That One Time I Tried To Save A Cat...

I used to have a cat.

She was a slight little thing, mottled white and grey, with an oddly colored pink nose and delicate pointed ears.

She was an 'indoor' cat, rarely let out because at the time we lived quite near a large road that I didn't credit her with enough sense to successfully cross.

Right off our dining room, there was a sliding glass door that led out into our back garden, and one day, about seven or eight years ago now, there appeared a chubby brown tomcat, with moth-eaten ears and a face like a stone.

He sat just outside my sliding glass door, making what were clearly indelicate proposals toward my feline, who, to my horror, appeared to be encouraging these advances.

I chased him off on more than one occasion, and, though he fled, there was a sort of bumbling dignity about the way he scampered toward the property line. And he always favoured me with a sour look that communicated quite clearly that I was beneath him.

The effect was that while he was obviously a disgusting creature of base moral standing, he was somewhat likeable in his own way.

His appearances became more and more frequent, until it was clear that he had no permanent home and had finally decided to establish his base camp in my back yard, just beneath a dogwood tree.

Every morning, I expected him to leave, but he carried on courting my brainless cat for at least 45 days until I realized that I had to put a stop to it.

Now, I had been very careful up to this point not to offer any food to the creature, knowing full well that it represents the thin end of the wedge, and that, for any animal, the first act of subjugating a human host is to entice it to feed you.

I resisted valiantly, expecting this chubby little ball of cheese to clear off as a result. However, other, more revolting needs kept him lurking perpetually close.

In the end, I resolved to offer him the food, but only by way of luring him into a trap. Setting out a cat carrier (a plastic box with a sort of barred door set into it on a hinge), I opened a can of tuna fish and placed it inside, nodding enticingly toward the cat as I did so, and assuring it, in a soothing tone, that I meant to trap it and convey it to the authorities, making it someone else's problem.

I then busied myself around the corner, feigning disinterest as to whether this creature ate the offered food or ignored it.

I have yet to meet a cat that does not register an immediate and irresistible interest in a freshly opened can of tuna fish. Nobody's fool, he of course lingered for a few minutes, eyeing me suspiciously.

However, in the end, he stealthily scampered over to the trough and began to fortify himself with evident relish. Such was his distraction that he did not notice that I had crept up behind him and closed the bars on the carrier until after he had finished his meal.

Upon discovering his predicament, however, I can tell you that he was not amused.

He began to make a hideous bawling noise that made my face pucker. But I remained firm in my plan, and moved on to the next stage.

You see, I am not entirely without a heart and I was reticent to simply take this misguided animal to the pound as I know that the poor unfortunates that end up there very frequently find themselves on the precipice of an awful doom.

I figured that this cat had to belong to someone. I would therefore do my utmost to establish a reunion betwixt master and wayward pet.

And so, I turned to that bastion of free advertising on the internet: Craigslist.

I took several pictures of this unhappy tabby, by then resigned to his place in the crate, and posted them online, with a bit of text that read something like:

“Is this your cat? He has been living in my back yard for over a month now and I'm going to leave this ad online for five days before I take him to the pound, where his life will most certainly be forfeit. Heck, even if this ISN'T your cat, you're free to have him. I'd prefer not to deliver him into mortal peril, so as long as he goes to a decent home, I'm cool with that.”

At this point, I'm sure I leaned back from the keyboard, thoroughly satisfied by the good deed I had done and imagining the cat either cautiously exploring his new and decidedly suitable home, or being squeezed tightly by some tearful toddler while I received a joyous handshake and thankful smile from this youth's guardian, lost for words when contemplating my generosity of spirit.

I was somewhat disheartened, therefore, when a beep on my phone alerted me to an email in response to my ad.

It was from some other anonymous internet do-gooder, entirely ignoring the subtext of my internet ad – vis, that I wanted to ditch this cat entirely – and suggesting that I could keep him as a much loved pet.

I ignored the email, tutting to myself that some people could be such numbskulls, and went about my business.

I soon learned, however, that this lunatic was not alone in the world, as my phone beeped repeatedly at me over the next several hours, each time, it was some new loon making a similar suggestion.

I cast a jaundiced eye over each successive message, disdain slowly spreading across my face.

All these hippy dippy weirdos were happily suggesting that I keep the beast myself, many going so far as to delineate the negligible costs of having the animal inoculated at the vet and suggest that my life would be one of inexplicable joy from that day onward, should I only choose to make this creature my trusted friend and companion.

Days passed.

Many more emails came in.

Each followed this same theme.

My patience, sorely tested, eventually gave way and I saw that I would have to apply more pressure to these legions of cat-lovers who didn't want to own this particular edition.

