DonationCoder.com Software > The Getting Organized Experiment of 2009

Fundamentals of Productivity: Think!

<< < (2/2)

tomos:
Thanks Paul.

to clarify to anyone who's confused:
I sent Paul a PM looking for clarification about a lot of things in the article up to the Steve Pavlina bit.

I'm afraid after reading that much, and reading your last post, I'm still unsure what the post is about. There were key sentences and lists that I didnt and still dont know what they refer to - you say in your last post that Cons refer to the idea you had (which I'm trying to figure out)
"Basically, all the cons are addressing the guidelines of each thread unless stated otherwise." The guidelines being/meaning?

You say you want it to be ambiguous - it is - to the extent that it quite opaque to me at any rate. Maybe if I had sharp academic reading skills (I think you quoted me above saying I have more the opposite!).

My main point though, was that if you want people to read such a long post, you need a clear summary at the beginning. Otherwise I believe you are very quickly going to lose almost all readers.

P.S. the stuff in your last post about addiction/habits etc. is very interesting btw

Edited for emphasis

Paul Keith:
@tomos,

umm... the guideline would be pretty much the first section of this thread (where guidelines is bolded) although this is a special case for this topic where it's more of a span of the entire theme of the thread.

Yeah, I get your point. As with mouser's reply, I would refer you to the Life Coaching as a Scam thread to show you why I wrote this thread.

On the flip side, the original intent of my GOE posts was to provide a balance set of short and long threads.

Long ones like this deal with the concepts. Short ones deal with direct advises.

Since the threads didn't really work out, the length of this thread combined with it's ambiguity sticks out like a sore thumb.

Still, this is one of my favorite posts so I'm definitely being biased alot.

Edit:

I nearly forgot. I never considered having sharp academic skills as a necessity for understanding the thread for those who haven't read it.

Mostly because I don't know how to write that way but also because the thread didn't need it no matter how many times I read it.

It's kind of why I consider it one of my favorite posts that I have written.

Normally, I feel there are short posts that over-simplify things to the point that it is common sense while there are long posts that over-write or over-add a footnote and a paragraph here and there.

This is one of those situations where I just felt everything came together to balance the issue and ambiguity even if there was a lack of scientific facts or cliff notes to back up each nuance.

Of course, I don't mean to say it hits home but take tomos' main point for example on having a summary.

Even if it doesn't hit home for everyone, I felt that the quoted guidelines perfectly summarizes the core aspect of the post if it was applied while the title summarizes the overlaying theme beautifully.

Then with regards to the anecdotes, each links provide exactly the different perspectives I had with the issue to the point that it creates a harmonious ambiguity that I felt made me think about the issue more than it confused me and yet even if I couldn't put a finger on it, I knew I was taking in themes even in the times where I couldn't put my finger on a single summary. Of course, I was only assuming this as if it was being read by another person besides me.

Although, of course, the fact that I already knew what I wrote kind of puts a damper to that effect.

Anyway sorry for switching perspectives in this issue tomos. I just didn't know how to address it without writing it in such a manner that came off as if I was addressing an invisible group rather than as if I was replying to you.

tomos:
Mucho apologies Paul!
I missed (or read but glossed over) the guidelines at the very top of post one.

I'm very interested in the topic too so I'll shut up and read the rest of the article ;)

tomos:
Well I found the stuff about Steve Pavlina and other self help 'gurus' good. It is an interesting topic.
What's often not considered is why people are so desperate for all this self-help - the answer to it all is presumably there in the answer to that question. Not that that helps us a whole lot!


A few more thoughts/comments:


Steve's "You attract what you're signaling" could just as easily be interpreted as 'if you're happy, you'll be successful'* which again isn't a whole lot of help to the unhappy of the world. But I suspect it's nearer the truth than his version . .

* I personally don't consider making excessive amounts of money as being what success is about - but making enough money is definitely a part of it.


