One Red Hot Country Mama!

I was talking to my friend tonight about making four-figure retail purchases today and both of us just can’t do it. Economic theory says that as you make more money, you will get less out of spending it. So, the idea is that when you are a broke student, the $29 shirt is a luxury but when you make more, you need to spend more to get that same amount of joy. The next thing you know, says the theory, you are making 4-figure purchases.

But, my friend and I disagree. It’s true that "it is your money or your life"… I spend so much of my time at work, getting to-and-from work and building my skills to make sure I am relevant at work. If the only thing I got out of it at the end of the day was a fancy outfit (even worse if it is for work!) I would not be happy. I would prefer to give money to charity (imagine what they could do with microcredit with my $1000)… or at least spend it on an interest (building my wall of books, or music collection – supporting the artists that made them) or on a big trip.

Because, really, at the end of the day what am I going to remember? The entrepreneurs I contributed to in Bangladesh, the great literature I read, the one-month trip to Vietnam… or the tag I had on my shirt back in 2007?

Are we all good inside? Buddhist thought says yes. They believe that underneath all of our fears, anger, regret, shame and jealousy, there is the "diamond mind" which is pure and if you can silence all of the noise, you will find goodness. The Dali Lama says in How to Expand Love:

Is it possible to get rid of problematic emotions completely, or is it possible only to suppress them? According to basic Buddhist insight, the mind is essentially luminous and knowing. Therefore emotional problems do not reside in the mind’s essence, such counterproductive attitudes are temporary and superficial, and can be removed. If distressing emotions such as anger were in the very nature of the mind, then from its inception the mind would always have to be angry. Obviously, this is not so. Only under certain circumstances do we become angry and when those circumstances are not present, anger is not present either. (p. 15-16)

Psychologist Carl Rogers also believed something similar (note: the article in the link is excellent). That every creature strives to do what is good for them (eg. babies knowing what food they need) but it is our social structures and conditions that are imposed on ourselves that limit us:

The entire theory is built on a single “force of life” he calls the actualizing tendency.  It can be defined as the built-in motivation present in every life-form to develop its potentials to the fullest extent possible.  We’re not just talking about survival:  Rogers believes that all creatures strive to make the very best of their existence.  If they fail to do so, it is not for a lack of desire.

I have been a fan of Rogers for over a decade and have recently become interested in Buddhism. But, sometimes seeing people for the best that they are is misleading. The reason? It doesn’t always help you interact with the real world. In Reveille For Radicals Saul Alinsky quotes an old community leader discussing the difference between an effective organizer and an ineffective one:

There was another young feller who came to this town about thirty of more years ago. He tried to sell me just about the same bill of goods that you are giving me. His name was – let me see – it was – oh, yes, a feller by the name of Lincoln Steffens. I turned him down, but I’m gonna play ball with you and I’ll tell you why. This feller, Lincoln Steffens, figured that every man was real good and all you had to do was give him a chance to be better. But you, you young man you believe every man and woman has got a little bit of larceny in their hearts and you’re using that larceny to make them better in spite of themselves and you’re damn right! Go ahead! (p. 128)

I think that this is the best characterization of people. I really think that to see people as their conflicted selves is a better, and probably more compassionate way of seeing them. So – perhaps two out of three of these quotes are not at odds. Because Buddhists see the "diamond mind" as an ideal, rather than the norm. So – it is really Roger’s "fully functioning person" that I disagree with. I think that even a person that grows up and lives in ideal circumstances… would still have some larceny in them .

The editions I am referring to are in the links: How to Expand Love by the Dali Lama and Jeffrey Hopkins and Reveille for Radicals by Saul Alinsky. 

Q. Who is Dr. Phil?

A. He is a fat guy giving diet advice!

In my management role at work, I am frequently asked for advice. I am a competent advice-giver there, since I have been in industry long enough and I have had pushed a number of product releases and campaigns to success. So basically I have been in many situations before and I have had wins so people naturally come to me. That makes sense.

But when it comes to relationship advice and me – big mistake – stay away from me! Since in relationships I have about an 80 IQ and frequently screw up. Nevertheless, I keep getting asked, so I give some advice that I read somewhere… or some conventional wisdom. Basically, it is terrible advice and no one should listen to a word of it… it’s kind of like when Britany Spears used to talk about politics.

So – friends, family and well-meaning people everywhere are always giving and receiving relationship advice… but why do we take it? I recently screwed up a great situation I had with a guy through listening to advice. Instead of questioning my advice-giver’s credentials ie. "how is this person in relationships – is she worth listening to?" or "if I follow this advice I will end up being similar to this person, do I want that?" I just followed it and ended up hurting this poor guy and hurting myself!

Marketers are also big advice-writers, where people have a variety of problems, and all solutions point to your product (think about all of those free recipes that involve Jello and Coolwhip in a variety of forms). It is also funny that the book Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus was read and quoted by even physicians and PhDs I know, but the author John Grey received his PhD through correspondance at a non-accredited University. There is also all kinds of ‘great’ <<sarcastic tone>> advice going around in the blogosphere and news groups.

In business, we have all been in situations where management has made sweeping changes that does not make sense. In defense of the managers, it is really difficult for them to know the inticracies of every role, and a good practice suggested by people like Jim Collins is to work closely with the people actually doing the job to make effective change, instead of strictly working with theories or listening only to what their managers say. It sounds obvious – but in consulting circles obviousness often gets clouded – too much advice!

It gets me thinking, that really all of this advice is not helpful. Like the workers who know their jobs more than anybody else, each person knows themself, and their own situation the best. Because after all, I have lived with myself my whole life, and I have been there for every second of the situation in which I need advice on. Everyone else has an informational disadvantage.

So – really I think there are three main questions to ask when taking advice:

1. Q. Does this person have authority (credentials/track record) to give this advice specifically? A. Think about how your friend’s relationship looks before following her advice!
2. Q. Does this person have a vested interest in me making a decision one way or the other? A. Your boss is telling you to stay in your job forever because it is good for him, not you!
3. Q. Is there a good reason why this person would know better than me? A. Even if they are an expert in their field, they have not been with you your whole life and they have not experienced the nuances of the situation! 

So… that’s my advice .