Seeing little choice in the matter, I amended my ad. It now read:

“Is this your cat? He has been living in my back yard for over a month now and I'm going to leave this ad online for five days before I take him to the pound, where his life will most certainly be forfeit. Heck, even if this ISN'T your cat, you're free to have him. I'd prefer not to deliver him into mortal peril, so as long as he goes to a decent home, I'm cool with that.

Some FUN facts about this cat:

• He can hold his breath for nearly two and a half minutes.
• He can survive falls of over 28 feet.
• He is HIGHLY flammable.
• He can go at least 8 days without food.
• He can tell if you mix gasoline in with his water and won't drink it (anymore).
• He is NOT a strong swimmer, but he made it nevertheless.
• He is now, due to a string of misunderstandings, HIGHLY suspicious of human beings."

I want to emphasize that none of the above 'fun facts' were true. They made me laugh as I wrote them, but they weren't true. Or, they may have been at least, but I had taken no steps to test their veracity. I simply wanted the reader to exclude from their reasoning the possibility that this cat could conceivably enjoy a happy life in my company. Once life with me was excluded as an option, I figured I could look forward to a series of emails from people eager to offer safety and peace of mind to this animal.

I was dismayed to find that my ironclad logic again failed to yield the anticipated results.

Inexplicably, subsequent to this amendment in my advertisement, the tone of the emails I received changed. Instead of excited offers to welcome this furry little monster into a new and happy home as I had hoped, the emails were mostly threats, laced liberally with intensely graphic swears.

I mean it.

The sort of imaginative profanity that is reserved for the worst people on the planet.

Apparently, deep down, hippies are angry people.

I replied to each with a simple, “Do you want the cat or not?”

The responses I received were unprintable.

And so, eventually, the fifth day passed and my ad expired – along with my hopes of finding its owner.

Still, I could not bring myself to deliver the thing into the hands of the government. And so I put it in my car, drove it across the bridge, and set it free in a quiet neighbourhood near a very nice park near where my parents lived.

I don't know who eventually adopted him, but I saw him intermittently for years afterward when I'd drive out to visit family. I'm pretty sure I thought to myself that one day I'd write a blog post about him.

And now I have.

Atlas Brookings Nottingham Magician and Mind Reader

That's right, I've completed the international move and am now finally starting to feel a bit more settled - and that means I have time to post on the old blog once more!

It has been a strange transition, moving to the UK was not an easy feat.  Things are very different here, but overall, that is not a bad thing.  Over the last year or so, we've moved house, and I've started performing all over the UK.  One thing that I find a bit odd is that while I perform feats of mind reading, I have to advertise myself as a magician in Nottingham and the surrounding areas (Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, etc.) as people just know they are looking for entertainment and never think to Google a mind reader.

That fact has made me think a bit about HOW people tend to think.  Mind reading is a bit of a unique performance area and as such it rarely occurs to people seeking entertainment.  They love it once they've experienced it, but most people don't set out searching for it.

They tend to stick with things they know.

This phenomenon is seen all over people's lives - three routes may take you to the same place, but you tend to only drive the one.  A menu displaying varied and succulent dishes can be presented at the restaurant, but we seek only the dish we know we like.

And people are the same when around other people.  We play it safe - we all know that the nail that sticks up gets hammered down and so we accept 'groupthink' rather than plan our own paths.  Social psychologists have long theorized that humans as a species were not successful until they formed groups.  According to this theory, groups helped to ensure the safety and survival of the individual, and thus, on an instinctive level, most people tend to feel the safest when they follow the group.

This is a big reason why politicians seek out celebrity endorsements as the 'Halo Effect' of the celebrity is seen to transfer to them.  Indeed, politicians also constantly tubthump over polls that are favorable to them and their situation:  If they can steer you away from your own questions and instead guide the conversation toward how others are voting, then, due to social psychology, the odds are better than 50-50 that you will vote with the group.

As an American abroad, I have no vote in politics here in the UK.  But I watch it with fascination, partially because it is so different to what I am used to.  Recently, Scotland voted to remain a part of the UK.  The group that wanted independence from the United Kingdom was called the SNP, or Scottish Nationalist Party.

In the run up to the referendum, the SNP based the economic welfare of the new independent nation of Scotland on the oil industry and their projections for their economy were created upon the basis that oil would trade for $112 per barrel.  The SNP lost the referendum, and only four months later, Saudia Arabia's oil production decisions have forced the price of oil down below $50 a barrel.

Interested to see what the SNP had to say about this (the North Sea Oil Industry is now begging the government for help), I took to Twitter to have a look at Nicola Sturgeon's (the new head of the SNP) posts.

