Late last week I discovered a business model that greatly interested me. That’s an understatement – I’m obsessed.
It’s generally how I operate.
I discover something → I enjoy it → I engage it deeply → I wake up a week later to realize I’m completely adrift when the drive leaves as it came: suddenly.
(I’m sure “I talk my wife’s face off incessantly about it” fits in there as well)
Having just completed yet another introductory Psychology course, I suspect that if my pattern of intense fixation followed by sudden protracted apathy were considered to be deviant, dysfunctional or distressing, I could be labelled with Bipolar or Manic-Depressive Disorder. Certainly, my manias are not elevated into psychotic states, but I do experience periods of heightened energy and focus (often to the exclusion of more normal pursuits) on a single idea, activity or pursuit. Shortly afterwards, I find my momentum slow, stall and putter to a quiet death, and I slip into a generally apathetic state that occasionally deepens into a more depressed mind-space.
Perhaps this is a fairly common cycle many people go through in varying intensities and varying time frames.
Lately, I’ve been thinking about drive. About where the WHOOOSH to do something comes from. I wonder if it has its own timeline and itinerary, and I wonder if it takes our plans into consideration. Maybe it behaves like the stubborn bull. Or has it the lamb’s gentle nature?
…
Tim Ferriss, author of the 4-Hour Work Week, suggests that manic-depressive behaviour is often characteristic of entrepreneurs, and he goes so far as to encourage wrangling it into serving one’s goals by “activity pairing”. That is, matching your present position on the rollercoaster with synergistic activities. For example, advertise and publicize when you’re feeling wildly optimistic, but avoid large spending decisions. Likewise, budget and forecast during the post-high descent, but absolutely do not engage in media output. In effect, stop working against your tendencies and help them work for you – develop a two way street between who you want to be and who you really are.
…
An attitude of being in control of your behaviours and making decisions for those around you is not presented as desirable or even possible in the media and in the broader culture of our time. Of course it isn’t – the modern paradigm of consumerism requires us to accept the reality that we’re given and conform to it. But we desperately need to challenge this status quo. Pete Michaud, whose writings I admire, speaks to this need. Michaud references John Nash’s Equilibrium, a subset of the economic study of Game Theory. Game Theory examines the decisions of individual players in a “game”, the rules of the game (such as laws) and how the players’ interactions with each other and the rules emerge as groups that have their own behaviour within the game. Nash postulated that an equilibrium exists in game theory “in which all the players of a game play optimally given the strategy of the other players.” Individual players (in this case, we are all individual players in our communities, churches, schools, workplaces, etc.) will develop the most optimized strategy they can find in relation other players’ strategies. In effect, we determine our best way of life by observing those around us.
However, people are not individual players in the great game of life. This is because we are too small to play the game ourselves. We are players in the organizations, countries, affiliations, and other groups we belong to, which are in turn the players in the world at large (the Global Game). This realization, as Michaud points out, is a drastically new lens to see our lives through. As individuals who exert no significant influence on the Global Game, our decision are largely inconsequential to its machinations and we are therefore free to move in our choosing through the world. As long as we don’t cause disruption amongst the larger players of the game (governments, large corporations, big organizations and such), we can disrupt the smaller patterns without major negative consequence. For example, organizing a rebellion that causes a war would have significant consequences to you. But arranging a remote work agreement with your employer in order to travel (your benefit) while being productive for him/her/it (their benefit) is not going to cause great turmoil at large and so the Global Game will leave you alone.
Disrupting the status quo often means ignoring rules of society that keep you from your dreams. Michaud lays a framework for deciding which rules you should ignore, and which you shouldn’t. If the main argument against breaking the rule is something along the lines of “if everyone did that, [negative consequence]”, chances are you can break that rule because you know that hardly anyone breaks rules like that (Michaud uses the example of printing counterfeit money). As an inconsequential player, breaking the rule has no significant effect on the Global Game. The key to this reasoning is that the system has no underlying moral imperative – it only wants to stay in equilibrium. If you can execute an action that technically breaks a rule, but doesn’t disrupt the system, then you have to apply your own ethics and morality to the question of whether to execute. The system that is telling us how to live our lives is a “conspiracy of none” – it’s only trying to stay stable. There are no evil dudes pulling the strings (sure, there are players that jockey for position is the Global Game, often with underhanded techniques), no secret board of shadowy figures using mind control – the system that has been built over thousands of years of biological, technological, and organizational evolution just wants to stay where it is.
Call it inertia.
It’s (always been, and always will be) time to stop taking our orders from a mindless system and embrace the freedom we all have by virtue of being alive. Develop your morality by testing it. Test it by asking “What would be the real consequence to me, my sphere of influence, and the system at large if I broke this rule I’ve been told to never break my entire life?” Be honest with yourself. Think for yourself (Think by writing, too)
Meditate on the meaning of freedom.
Don’t take orders from me or anyone else – do whatever the hell you know to be right and best for you.
…
My wife likes to drink a cup of tea. I like to drink a pot of tea. It’s very rare for her to ask for a refill, which of course leaves more for my slurping. We know that we complement each other well in many ways, and this is certainly one of them.
It’s funny how something like tea drinking habits can illuminate larger behaviours you’ve been trying to get a good look at. I consider myself a bon viveur, one who enjoys life to its fullest by imbibing generously and always asking for seconds. A long walk is the only good walk, preferably away from concrete and houses. Getting lost is bonus.
Basically, I’m a hobbit.
My wife (who prefers to remain nameless – understandably not wishing to be associated with my strange self) seems to enjoy tempered desires. One cup of tea, thank you, that’ll be enough. I won’t eat that much popcorn, dear, make less (of course I don’t make less – I eat the excess). Just a short walk around the block to get some fresh air. No, don’t bring a map, we’re not going on an adventure. In fairness, she does like to adventure in the summer.
She’s certainly more of an elf.
I’m trying to decide if this difference is meaningful – if perhaps my arms are a bit too rubbery when impulses come a-twisting. Maybe she’s a bit too suppressed and needs to open up to life in general, or her fears are sneaky, sabotaging and unknown to her.
That’s all I’ve got to say, because the (definitely overfilled – oops) slow cooker is infusing my house with the meaty aroma of spaghetti sauce and it’s time to eat lunch.
Shalom