Re your classification of self-help persons:
I personally do believe that life is great, but I just havent figured out how to consistently enjoy it, to really live it. Their instruction (according to you) is: "so you just have to believe!" which reminds me of the whole positivity slant that you hear so much about (or used to at any rate). For example: repeating positive 'assertions' (or whatever you want to call them) reminds me of the way people used to wear perfume instead of washing - you have to remove all the negative first. I probably dont even need to say 'first' there - if you remove all the negative claptrap in your head, what's left - an open neutral person. Sound to me like the way to go ;)

Why dont we all do that then (me too) ?  I think because a lot of us dont know how to say 'No'. Because we've been programmed all our lives to do what our parents want (or maybe our parent's did the opposite and pampered to our every wish which is no help either) programmed  to conform to school and society. Some rebel, but still dont really know how to say a simple 'No'. They're mostly reacting, not really rejecting.
So, what's with the 'No'?
- It's about defining our limits with others, but much more importantly, it's about defining out limits with ourselves. It's about saying to ourselves "No, I don't want or need to indulge in this unhelpful behaviour, or that way of thinking, (or whatever)". If we are lucky enough, our parents were able to give us helpful limits, to show us the way. But most people I know haven't had that luxury (me included).

hmmm I should go off and practice what I preach :)


PS. Paul, some things arent clear above - it's not clear for example when the quotes from app103 end and when your comments begin. It's not made clear in the Pavlina part who is making the comments - if they are mixed (i.e. from the article and the related comments and maybe yours as well?) it would be helpful to state that at the beginning.

Paul Keith:
Mucho apologies Paul!
I missed (or read but glossed over) the guidelines at the very top of post one.

I'm very interested in the topic too so I'll shut up and read the rest of the article ;)
-tomos (September 15, 2009, 06:09 AM)
--- End quote ---

No need to tomos. I apologize if that's how the reply came off.

To be honest, I've been feeling very burned out these past few days but I didn't want to make an excuse out of it.

When I wrote that reply, especially the edit, I just wasn't sure what came over me so I decided to just leave it at that.

What's often not considered is why people are so desperate for all this self-help - the answer to it all is presumably there in the answer to that question. Not that that helps us a whole lot!
--- End quote ---

No. It's a pretty popular opinion that self-help is a scam that plays around with people's desperation. Consequently, this is why self-helps/productivity books/DIYs are often lumped towards the New Age (as opposed to social science).

New Age primarily being a religious movement based around the focus of self as God as opposed to being under God. (although that's an over-simplification)

The thing with these opinions though are that they often come off as knee jerk, biased and dis-illusions from putting faith in a bad program before.

...Yet as with any complaints, they contain grains of truth. This is also an aspect of why I liked how this article came out: The ambiguity represents my own confusion and my own biased agreement and disagreement with both sides.

In that sense, the effect (to me) comes off different from that of an expert or pseudo-expert opinion but from a lay person's accounts of his observations; while still including his opinions in the process.

Steve's "You attract what you're signaling" could just as easily be interpreted as 'if you're happy, you'll be successful'* which again isn't a whole lot of help to the unhappy of the world. But I suspect it's nearer the truth than his version . .
--- End quote ---

No. Steve's blog is famous for being half-New Age/half-productivity articles.

You attract what you're signaling is a belief that first came into fruition during the popularization of Seth.

Seth was a being that came to Jane Roberts during an Ouija Board session and then long story short, he published some books that ushered in the New Age belief.

One of the themes of the belief system was that you had a metaphysical being that is directly a part of the greater being that is God and each time you ask something from this being consciously, these beings will set forth events in the universe that will make your desire come true.

It's a lot more complicated than that, but it keeps getting simplified as time passes.

Soon after there were alot of channelers that popped out and one of them was Esther Hicks which made the book Ask and It is Given popular as she channeled Abraham and the system became simplified to: "Likes attracts Likes" as one of the universal law of the universe.

Up to this point, her book still retained the fact that you must work on it. Put things you want around your room to better visualize and channel your desires.

Later on, that's where the Secret came in and it was pretty much this: (if you prefer the over-simplified humorous skeptical take on the concept) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usbNJMUZSwo

I still recommend viewing it though because it's one of those motivate-you-to-try-this-under-1-viewing videos and so, price aside, it does a good job of inspiring people to visualize IMO.

It's also one of those things that's popular enough in torrents, so you can try it for free illegally.

But at the same time, that method pretty much mean that if the system did work for you, you just need to visualize the right amount of cash and you can buy twice the disks legally with little effort -- and if it doesn't work for you, you just saved some cash from being scammed.

Excluding Seth, Steve has written about both the Secret and Ask and it is Given.

With Ask it is Given, he mentioned that he came up with that similar idea before he knew about Ask and It is Given.

That's why there's strong evidence that Steve was talking about visualization.

On the flip side, that's kind of what makes visualization a strong candidate for scams, inferior productivity systems and over-simplified techniques: The whole idea around visualization is so open-ended that anyone can interpret it easily as anything.

Yet IF a person became productive from such visualizations, as long as it is bundled with a system, the whole system gets the credit.

I personally do believe that life is great, but I just havent figured out how to consistently enjoy it, to really live it. Their instruction (according to you) is: "so you just have to believe!" which reminds me of the whole positivity slant that you hear so much about (or used to at any rate). For example: repeating positive 'assertions' (or whatever you want to call them) reminds me of the way people used to wear perfume instead of washing - you have to remove all the negative first. I probably dont even need to say 'first' there - if you remove all the negative claptrap in your head, what's left - an open neutral person. Sound to me like the way to go
--- End quote ---

Lol, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or witty here.

In case, you aren't joking, it doesn't really work that way in reality. When you remove all the negative claptrap in your head, what's left is a person living in isolated bliss.

At some point, like washing, you'll either realize that washing doesn't remove all the dirt from your body, just reduces it so that you physically can't sense it without being an expert -- or you live in the blissful illusion that as long as you wash yourself regularly, you constantly remove all the dirt from your body.

You'll be less open because once you reach that sensation, you'll be more rejective of the idea that you do still have some negativity because the more you live that way, the more your entire life seems to be structured around the dogma that you're "cleansed/baptized."

This same structure will keep you from being more neutral because when you buy into that perspective, you'll have to reject data. In this case, any data that you deemed "negative", you will most likely reject rather than analyze or address.

You could even attribute this to why Steve has been accused of banning people who go against his opinions in his forum. (That said, I never really tried to clarify this because I never bothered to join his forum.)

Why dont we all do that then (me too) ?  I think because a lot of us dont know how to say 'No'. Because we've been programmed all our lives to do what our parents want (or maybe our parent's did the opposite and pampered to our every wish which is no help either) programmed  to conform to school and society. Some rebel, but still dont really know how to say a simple 'No'. They're mostly reacting, not really rejecting.
--- End quote ---

It's not just that. It's also dangerous to say No.

Even when we reject such programming, being an individual is a lonely life that opens you to being bullied verbally, mentally and physically by society. (The degree of course depends on what specifically it is you are rejecting.)

As you described, being a rebel is a reaction not a rejection. Yet, most perceive it as a rejection so it's still a much safer venue as far as having a group that's united.

Finally the reality is that it's much more rewarding to be perceived as an individual than it is to be an individual so that's a big reason why people don't pursue it.

Even those who are very talented, succeed, not because they were level 9999 of that category but because they played the right game and were at the right place, at the right time and left the right legacy.

So, what's with the 'No'?
- It's about defining our limits with others, but much more importantly, it's about defining out limits with ourselves. It's about saying to ourselves "No, I don't want or need to indulge in this unhelpful behaviour, or that way of thinking, (or whatever)". If we are lucky enough, our parents were able to give us helpful limits, to show us the way. But most people I know haven't had that luxury (me included).
--- End quote ---

Err... you kinda lost me on this one again.

PS. Paul, some things arent clear above - it's not clear for example when the quotes from app103 end and when your comments begin.
--- End quote ---

Thanks. I changed it.

It's not made clear in the Pavlina part who is making the comments - if they are mixed (i.e. from the article and the related comments and maybe yours as well?) it would be helpful to state that at the beginning.
--- End quote ---

No, none of them were my comments that's why they were under the Anecdote category.

As far as specific names, I found it troublesome so I didn't bother.

Add to the fact that I hate the effect that it focuses on the names rather than on the words and I was pretty much convinced to sort it this way. (Negatives, Positives and Warning Signs)

Negatives being downers or cynical messages

Positives being inspirational and motivational messages

and

Warning Signs being an anecdotal version of Keywords to look out for.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page