I could see no acknowledgement on her part that the SNP had got their projections so wildly wrong.  Instead, I saw numerous 'Halo Effect' posts regarding celebrities alongside posts telling people how well the SNP was doing in the polls.  Here are a few screen grabs:

Now, I want to make clear that I'm not picking on Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP, but my point is this: four months ago, they were insistent that Scotland was better off outside the UK, and made projections and promises to an electorate that, if the vote had gone the other way, could have crippled an entire country.  Real people losing jobs, losing homes, facing desperation, hunger and plight.

Disaster.

A critical thinker might subsequently question the credibility of this group of politicians.

But they don't want to talk about how they got it so wrong - and only FOUR months ago too. That's exactly why they are doing all they can at the moment to shut down your critical faculties by telling you what the polls say the group is going to do.

It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Now, as I said, I'm not particularly anti-SNP, I'm anti-groupthink and anti-manipulation - which is why politicians seem to so often crop up in this blog (in fact, next week, we'll look at a recent episode from the Conservative party).

I guess my point is that groupthink is a concept that is outmoded.  Humans are now the dominant species on the planet, and this need to follow the group is anachronistic and has led to some of the greatest atrocities in history.

People like the Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ghandi said 'NO' to groupthink and challenged the status quo.

Critical thinking builds the future.  It sees through falsehood, self-serving agendas, and manipulation.

It gives you freedom.

Best,

Atlas

Forewarned, But Not Necessarily Forearmed

My friends, let me begin by apologizing for not posting for the last few weeks.  I've released another book in the intervening weeks and was pushed to meet that deadline.  In addition to this, the main water line to our house broke underneath the concrete slab and we've spent the last few days moving everything out and repairing the damage.  It was ugly, but I am beginning to find more time.

Now, anyone who has been following this blog has noticed that over the last few weeks, we've addressed and examined how the words a person chooses to employ can effect what others believe and perceive.

I've found a video that I think illustrates this point perfectly.  I don't necessary have an opinion on the lecturer's content, though I find him engaging and think he puts his case admirably. 

What I'd particularly like to call your attention to occurs at the following timestamps on the video.

Begin at 1:53 into the video and watch until 2:56 - you will see that the lecturer presents a challenge to his audience.  

If you then skip forward to 18:15 and watch until 19:33, you will be able to take the test he intimates that he will administer.

I'd just like to ask that you will do me a small favor - once you've taken the test (and if you've found the link to this blog post through Facebook) please click like on the link so that I have some idea how many of you failed the test.  

I'll report back next week on my findings, as well as break down what happened and why.

And now, here is the video:

Best,

Atlas

More.

Most people never get to a place in their lives where they think about saving for their retirement.

Part of the reason for this is that people are never really sure how much money they will need for themselves in their old age and so they find it difficult to know exactly how much they should try and save. People also naturally feel like there is more time to build enough savings than there really is.

Due to a lack of savings, some people wonder if they will ever be able to retire.

Take a moment and think about this.

Are you still thinking?

I bet you were thinking about yourself and how the above statements applied to you!

In fact, I'd bet you started thinking about your own retirement situation as early as the first sentence of this post.

Why?

It is because of the words that I chose to use. I showed you last week that words mattered. This week, I thought I'd show you another way in which the words we use make a difference.

When someone communicates a message that is unspecific, a listener's mind tends to clarify the message FOR the speaker. It does this by making assumptions about the generalized, non-specific portions of the message that has been expressed – and it tends to do that from the personal perspective.

Let's look again at the first sentence of this post. When the term “most people” was used, your brain quietly thought “HEY! I'm most people! This might apply to me.”

Then when it encountered the idea of “a place in their lives”, that was also sufficiently vague and your mind began to contemplate that idea in a context of your personal situation. From there on out, every subsequent sentence was sufficiently vague that your mind filled in the blanks in a way that the ideas were about you exclusively.

And yet, I never specifically said a word about you or your situation.

I've just demonstrated another simple way of controlling a person's thoughts, but doing so in a way that seems quite innocuous and harmless. And it uses only words.

Sales and marketing gurus know this technique and use it all the time. And so do journalists and politicians.

In fact, this technique can make urgent messages for those stubborn people in our lives palatable, resulting in real and meaningful change.

Imagine that I was a friend of yours and I wanted to give you some important warnings about your need to save for your future. If I'd directly said to you:

“Look my friend, I am concerned that you won't have enough money for your retirement because you aren't making it a priority, you aren't saving any money, and I don't think you ever will until it is too close to too late for you. Then, by that time, you'll never be able to retire.”

The above is essentially the same message, but because it was about you and it came from an external source, it is very likely to be rejected. It won't pass the defensive structure of self-perception erected over the years by your conscious mind. You'd dismiss me entirely.

The very best way (and trust me, I have EXTENSIVE knowledge of this) to get someone to do or not do something is to create the illusion for them that their decision in the matter was entirely independent both in conception and execution.

So, how is this done?

By the use of nonspecific, general terms. Be confident that if you want a message to be personalized by an audience, you must master the art of sounding precise while the opposite is, in fact, true.

For example, if I were trying to sell you an alarm system, I would be unspecific in the following way:

“Countless lives have been lost due to preventable emergencies – there are a lot of threats out there and in society today, the smart ones protect themselves.”

It sounds specific, doesn't it? But in all reality, I have given no real data, I haven't clarified what I mean by the word 'threat' (instead, your mind is busy conjuring up what you consider a threat and feeling anxious about those terrible fantasies) and I imply that this alarm system is in the homes of everyone who is 'smart' – a demographic that we'd all like to belong to.

Now, note – I have not said a single word about you or your personal situation. But you are now terrified for yourself and your family and you also consider yourself to be smart, all of which means that you'll be wanting to buy this alarm system from me in the next few minutes. Especially if my pitch continues to employ these non-specific nouns and verbs.

The best sales pitch is one that is personalized, and the best way to personalize a message is to let you do it for me.

I could go on, but I think the point has been made.

Watch the sales pitches made to you by others, and, if you need to really communicate something important to a loved one...be careful of the words you choose.

Best,

Atlas

P.S.  I wanted to call this post "You're So Vain", but I couldn't because then you would have thought the post was about you...from the start and would have defeated what I was trying to demonstrate.  So, if you've read this far, rename the post for me in your mind!

Vanderbilt and Scott v. Rockefeller

In the 1870's, after John D. Rockefeller's formation of Standard Oil, Cornelius Vanderbilt and Thomas Scott colluded together in an attempt to get Rockefeller to pay a much higher rate if he was to ship his product using their railroads.

Rockefeller controlled the oil, but he couldn't reach his customers without using either Thomas's Pennsylvania Railroad or Vanderbilt's New York Central and Hudson River Railroad.  

For years, Rockefeller had successfully played Vanderbilt and Thomas against each other as competitors, driving his own shipping rates lower and lower.  But in a search for a competitive advantage, the two combined forces and agreed a standard rate.  In today's marketplace, this is known as 'price fixing' and is illegal.

But it wasn't in those days.

Rockefeller was stuck.

It bears mentioning that at this point in time, Vanderbilt and Scott were among the richest, most powerful men of their day.  And while Rockefeller was the undisputed king of his industry, he wasn't yet the titan that history remembers him as.  

But he was a shrewd negotiator.  He had proven that over the years through countless business transactions with the railroads.

So, faced with a rate that was nearly triple what he was used to paying, what did Rockefeller do?

He once again deployed the negotiation skills that made him so formidable.

On the face of it, Rockefeller came from a place of weakness - Rockefeller needed the railroads to facilitate the distribution of his product. 

Vanderbilt and Scott were in the stronger position - colluding together, they absolutely controlled the transportation routes. 

Rockefeller appeared to be at the mercy of these two legends.

And then he found a way to strengthen his position.

He realized that the oil that was being transported through his refineries in pipes could just as easily be transported across the country in the same manner.  He would build a pipeline and bypass the railroads altogether.  Within a decade, he brought both railroads to their knees.

So what does this have to do with you?

Well, I've promised for a while now that we would have a discourse on negotiation, and we will be looking over the topic for the next few weeks.

Whether you like it or not, you will have to negotiate for goods and services on countless occasions throughout your lifetime.  If you are good at it, times will be easier than if you are not.

I'm not suggesting that you channel Rockefeller and bring the other party to the brink of doom, but you ought to realize that not everyone you interact with is honest and seeking a win-win arrangement.

Over the coming posts, we will go into more detail, but for now, it is important that you realize that negotiations happen in a number of stages:

First, there is preparation.  Every negotiation is prepared for by assessing your side's strengths and weaknesses, similarly assessing your opponent, and determining just what it is that you'd like to accomplish.

Next, there are the early rounds of the actual negotiation process.  These are about undermining your opponent's position by questioning the facts that they present, ferreting out those which they withhold, challenging the logic by which they arrived at their conclusions, and raising issues which they are unprepared to address - all done whilst simultaneously strengthening your own position.

Finally, you reach across the aisle and reconcile with them.  This is often the hardest part, as they will not have enjoyed having their position questioned.  But remember, they are at the table because they need you, just as you need them.  Reconciliation is not as difficult as you may initially believe.

Over the next three weeks, we will examine each stage of the process.  

I think you'll find that when you add this knowledge to what you've already learned about body language, you will be a force to be reckoned with in any negotiation.

And now, a bit of fun: