting to be taken advantage of by a business man. Let’s help move humanity forward by finding a solution these important problems. It will take a lot of effort to move people to a new way but that effort is worth it if you find the right opportunity.

Quote Meditation #3

“Money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score. The real excitement is playing the game.” – Donald Trump

In book 4 of The Wealth of Nations Adam Smith talks about the attempt to increase wealth through the acquisition of more and more currency by any means possible. During his time this is how wealth was believed to be achieved, acquisition only. As he speaks about this he likens currency to pots and pans. This idea of money being like pots and pans has the potential to shift anybody’s views when it comes to money. Imagining your bank account to be full of pots and pans really takes away the emotional confusion money often brings. You only need as many pots and pans proportional to how much you cook. The amount of money you need should be directly proportional to the projects you have going plus living expenses. I think the phenomenon Adam Smith touched on is what Mr. Trump is talking about. He realizes the value in having a nearly endless supply of pots and pans but that’s all they are, tools. He’s less concerned about amassing tools than he is about using the tools he already has to win. He’s less concerned about his amount of pots and pans and more concerned about what those say about him as a person.

You can say what you want about Mr. Trump but one thing you can’t call him is stupid. The mental dexterity necessary to amass $10 billion is unhuman. Maybe even more dexterity than is required of a President (haha). It’s also worth noting that if he were in this for the pursuit of money he would have stopped accumulating a long time ago. The fact that he has kept going shows that he’s in it for “the game” and perhaps his mindset is one we should attempt to emulate. If you’re playing to win you’re going to be willing to take a lot more risks than those who are just playing for cash. We already know that risk is the key to self-improvement. The truth is that we really need very little money to live. Living frugally is worth winning your game of choice. That frugal living frees the rest of your energy to be expended on “the game.”

Often times it seems people are overly obsessed with money for the sake of money. They don’t really think about what money is or why it exists. They just want it because society has deemed it valuable. It seems like every rapper ever has put that quest for money at the top but fails to give any legitimate reason about why they want it other than the fact that others want it. Remember that money should be a tool or a measuring stick with which you can improve or measure your performance. When speaking, Warren Buffet sounds as though he accidentally amassed his wealth out of the pure desire to improve his own performance. Bill Gates wasn’t pursuing wealth when he created the Windows operating system, he just happened to stumble upon a cross-section of something that he enjoyed and a lot of people needed.

In showbiz there is a saying: “One for The Man, then one for the soul.” Michelangelo is a good example of this saying. He did work for The Man (Mr. Medici) before he could branch out and do his own work. That is what we much do. Step one, serve and escape the man. Then prepare your place at the table and prepare to play the game with Mr. Trump. Not for the money, but because you love the game.

Esports Land

Video games are my drug of choice. They let me escape into another life when the going gets tough in my real one. My game of preference is Heroes of the Storm (developed by Blizzard) a very competitive Multiplayer Online Battle Arena; or MOBA for short (For the more Blizzard-learned people out there I’m told it’s a “Hero Brawler”). As such, the blossoming “Esports” culture has caught my attention. Blizzard recently started a new Esports division and hired Steve Bornstein as the chairman of the unit. Examples of Bornstein’s former jobs are positions like the CEO of the NFL Network and the CEO of ESPN. This news has created waves of hype as it shows top-dollar commitment to the burgeoning Esports industry. Even Colin Cowherd is getting in on the fun:

Mark Cuban also commented on the rapidly rising Esports culture:

While I enjoy the fanfare and strategy that surrounds these games I do have an issue with the chosen name of “Esports.” I believe that the name hurts the image of the industry for two reasons. One, it causes confusion over what is being done. Colin doesn’t see this event as “sport” while my generation, for some reason, does. Let’s be abundantly clear there is no “sporting” going on in these tournaments. Secondly, it perpetuates the stereotype of the uncoordinated person who wishes they could sport. Chess players are playing a game why don’t they call themselves athletes? Why isn’t there “ChesSports?” You’re not an athlete just because you’re playing a game. Neither are you sporting if you’re playing a game. Game and sport are not synonymous.

So obviously I have to define “sport,” but first I would like to define “game.” The Merriam-Webster definition of “game” is as such: “Activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.” From the very broad language used here we can deduce that “game” is an umbrella term. “Game” seems to describe everything from Canasta to Cricket to Craps. It includes dice, sport, cards, board games and anything else you can think of that is done for diversion or amusement. I’m going to call things like cards and board games subcategories. For example cards would be a subcategory to “game.” Merriam-Webster on “Sport:” “A contest or game in which people do certain physical activities according to a specific set of rules and compete against each other.” It is clear from the definition of sport that it is (a) is a subset of game and (b) has a qualifier: “… in which people do certain physical activities.” This qualifier rules out video games as “sport” because there is no physical activity involved. I press buttons on a keyboard and mouse at work but that is not physical activity.

