QUICK!! Fix the Ugly!!

Well, I promised this post ages ago but got busy and finally found the time to come back to it.

Over the years, I've been an advocate for thinking for yourself and questioning why certain things happen - especially things that are newsworthy.  I'm a chess player and whenever my opponent makes a move of any kind, I always ask myself: "Why that piece and that square?"  It helps me to see what they are planning, and to defend against it.

It helps me to think more critically and to accept fewer things at their face value.  The ability to think analytically is a key to success and a necessary skill which I will advocate for again and again.

And so I watched with amusement in the months that preceded the general election here in the UK.

There was one news story that kept popping up more and more frequently and which refused to fade into the memory of the general populace - though it assuredly has now.

There was this T-shirt that said "This is what a feminist looks like."  It was a dull gray and looked as though it had been written on by sharpie.

Why was this so noteworthy?  Well, primarily because Ed Miliband had worn it, and so had Nick Clegg.  But David Cameron apparently refused to do so - reportedly 5 times.

Well, of course the media outlets ran the story.  And why not?  It was directly relevant to half the population in the UK and suggested that perhaps a bias against that half existed by the current Prime Minister.  You can read a bit more about what was being said here:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/27/david-cameron-feminist-t-shirt-refusal

Momentum began to built and the story appeared again and again.

It wouldn't go away.

This was the sort of thing that couldn't be ignored and I mentioned this to my wife over the paper one day, suggesting that this could be a serious problem for the PM - one that would need to be addressed.
If Cameron capitulated and wore the shirt, he'd look weak.  If he refused, he'd look like he didn't support women's rights.

At the time, I mused that the only way out would be to find a way to turn the issue toxic -  then Cameron would look like a genius for not associating with it, while Miliband and Clegg would look like rubes simply seeking a photo opportunity.

How to turn this brand toxic was an interesting problem to consider and putting my strategic "chess thinking cap" on, I mused on ways that this could be done.

The best answer I could come up with would have been to suggest searching for a financing scandal within the charity linked to the T-shirts, perhaps one that made it look as though the money they raised didn't go to the intended recipients. It is an allegation that one frequently hears about charities in general and would have muddled the issue raised by the newspapers, undermining the credibility of the questions they posed.

I wasn't surprised, therefore, when the whole thing did indeed turn toxic - clearly the PM needed a respite - though I admire the sheer devious cunning of the solution.

Sweatshops.

The Mail on Sunday reported that these T-shirts were being made by people working in sweatshops for less than an pound an hour.  And subsequently sold with a price tag of £45.

The article is here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2817343/Feminist-t-shirts-sweatshop-row.html

The charity behind the T-shirts denied the allegations, but true or not, the damage was done.  The issue was decided in the eyes of the public and what was once a clear cut case of right and wrong swung heavily in one direction.

Consider it: A man refusing to wear a feminist T-shirt may or may not indicate a bias against women.  But women and children being paid terrible wages to produce the T-shirts?  If true, this could clearly be labelled reprehensible, and the attitude was "If it is in the papers, it is most likely true."

The mere allegation was enough to put the issue to bed.

So why the blog post?

Again, I'm just encouraging you to think for yourself and to try to ask yourself why things like this happen.

Why was Cameron's refusal to wear the shirt noteworthy?  Who wanted him to wear it?  Why did the other two party leaders wear them?  What would their motivations have been?  Why was it reported and who gained from those reports?

Alternatively:

Why on earth would someone look at where these T-shirts came from?  What would their motivations have been?  What would have driven that curiosity?  And what would they have hoped to find?  What was their motivation in publishing their findings?  And what parties benefited from that report?

So often, people form their opinions based upon what they read RATHER than what they think.

You've got a brain!  Use it!  Question everything!

I find it interesting that you can see a report in a paper and completely forget - due to the medium in which you discovered the information - that there is a real person out there somewhere who wrote those words.  And real people have real opinions.  And they seep through into what they do and how they live.

I talk so often about thinking critically, but I don't think I've ever explicitly stated why I think it is so important.  Here is why:

If you can begin to see how the world works, you can successfully navigate your way through it and can position yourself to live the type of life that you want to.

I think that's worth the effort.

Best,

Atlas

True Adventures - North Atlantic Ocean

I'm fascinated by communication.  The written word in all its forms - articles, poems, novels - I've even found scraps of paper on the ground and opened them up.  Some were love notes, some bits of homework.  Each made me wonder about the person that wrote it:  Who were they?  What did they look like?  Why did they choose THAT word?  I wondered why it was crumpled up and thrown away.  Was it discarded because of sadness, frustration, or because they suddenly felt free of the thing and wanted to demonstrate that freedom through the act of crushing and leaving it?

I like things that make me wonder.

Music does that to me.

It is so often a cryptic, yet lilting riddle.  So much of the lyrics you hear in music are snippets.  Like overhearing bits of conversation blown to you in the wind.

And I sit and wonder what they meant by that.

I remember listening to the Ben Folds album 'Way to Normal', and thinking afterward:  "I wonder if Ben got divorced?"

Turns out, he had.

Most recently, I'm wondering about this guy and what drove him when he wrote this song:



Why the North Atlantic Ocean?  Who does he want back?  And does he really want them back, or does he feel left behind.  Would they have been happier back with him, or is that selfish of him and does he just have that sense you sometimes get when you know people have moved along and are pursuing their dreams?  And what happens tonight?  What is the truth he is talking about?  Is it some dark secret or is it something more simple - the truth about himself or the situation he's faced with?

There are so many stories you could conjure by just listening to stuff like this and allowing your mind to wander and wonder.

Either way, I love music as a form of communication.  It is compelling in a way that words alone seldom are.

Let me ask you - what songs sit atop YOUR list of favourites and why?  What is it in them that really speaks to you?  Why do they identify with you so strongly that they rate amongst your favourites?

Please take a moment and tell me - I really want to know.

Best,

Atlas

The General Election Turmoil and the Polls

Having spent a lot of time over the last year performing as a mental magician in Nottingham, I have met a lot of people recently.  I'll drive to and from gigs and I'll often listen to the radio as I travel.

As the recent general election in Britain loomed, one thing was certain.  This was going to be yet another hung parliament.  Every pundit agreed on that.  There were poll leads for one party or the other very early on, but as it came down to the wire, everyone agreed that it was going to be a tie with up to a month of wrangling and jockeying for position before a government would be formed.

And then, rather extraordinarily for everyone who hadn't read my blog, the Conservatives crushed Labour and won an outright majority.

Why do I think people who read my blog wouldn't have been shocked by this news?  Simply because I've talked extensively in the past about the polls and how thoroughly unreliable they are.

These polls were recently discussed in an interesting article, which I'll leave you with - and I encourage you to search through my blog and find my posts on polls:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11695816/Why-did-the-polls-get-it-wrong-at-the-general-election-Because-they-lied.html

Best,

Atlas

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: