Using polarity in life
Steve Pavlina, one of my favorite bloggers, wrote a cool article about achieving peak motivation.
Now. I'll go ahead and warn y'all that Pavlina is pretty out there when he goes new-age on you. You'll notice this in his fear/love usage that just smacks of Donnie Darko.
That all being said, the man is quite insightful. In particular I like his two paths to the same destination viewpoint - I'll be adopting it with some major changes. Namely, I'll take off the rather large biases he puts forth and strip the new-age out of it.
Quick Summary
Here's the train of thought:
- There exists a point at which one has the maximum leverage to achieve goals
- In terms of one's self and one's relation to the external world, this point is the same regardless of one's goals
- This point can be reached in many ways
- It is easier to keep your eyes on a single goal than multiple balanced goals
- Thus, one should pick a particular goal
So what the hell am I talking about?
//Skip this if you did not read the article I linked to
Pavlina's idea is that one should polarize and concentrate on either improving one's own life or improving the lives of others. In his view, people should work towards one of these goals relentlessly. Their overarching goal will help motivate them. In the end they will find that they end up at the same spot regardless of which path they took. The self-serving person will find that helping others gives them more interpersonal leverage and the world-serving person will find that they are in no position to help others if they themselves are in a weak spot. Apart from his new-agey views here I have some issues with the person who lives to serve others. That doesn't make sense. They are serving themselves - they just happen to enjoy serving others.
//OK. you can start reading again
My view is that there are two sources of motivation for people. These can be described as internal motivation and external motivation; however, it might be more accurate to say that one's actions can be measured against internal or external metrics. Let's call the person who uses external metrics an outworker and the person who uses internal metrics an inworker to signify what they are trying to fulfill.
The hypothesis here is largely the same as Pavlina's. Both inworkers and outworkers will find that they are maximally fulfilling their goals at the same point. Inworkers will find that they must compromise with the outside world in order to further themselves and outworkers will find that they need to maintain enough personal vigor to actively implement their external agendas.
Polarity applied to myself
So where do I stand?
Ok. I suck at this. I love improving myself. I generally have huge inworker tendencies. But then here's the kicker. The things that I love most are all outworker things.
Helping out a friend in need feels great to me - helping out a friend in want feels trashy. I'm not really sure why, but that's just how I do things. If you need a ride somewhere I'm not going anyways, do not ask me first. I'll turn you down merely because you asked me first. True story folks. But if you have to leave in 5 minutes and it's 02:30 and you're about to call a taxi because your friend who was going to give you a ride is nowhere to be found... well then I'd love to help you out.
I love how messed up that is. I'm not sure how I reconcile the outworker core I have with my predominantly inworker nature. Of course, there's no real need to do that, but I do believe that it's easier to be motivated about a single goal than a couple of goals that are often at odds. It's especially important in maintaining that motivation for an extended period of time. So what is a silly man like me supposed to do?
Well. I'm a stubborn dude. So I think I'll conclude that picking a path is the rational thing to do because it makes the rest far easier. And then I'll ignore that and continue to strive for this mythical point of greatest leverage with out polarizing. :D
Note: I e-mailed quite a few people about thsi article so my inworker/outworker concept is really just Pavlina's ideas filtered through a bunch of smart people's thoughts and processed by yours truly. Thanks to those that chatted with me!
7 comments:
So Boris, I think your problem is that both forms of motivation do not have an end goal in themselves. Think for a moment, what will helping other people or conversely helping yourself yield? I believe that the answer to this starts to get at the heart of human desires and fears.
If I may humbly suggest an answer, though not very orginal. Humans are mortals and as such, have a finite existance. Because we are unable to know what happens after death, we humans strive to "live" past death by becoming something memorable. What makes someone memorable? Two things: being the best at something or mattering a lot to someone. Notice how similar these are to the two forms of motivation. The first is the internal motivation, and the second is the external motivated.
It is now easy to draw this end goal of being remembered to Pavlina's conclusion. Remember Boris's summary of this conclusion: both the externally motivated and the internally motivated eventually "are maximally fulfilling thier goals at same point." In order to be remembered for being the best at something, other people must be aware that you are the best and whatever you are the best at must matter to them. Now to matter to people, one must either need you or fear you. I wont discuss the fear part because it is a fairly direct and terminal discussion. However in order to be needed, one must satisfy a void, one must be a "hero." And one's ability to be a "hero" depends on how good one is at things. If one is the best at everything, one may be the "hero" most often, ensuring the preservation of one's memory. So, you do end up at the same point: one must be the best and matter to others. (Hopefully, my circular logic is followable).
So Boris, I think that you only help your friends at the last minute out of a desire to be the "hero." By not committing to do something helpful, you are able to come in and "save" others right before disaster. And improving yourself allows you to come in with the ability to "save" people.
"I have some issues with the person who lives to serve others. That doesn't make sense. They are serving themselves - they just happen to enjoy serving others."
Eh - that's exactly what an inworker would say. You describe the duality, but you philosophically subscribe to one side of it.
Re: Amanda - instigating fear creates a need for a hero. It's possible to start fires so you can fight them. And firefighting is always wonderfully dramatic.
Oh - also, re: inworking vs. outworking... I just realized this is a much more elaborate restatement of the Golden Rule.
I actually noticed recently that my last section is silly. I'm an inworker. Duh. I think I just got confused because I used Pavlina's definitions instead of mine again. Oops.
I don't think I like helping out of the desire to be a hero. That would be an outworker thing to do. It's merely that I've decided that helping others out is good, but I dislike being used. I've decided that my time is valuable and people who superfluously impose on that time are not seen well by me. Hence, they don't get helped out.
That being said, I still like wasting time with people. This is no big deal. I just hate it when someone thinks they have a right to my time. I dunno - I'm quite the inworker.
@ amanda:
read the above comment for a response to part of what you said.
I'm not sure that desires are directly important. I think what's important is the measurement of success (which admittedly leads to certain desires). In other words, if I measure myself against the eight-fold path, I find myself lacking in certain aspects. I'll find different aspects if I measure myself against a particular christian ethic or a bushido code or even simple popularity. The internet has even given us new measures we can use like the number of friends we have on facebook or the number of hits my blog gets. These are all examples of outworker though patterns.
An inworker has created their own code. And mel is absolutely correct - I think people should be inworkers. That's what I liked about my definitions compared to Pavlina's. My definitions yield an answer. If you consciously decide to accept every tenet of a particular external code because it seems right to you (independent of its source) then you're an inworker.
What it yields, amanda, is satisfaction and success. This is a simple tautology. If you do what you measure as successful, you'll find yourself to be successful.
So my take home message is choose.
I don't demand self or others like Pavlina. All I see as important here is self-awareness and a conscious choice.
I definitely consider myself an outworker. Yet I'm also choosing my own metrics (or "path," as Boris says).
Plenty depends on your definition of inworkers and outworkers, so here's mine.
Outworkers aren't seeking approval or a rubric handed out by someone else to stick blindly by. They're seeking change in the circumstances of others, whereas inworkers seek changes in their own circumstances.
There.
So. I was thinking about responding. But I think Mel's arbitrary redefinition points out how flawed my definitions were. This is largely because they weren't (and still aren't) fully developed. At this point I'm just going to let this concept die here. Maybe it'll see the light of day again, but not in the foreseeable future.
Post a Comment