So let’s ask ourselves: What sub-category of game does video gaming fall under? This obviously depends on the game but I’m going to posit that most competitively played video games are like board games. There is a specific map (Nuketown, Dragon Shire, Summoner’s Rift, i.e. a board) that is used, pieces are selected (guns, characters, perks, talents, etc.), and strategies/movements are formulated to give you the best chance for victory based on the game/board in question . Obviously that sounds a little like sports as well, but remember, physical activity is not involved

If Esports is more like EBoardGames (EBG!?) then why call it Esports in the first place? It just perpetuates the stereotype that nerds and gamers wish they had the physical capabilities to play sport. My baseball career ended with an astonishingly unsatisfying fizzle, however, I don’t pine for a career as an athlete by trying to play professional video games. Video games don’t require athleticism thus doesn’t mirror sport. The name Esports doesn’t liberate non-athletes, it only verifies how badly they wanted to be athletes in the first place, despite their vehement arguments otherwise.

Obviously there are marketers in video game companies that are much smarter than I. Perhaps they’re trying to capitalize on a specific market. The market of those who can’t sport is obviously much bigger than those who can. Maybe Esports is a draw to those folks because they can finally participate in what they have been fooled into believing is “sport.”

Despite the fact above I still stand of the opinion that Esports should try to break away from athletic comparisons. They have the amazing potential to create their own culture and offer a new and exciting industry to people, separate from sports. These games are freaking fun. The title “Esports” is both a turn off for those who see through the very thin veneer and most likely a hurdle to long term viability.

What are your thoughts?

The Most Powerful Medical Operation in Existence

For those of you who have not heard a new, male, permanent, but reversible, contraceptive is in the works. It is called Vasalgel. Vasalgel is a gel that is injected into the Vas Deferens of a male. This gel forms a wall in the Vas Deferens that blocks the flow of sperm. As long as the gel sits in the Vas Deferens the man will be rendered impotent because the sperm will not be present in his ejaculate. The world’s reception of this polarizing news was rather un-noting. There are many people who believe that Vasalgel will not have an effect on the world. However, I believe that it will have a massive effect on the world.

I would argue that The Birth Control Pill, “The Pill,” has been one of the most influential medical innovations of all time; it’s impact on society immeasurable. Why should Vasalgel be any different if it does the job of the pill many times more effectively? The argument from those who believe that this will not change the world is: “We already have incredibly reliable contraceptives like condoms or the pill, why would we need another?” I argue it is not about the effectiveness that makes Vasalgel important, it is the level of responsibility required to use it consistently. When using a condom or a pill it requires dedication and responsibility. As beings who make mistakes, or errors in judgement, the powerful contraceptives humans have been given often go to unused. It takes true dedication to stop in the heat of the moment and put on a condom. It takes true dedication to wake up and take your birth control pills every day. It does not take dedication to go into a doctors office one time every seven years to get an hour long, reverse-able, operation. This is a massive reason, of many, that Vasalgel is a much more legitimate contraceptive. Let’s look at some potential secondary effects that could occur should Vasalgel become the contraceptive of choice:

For decades now women have been in control of the contraceptive in dedicated relationships. Women have had the responsibility to medicate their ovulation away. A daily commitment small as taking a pill is often easy to forget. It comes as no surprise that women often forget to take their pill. It is difficult for people to remember to take their pills for any ailment they may have, men and women. However, the mistake of missing a pill is costly.  Should her ovulation occur the couple will find themselves with a child. Vasalgel will shift the responsibility, and ability, to control contraceptive in a relationship to the man. This fact alone changes the power structure of any intergender relationship. I believe that, with Vasalgel, women will feel the harsh sting of being lied to about contraceptive use for the first time in history and the backlash will be huge. Do you hear me? Huge, massive, startling. Since the 70’s there have been millions of instances of women going off the pill, lying that they are on it, and having babies. Now the tables are going to be turned. It will be interesting to see how society responds to such problems when women become the victims of these crimes.

A second secondary change Vasalgel could cause in society pertains to birth rates. Historically as contraceptives have become more prevalent birth rates have decreased. Currently in Western society we see that birth rates are plunging already. Japan is below replacement, as is Germany. Will Vasalgel bring more of that? If the current relationship between birth rates and contraceptives continues to exist many, many more countries will drop below replacement levels. This will put strain on the economic and political status quo. It will also bring many more problems where the young will need to support the old. As a result we could begin to see advertisements and laws begin to skew towards incentivizing people to begin families.

The secondary changes above are merely scratching the surface of possible societal change that Vasalgel could cause. An operation that allows us to bend purest nature to human will without hardly lifting a finger has to cause change. Humanity has lived with the fear of accidental child birth for the entire time we’ve been on this planet. Cutting off the supply of sperm in a reversible operation is going to change the way humans live forever.

Sales Book Review #2.1: The Little Red Book of Selling by Jeffrey Gitomer

Find Part One of The Little Red Book of Selling review here.

Parts two and three of this review will focus on the 12.5 modules that Gitomer uses to make up the majority of his book. Part two will be modules 1-6.

Module one contains what Jeffrey says is an important lesson for success of all forms: light a fire under your ass. Sales he says is no different. Each successful salesman is working their ass of. Besides, as Gitomer makes clear in this module, you have a responsibility to yourself to achieve.

Module two is all about preparation. Gitomer points out the usual culprit: people not wanting to do their homework. Most people know that they should prepare better but often do not. Gitomer merely points out that this is one of the things that separates the greats from the mediocre’s. The most important tidbit of information Gitomer has to offer here is: “The workday starts the night before.” Gitomer describes how a little bit of preparation the night before can go a long way at work the next day.

Module three is about personal branding. Gitomer leads with this quote: “It’s not who you know, it’s who knows you.” This is an important distinction in the networking game. This distiction leads to completely different strategies. Gitomer lists these strategies in bullet point fashion. I’ll list a couple here. Personal branding is… establishing yourself as an expert, being seen and known as a leader, becomeing known as an innovator, and (most importantly) being willing to give of yourself. All these are important. The oddest one really gets to the core of Gitomer “who knows you” strategy is to buy the internet domain that contains your name. He bought gitomer.com and proceed to make it the landing page for his personal brand. To Gitomer personal branding is all about making yourself a business.

Module four gives a primer on how value and relationships are the most important thing people can give one another. The first part of module 4 is the 6.5 principles of giving value and being valuable. One of those 6.5 principles is “Write stuff in journals, newspapers, ezines and newsletters.” Gitomer says that writing creates a perceived leadership position and is a value statement at the same time. It also allows others who agree or like your writing to reach out and contact you.  The biggest tip of this chapter from Gitomer is this gem: “Stop thinking of your product as a commodity. If you tell yourself you’re selling a commodity, you are doomed to the selling price.” By removing the mental restraint of selling a commodity you can sell something other than the price of the product. However, Gitomer acknowledges that 30-40% of people will always buy off price alone. He says it is best to avoid those people because they’re a pain in the ass and they offer decreased profit margins. Search for people who buy value and sell them the value in your product. This is one of the most dense modules of Gitomer’s book. There is still a lot of value I left out.

Module 5 is networking. Mr. Gitomer says one principle is absolutely necessary to maximize networking effectiveness: “You must go where your customers and prospects go, or are likely to be.” Of course this may be simple to a lot of readers but it was new to me. As somebody new in the business world it’s good to have that set in stone now. Gitomer then provides a list of the best places to meet movers and shakers. While attending these events Gitomer says that you should spend 75% of your time with people you don’t know. That way you can make the most networking progress.

Module six deals with one of the most difficult parts of sales, getting in front of the real decision maker. The essence of this chapter is the same essence that Gitomer provided in Module four. You have to give, provide and sell value. A person has to sell the value of an appointment as well. This is the most complicated chapter of Gitomer’s book.  Getting in front of the decision maker is a part of sales that may be more art than a science. Gitomer builds a lot on his concept of creating a personal brand of value. If you can have an incredible reputation it will be much easier to get face to face with the decision maker.

Part 3 of the review of Mr. Gitomer’s book is coming soon.

What is Deflation?

In our current economic environment deflation has been deemed the biggest boogeyman. However, like most boogeymen, deflation is very misunderstood. Many publications misuse the words inflation and deflation. Personally, I believe it is because the dictionary definitions lack the necessary wording and, due to that, are misleading. Deflation and it’s opposite, inflation, will be explained very simply in this post.

Let’s start with inflation because it is the better understood of the two. A Google search for “Inflation Definition” yields this result: Inflation is “a general increase in prices and a fall in the purchasing value of money.” While this definition is technically correct, it is also misleading. A more accurate wording would be “a general increase in prices due to the fall in the purchasing value of money.” Let’s examine this further.

Inflation is not the rising of prices, it is the decrease in purchasing power of a single unit of currency. Rising prices are merely a symptom of this change in the value of single currency units. Let’s say that I create a new currency called the Wok. I distribute the Wok to 10 people giving each person 10 Wok. There are 100 Wok in circulation (10 people x 10 Woks each).  So, right now, each individual Wok is worth 1/100th of the money supply. Goods are priced according to the demand a market has for it. The price is the average proportion of the money supply that consumers are willing to pay for a good. In this example my friend Ron makes chocolate bars to sell for 1 Wok, Gary makes stuffed bears to sell for 5 Wok and Craig makes Cigars to sell for 2 Wok. That means all 10 consumers have valued a chocolate bar at an average of 1/100th of the money supply, bears at 5% of the money supply and cigars at 2% of the money supply.

I, the ruler of this economy, decide a 50% increase in the money supply is necessary and print off 50 more Wok. I distribute it to my people evenly. After distribution each wok is worth less. Individually, they are now worth 1/150th of the money supply. As a result Ron can no longer sell his chocolate bars at 1 Wok because it he will lose money. He will begin to lose money because each unit of currency that a person pays for his chocolate is worth less. 1/150th is less value compared to 1/100th. So he raises his prices 50% to accommodate the rise in the money supply. Now he charges 1.50 Wok. As you can see he has raised the price of his chocolate bar but consumers still get 1/100th value. Gary and Craig have to do the same. Gary raises the price of his bears to 7.50 and Craig raises his Cigars to 3. This is inflation in action.

Deflation is the opposite of inflation. Remember, it is not the lowering of prices. The lowering of prices is a symptom of deflation. Deflation is the increase in value of individual units of currency. Let’s continue with the example above. My 10 friends are currently using 150 Wok. I decide that there is too much currency in our little economy so I decide to retract 33% of the money supply, 50 Wok. As a result each individual wok is now worth 1/100th. Remember Ron is charging 1.50 Wok for a candy bar. After I collect the money nobody is going to buy his chocolate because it is too expensive. It has nothing to do with what Ron did, it’s what I did. A candy bar has always been worth 1% of the money supply but now Ron is charging 1.5%. To get more buyers Ron lowers his price down to 1% of the money supply. Gary and Craig have to restore original value to their product as well so people buy. Gary brings his price down to 5 and Craig brings his price down to 2.

As you can see, my friends changed their prices in a reaction to the inflation/deflation that I performed. Ron, Craig and Gary all had to respond to my policy changes by changing their price to the agreed percentage of the money supply people are willing to pay. Neither inflation or deflation are defined by the price movement. They are instead defined by the increase or decrease in the value of individual pieces of currency. That increase or decrease in the value of individual pieces of currency causes businesses to change their prices. Remember back in 1st grade when the teacher talked about how “all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares?” Inflation/Deflation has the same relationship with price movement. All inflation/deflation has price movement but not all price movement has inflation/deflation.

Sales Book Review #2: The Little Red Book of Selling by Jeffrey Gitomer

This review will be divided into two posts. Even though it’s a little book it’s incredibly content dense. This article is going only to focus on the introductory part of the book. The introductory section contains some incredible quotes. Even some quotes that tie together well with the last book reviewed.

The second book in the Sales Book Review Series is Jeffery Gitomer’s Little Red Book of Selling. His book is broken down into a forward, an introduction and 12.5 modules. Each of the 12.5 modules has a clear lesson and will be covered in the following post. Some lessons can be summarized in one sentence while others are very dense. The density of this book makes it the type that will be good to read then re-read months later to find even more lessons for the sales process. The introduction of the book is further broken down into 7 sections. This particular review will focus on parts one and two of the introduction.

Let’s start with the very first sentence on the first page of the book, it comes before anything else. Jeffrey says: “The sale is defined by the customer: people don’t like to be sold but they love to buy. Your job as a master salesman is to create an atmosphere where people want to buy.” So much is contained in his opening line. This line is incredibly important because Gitomer states, what he believes is, the mission statement for great salesmen. To Gitomer the mission of every good salesman is to create an atmosphere where people want to buy. The mission is not to sell people, it is to give them an atmosphere where they want to let go of their hard earned money. The word change is subtle but the consequences of what Gitomer says are huge. Those words have the ability to change the entire selling process into something that could better be described as a facilitating process. Ask yourself are you selling people or facilitating their buying?

In part one of the introduction, Why They Buy – An Answer Every Sales Person Needs, Gitomer says that the most important, yet most overlooked question is: “Why are your customers buying?” In fact, he says this question is so important that it is “one billion times” more important than “How do I sell?” Gitomer makes the case that once you figure out your customer’s “why” selling to them will become a snap. He recommends that you directly ask your customer why they are buying. This advices blends together well with Mr. Pinks advice of “becoming a informational curator and guide.” Once you understand why your customer is buying you will be better able to deliver their ideal product. When you understand why they’re buying you can identify problems the customer may not have identified yet. Those problems could be solved by you thus delivering even more value.

In part two of the introduction, Selling in the Red Zone, Gitomer delivers this gem: “The difference between success and mediocrity is philosophy. Most sales people think end of the month. But you have to begin thinking end of time.” Once again Gitomer delivers a one liner that shows a major mission of sales. He describes this philosophy further saying, “If you begin thinking end of time, each time you are in a selling situation, the sale will always be long term, relationship driven and referral oriented.” This quote supports why Gotimer believes the long term viewpoint is superior to the end of the month viewpoint. It is easy to agree with Gitomer but harder to practice. When you are nearing a big commission number the end of the month is all you can think about. It takes some real discipline to remain long-term oriented. Regardless of how hard it is, Gitomer is right, focusing on the end of time will result in an exponential growth in sales over the long term. A salesman will have to wait longer to achieve the high number of sales, but it will be more stable and predictable than the “end of the month” strategy. So instead of your mission being making money by the end of the month try to make as much money possible by the end of time. In this viewpoint the end of the month doesn’t even matter. All that matters is making sure each customer has an incredible experience purchasing from you.

These couple tidbits are by far the most important in Gitomer’s introduction. I encourage you to purchase the book and read the introduction for yourselves. There is still a lot of value left in the 5 parts of the introduction that I have not touched on yet.

 

Sales Book Review #1: To Sell is Human by Daniel Pink

To Sell is Human by Daniel Pink was the first sales book I decided to read this year. I am very happy I read this one before any other, because it contains one key tenant about sales in the modern age: informational abundance has transformed sales into a profession of informational parity that increases the seller’s risk.

The time of the sleazy, rip-you-off salesman has passed. Mr. Pink says they can no longer exist for two big reasons. One, the informational symmetry of our society, crystallized by the internet, allows buyers to be more educated about the products they’re buying. The information that consumers gather is used to make more informed purchases, and avoid bad deals. The example Mr. Pink gives is used cars. Prior to the internet the car knowledge of the average consumer was very limited. This allowed the people who knew a lot about the product, the sellers, to make one sided deals where they benefited much more than the customer. Now, websites like Kelly Blue Book ensure that the customer has a basic knowledge of the vehicle. This knowledge parity restricts salesmen from making one sided sales.

Secondly, the internet changes the risk complex for sellers. In the past if the sleazy, rip-you-off salesman ripped someone off the buyer will badmouth the seller to their family and neighbors. In this situation the salesmen would only lose access to a couple clientele. The internet changes that. Now if a salesman rips someone off the buyer will go to their entire social network and complain. Thousands of people can see “sleazy, rip-me-off salesman ripped me off!” and know to avoid him. That is thousands of sales gone after one bad one. For sellers the risks has never been greater. This leads to a key phrase of the book: seller beware. In the past the seller had all the power because of the informational asymmetry. Now the seller must be more aware then ever because that asymmetry no longer exists.

In part two Mr. Pink goes on to give a couple behavioral recommendations he calls: “The New ABCs of Sales.” First is “attunement.” Pink defines attunement as: “the ability to bring one’s actions and outlook into harmony with other people and with the context you’re in.” After he defines it he gives some examples of how to bring oneself into closer attunement with another person. The second behavioral recommendation is “buoyancy.” To Pink buoyancy is simply the ability to remain emotionally optimistic despite the constant rain of rejection, rebuffs and refusals. After he defines it he gives some examples of how to remain buoyant before, during and after a tough day of selling. Lastly, C is for clarity. Essentially clarity is broadly defined as clarity of purpose. Pink doesn’t give a specific definition. He only provides a broad sense of what he thinks clarity is. I believe clarity to be a catchall term Pink uses to cram many sales behaviors into the book he did not want to leave out. Ironically, that cramming makes the definition seem somewhat unclear. The exercises are good for gathering a general sense of what Pink means when he says clarity.

The third, and final, part looks at the change of traditional sales processes to accommodate the new informational parity. Pink describes how to make a pitch, improvise on your feet and be a better servant. Each of these processes undergoes minor changes but in essence is the same as they always have been.

The first part of Mr. Pink’s book is incredible. Mr. Pink’s thesis will be of incalculable value as I move forward in the reading of sales books. The idea that informational parity now exists has the potential to clarify thousands upon thousands of people’s flawed sales processes. His thesis will help me sort out the good strategies from the bad strategies. I will not have to waste time practicing outdated selling techniques that will hurt my bottom line in the long run. The rest of the book is essentially the consequences of that change. Parts two and three are how to behave, and the changes of a couple common processes, under the new framework. Most importantly Mr. Pink has given me a template by which I can judge other works. Mr. Pink closes part one saying: “Honesty, directness and transparency have become the better, more pragmatic long-term route.”

A Simple Voting Change Solves Complex Problems

Very few ideas have had as profound an effect on me as that of the Single Transferable Vote, or STV. STV is a voting system that could allow the US to break out of the toxic cycle of two-party government and usher in a new era of accurate representation. Below is a video that explains how STV works.

There are so many benefits from such a simple idea that it continues to astound me. Under STV the voting constituency is more accurately represented. No longer are we subject to Democrats vs. Republicans all across the land. Can a Republican most accurately describe the political beleifs of both West Michiganders and West Texans? No, those two groups don’t have much in common. A West Michigander tends to be a further left leaning conservative than West Texans are. In an STV system representatives with more nuanced views can run without being squashed by powerhouse parties. Now the differences between West Texans and West Michiganders are represented in congress. The representative who is sent under STVis the most accurate portrayal of the real views of each place from Texas to Washington to Maine. Better representation leads to laws that more accurately portray what American’s want.

As I alluded to above, American’s have far more diverse political beliefs than two parties can accurately support. STV frees America from the shackles of a two party system. Do Democrats accurately represent the beliefs of both Angelenos and Massachusites? Again, no, those two groups have very little in common. The two party system that we currently have has many drawbacks: alternative views that make geographical areas different from one another are downplayed and unrepresented, it’s less competitive leading to apathy among the representatives, the only political choice constituents get is the choice given to them from the political parties, it leads to voter un-interest, and, finally, it leads to voting strategy.

In the current political climate people have to think about how others are going to vote then accommodate that into their vote. As a result people do not vote for who they really want. A great example of voting strategy is the Ralph Nader fiasco in 2000. Nader had similar views to Al Gore. As a result, many Nader supporters, believing Nader couldn’t win, voted for Gore. They did so because he was their next best choice and had a chance to win. Strategy should not have a place in voting because people do not vote for who they really desire. Whenever this problem arises it comes with a guaranteed skew in the result of political representation. Had voters used STV and been allowed to list Nader first, then Gore second, Gore would have beat Bush and been a more accurate representation of the constituency from 2000-04.

In an STV system Nader could have run and not garnered the hate of the Democratic Party because his voters second choice would have been Gore. With Gore as Nader supporter’s second choice their votes would have gone to him. Thus, we can see that inter-party political strategy also begins to decrease in importance. Currently the constituency only see candidates that are only ok’d by the two big political parties. In an STV system anybody can run without harming one another strategically. This difference allows for more parties to rise up and be embraced. When more parties rise up, there is a wider range of beliefs to vote for which leads to more accurate representation.

Quite possibly the biggest advantage of STV is that it decreases the strategic value of attacking other candidates. Under STV the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th votes of the constituents have a lot of importance. Therefor, candidates can not risk losing those votes. Because candidates can’t lose those votes they can no longer attack other candidates. If they insult a person’s preferred first candidate they will most likely lose that persons second or third vote. A lack of attacking also works it’s way into debates. Debates now focus on a more constructive and positive dialogue that can better inform voters. Imagine watching a debate when political candidates do not try to break the character of one another. Imagine watching TV and only seeing positive political ads!

STV, while incredible, does have its drawback. In an STV system it takes longer to tally the total vote. With all the moving of votes it will take at least an extra 24 hours. However, isn’t better representation worth the wait?

The United States and Its Debt

Politicians, political pundits and economists all like to say that the United States federal debt could be paid off if taxes were raised slightly and spending was tightened slightly. The people above make it sound as if paying off the debt would be easy. However, this is not the case. A little simple math makes it abundantly clear that the debt will very, very, very costly to repay

Let us assume that The United States government makes debt a priority and runs a 100 billion dollar surplus that will be payed directly to the debt. $100,000,000,000 is not out of the realm of possibility, it has actually been done relatively recently. However, even if the United States re-payed 100 billion per year it would take 181.5 years to pay off the debt. In the last 60 years there has been a budget surplus of 100 billion, or more, 4 times, 1998-2001. To assume that the federal government has the discipline to run 181.5 years of a slight government surplus is ridiculous. Since 1940, 4 years of surplus is the longest yearly streak they have had. The new streak would have to be 45 times longer. It is laughable to expect a government to achieve this streak while there is no historical data that it can do so. The above was simple math. Hold onto your hats because it’s about to get more complicated.

The worst part about debt is the interest. The simple calculations above did not take interest payments into account, so let’s do that now. The US debt of approximately 18 trillion 150 billion, and always rising, dollars turned out to have interest payment of roughly 431 billion dollars in 2014. 431 billion dollars of the federal governments budget last year went to paying down debt interest. The higher this number the more difficult it will be for the government to reach surplus. Also, as you can see from this chart interest rates are sitting at historical lows. When the interest rate begins to rise the government will have to spend more and more on interest payments. With more money being allocated to the interest it will become increasingly difficult to reach a government surplus. The average interest rate on the chart linked above is 5.1%. If interest rates were to rise to 5.1% the interest payments on the current debt would more than double. At a historically average interest rate of 5.1% the government payments, just on interest, would be 909 billion dollars per year. That would make interest payments the second largest item in our budget, a mere 16 billion behind Medicare and Medicaid. The worst part about interest is that it provides no value. Medicare/Medicaid provide healthcare for the elderly and poor. Interest payments provide zero value to the American people, unless of course the interest is being payed to them. In fact, much of the interest payment goes to our competitors abroad.

The relatively simple math above proves the politicians wrong. It would be incredibly difficult to pay the debt down. Not only would it be difficult now, but it will get harder in the future as well. Rising interest rates will make it more difficult to reach a surplus. Without a surplus the debt can not be decreased. When the debt can not be decreased the interest continues to accumulate making it harder and harder to pay down the debt. When all these factors are taken into account it is clear that the federal government would have to run the most fiscally responsible system that it has in decades, while also doing so for years on end, to make progress on re-paying the debt. That is not an easy task.

*All numbers adjusted for inflation.

Sources:

1. http://www.usdebtclock.org

2. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

3. http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States#Interest_Paid

Gender Relations

This post was inspired by a recent conversation between a girl and a couple guys. The guys asked: “who is the uglier between these two (not present) guys?” The woman responded with: “well, this guy is physically uglier but he’s more attractive over all.” The guys broke out laughing before she even delivered her “but.” All they cared about was which guy was physically uglier, even though she said that the ugly guy is more attractive over all. The woman who spoke became confused because the men completely disregarded half of her opinion.

Males are often ridiculed for our judgement of, so called, “superficial traits” like physical female beauty. This conversation between a couple people made me realize that many women can not imagine men being attracted to primarily physicality instead of personality. They can not conceptualize such a world. Just like most men these days can not conceptualize a world where personality traits are primary. Women are primarily attracted to a set of behaviors and personalities. That’s why women tell one another, “Don’t worry you have a great personality. You’ll be successful in love sometime.” Women are imagining the sexual marketplace operating from their point of view only.

Their logic goes like this: “I am attracted to men -> men are attractive primarily because of various emotional characteristics -> therefor, women are also attractive because of various emotional characteristics, because men judge women by the same way women judge men -> Therefor, if I want to make myself attractive I must increase my character through work and extra-curriculars.” The logic in that reasoning is faulty. Even though there is faulty logic this is the reasoning my female friend was using. It led to her confusion over my male friend’s reaction. Men are not attracted to women for the same reason women are attracted to men. Men are guilty of the same faulty logic.

This is the logic from a man’s standpoint: “I am attracted to women -> women are attractive primarily because of their bodies -> therefor, men with better bodies have a huge edge over those who do not have good bodies because women judge men the same way men judge women -> So to increase my attractiveness I must work on my body.” Again, that logic is faulty. Women do not judge men the same way men judge women. Women do not judge men primarily by their bodies and men do not judge women primarily by their character.

Now, I’m not saying that masculine bodies and feminine behavior have no impact on attractiveness. I’m merely saying that both genders tend to pursue the wrong course of action when they try to make themselves attractive because they view attractiveness from their own genders standpoint. A lot of people seem to think that there is a one-size-fits-all plan for attractiveness that works for everybody in the world. Of course there is not.

For example, many women believe that careers and income play a large part in their attractiveness. When they are thinking this they are really applying a mental schema of attractiveness that applies to men. Careers and income are much more attractive on a man than a woman. So when an individual woman is having success in business without success in the dating world she become confused. She asks herself: “I’ve increased my value, why am I not having success with men?” My answer to her would be: because you have wrongly measured the impact a career has on your sexual attractiveness on the margin. The inverse of this is men who spend too much time on their bodies in pursuit of women. They achieve their ideal physique and then become disillusioned when they do not have the success they thought they would. It is because an attractive body is not as important for a male as it is for a female. Both individuals above are not making the best move to increase their attractiveness on the margin, even though they think they are. That leads to discontent when they don’t have the success in the dating market they think they deserve. That short term discontent leads to long term depression against the opposite sex. This has lead me to believe that the conflict-filled relations between genders in today’s society is coming from a deep seated selfishness and an inability to empathize with the other. Both genders are being selfish in that they are refusing to believe that the other gender has a sexual strategy that is different from, and equal to, their own.

The Lost World’s Masculinity – Part 1

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Lost World is the best book for males because it provides male readers with several masculine characters with whom to relate. It is also an incredible book for males because there is an un-masculine male who makes his own inner journey towards masculinity. The journey Edward Malone, the main character, takes toward masculinity is an unabashed narrative. It is a narrative that provides wayward men with a template for their own journey.

From the very beginning Edward makes it very clear that, while he may not be masculine yet, he is definitely not a feminine male. The fact that we are starting from this emotional background makes The Lost World a coming of age story. Edward reveals that he is aware of the poles at which femininity and masculinity reside when he says, “[her manner was] perfectly frank, perfectly kind, and perfectly unsexual. My instincts are all against a woman being too frank and at her ease with me. It is no compliment to a man. Where the real sex feelings begins, timidity and distrust are always it’s companions.” So right away he begins to sense something is wrong. Sadly, this is more than most males these days. His feelings of something being off parlays into his description of Gladys’ femininity saying, “Gladys was full of every womanly quality. Some judged her to be cold and hard but this was treason. That delicately bronzed skin, almost oriental in it’s coloring, that raven hair, the large liquid eyes, the full but exquisite lips.” Here we have his description of femininity. Every man knows when they find it. It is a deep instinct inside of us that wells up as an intense emotion. Right after his description Edward takes a massive step towards masculinity. He says, “better be a repulsed lover than an accepted brother.”

This thought is a massive step forward for any man. Many men in today’s society labor under the expectation that a woman will one day return his feelings when all he is is an “accepted brother.” It is far more masculine to push further and risk rejection. A large step forward in the development of any man is the realization that if the girl rejects you, you are in a much better place. If you are rejected you are free. No more expectation or worry that she might be with someone else. Edward realizes this and acts accordingly. However, this step towards masculinity is brief, as is to be expected from someone just beginning.

After being rejected Edward jumps to the conclusion most men jump to upon rejection: their looks. Because men judge women by their looks we make the simple mistake that women also judge us by our looks. While this is true, (to what degree you can argue amongst yourselves) male bodies are generally much less important in attraction. Gladys gives the true answer soon after when she affirms that something is wrong with Edwards character, or more importantly, his masculinity. After his failed conclusion she gives a speech you will never hear women utter today. Only because masculine man writes her character does she say any of this, “Well, in the first place, I don’t think my ideal man would speak like that. He would be a harder sterner man, not so ready to adapt himself to a silly girl’s whim. But, above all he must be a man who could do, who could act, who could look death in the face and have no fear of him, a man of great deeds and strange experiences… for they would be reflected upon me.”

Edward responds to her with, “I’d have done it to please you.”

To this Gladys responds with a very important line: “But you shouldn’t do it merely to please me. You should do it because you can’t help yourself, because it’s natural to you, because the man in you is crying out for expression.” This line in conjunction with her earlier stated, “not so ready to adapt himself to a silly girl’s whim,” could have taught Edward the lesson. While Edward could have realized the lesson here he did not. He is still growing and will continue to learn the lesson till the very end of the novel.

(Part 2 is forthcoming)

Quote Meditation 2

“You eat what you kill.”

“You eat what you kill.”

“You eat what you kill.”

“You eat what you kill.” In all of human history, even today, we have only ever eaten what we kill. For almost all of history, to provide, hunters would go out and bring home food for the tribe. They would hunt many different animals because they knew food was imperative for survival.

That long standing fact has hardly changed today. In the past men would kill animals to survive. Even back then hunters solved the most common problem: hunger. The people in his tribe were hungry so he went out and found food, filling the need and answering the problem. The tribe rewarded him for it. Historically the most respected man in the tribe was also the best hunter.

In the present we still kill problems. Solving the problems of humanity provides us with the money which we need to survive. People need light, so Thomas Edison created a new way to provide it, solving a huge problem. Still today those who are most respected in society are those who are best able to answer our problems.

Solving problems always has been, and probably always will be, the lifeblood of man.

In the past the most experienced hunters would go after big game. They knew that the big game could feed their tribe for days. A 200 pound deer could feed their tribe for a very long time. It takes skill and patience, that takes years to accumulate, to hunt down a big deer. The least experienced hunters would go after small game because they had not yet developed the skills to tackle the bigger game.

It is the same today. The most experienced men tackle humanities biggest problems and they are adequately rewarded for it. The least experienced men practice on smaller problems, dreaming about the day when they might be able to bring home a big kill for their tribe.

So when you work, remember that humanity will never be able to get anything that really matters for doing nothing. Those who can afford to live big do solve big problems. They provide value to humanity. They solve problems allowing humanity to live at a higher level, just like the ancient hunters used to do for their tribe. “You eat what you kill.”

“You eat what you kill.”

The Lost World – The Most Masculine Literary Work

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s, The Lost World, is, in my opinion, simply the most masculine piece of literature created since the printing press was invented. The Lost World provides many examples of masculine men, all of whom are living in a primarily masculine culture. These characters are created by a masculine author, who is also, in a primarily masculine culture. Also, it was written about 100 years ago. All these facts make The Lost World a highly relate able, and very thought provoking work of literature. In my opinion, the story of this book is not the adventure to the lost world, but the inner change of the main character, Edward Malone. I encourage you to read the book prior to the article about it that I will be putting up.

The Amount of Carbs You Really Need

It’s all anybody is talking about: Carbohydrates! Where do carbohydrates belong in our diet, if they belong at all? Atkins, Carbohydrate-loading and The Paleolithic Diet are just a couple examples of diet strategies that involve the manipulation of carbohydrates. All this confusion around carbohydrates, or carbs for short, stems from our need to not injure people’s delicate egos. Often times, in an effort to sell their material authors will avoid alienating any specific group of people. Therefor, they write to all people when they should be writing to a specific group. As it is with almost every debate this one is not black and white. There is much more to this debate than “everybody should eat low carbs.”

First, let us examine the role carbs play in our diet. Iowa State University tells us that, “The roles of carbohydrate in the body includes providing energy for working muscles, providing fuel for the central nervous system, enabling fat metabolism, and preventing protein from being used as energy.” One way in which this definition is lacking is an exact measurement of how carbohydrates provide us with energy. Carbohydrates provide us with fast to medium term energy. When consumed, carb energy is quickly turned into fat if not used for energy within the next couple of hours. So when a desk jockey goes out to lunch, consumes a high carb meal, then returns to his desk, he will most likely be adding to his waistline. If there is one lesson you should learn from this article it is that carbohydrates are fast and medium term energy not long term.

So, what is the role of carbs in your diet? The answer to that depends on many different factors. The four key factors in knowing how many carbs you should eat, in order of importance, are: your activity levels, the type of carbohydrate, your current body goals and, finally, your body fat percentage.

Your activity level, and type of activity, is the most important factor in carbohydrate consumption. Here is why. Carbs provide our bodies with fast energy and are our bodies preferred source of energy. However, while preferred, they are also easily transferred into fat. This energy is used in our explosive movements that people use in the weight room or in an athletic competition. If you do not have an active lifestyle you do not need as many carbs. For example, on the days professional bodybuilders do not go to the gym they decrease the amount of carbs that they consume. They do this because they know that their body will require less explosive energy to survive. So, to find out how many carbs you need first ask yourself, “How active is my lifestyle?” If you live an active lifestyle than you will need to consume more carbs than the average person.

The second most important factor in deciding how many carbs you need is revealed in the distinction between slow carbs, also called complex, and fast carbs, also called simple. Slow carbs come from foods like oatmeal, sweet potatoes and other unprocessed foods. These carbs provide you with the medium term energy because their complex molecular structure takes longer to digest. Fast carbs come from foods like cupcakes, cookies, fast food and other heavily processed items. These carbs provide you with the short term energy because they are easy for your body to digest. They have a simple molecular structure that the human body can break down easily. Thus providing you with the “sugar high.” From this point on I will refer to slow carbs as quality carbs and fast carbs as crappy carbs. It is imperative that at least 90 percent of your carb consumption comes from quality carbs. If you eat too many crappy carbs then it will be difficult to change the way your body looks. It will be difficult because you do not use the energy quickly enough to stop it from being turned into fat. As a general rule of thumb just avoid processed carbs altogether. In fact if you make a commitment to yourself to avoid eating processed carbs your carb consumption often takes care of itself. When you have a craving for a crappy carb, like cake, you can fill it with a quality carb instead and your body will thank you for it.

The third most important factor is your current body fat percentage. The higher your current body fat percentage the lower your ability to efficiently process carbs will be. So a low carb diet will help people lose weight but those who do these diets have to be careful to adjust their carb intake as they become thinner, or more muscular. Their body will improve at burning these carbs as that happens. That is the cause of many people losing the progress they gained. Many people tried and failed the Atkins diet because they lost weight but didn’t raise the amount of carbs to fit the new body they now had. Then when their body was starving for more carbs they would over eat, generally on crappy carbs, and gain the weight back. Generally those with higher body fat should consume fewer carbs and more proteins and fats.

Finally, another important thing you need to about carbohydrates is their relation to your goals. Say you have gotten to the point were you can start experimenting with your macronutrients intake. Those who are looking to gain weight will increase their carb consumption. Those looking to lose weight will decrease carb consumption. There are many more body goals than that. I encourage you to investigate personally how carbs impact your goals.

In conclusion, not me, not the USDA or anybody else can tell you how many carbs you need. You would need to come into our office so we can measure these factors to give an accurate prescription. So go take your measurements, be honest with yourself, and find out how many carbs you personally need.