To change behaviour, change the environment

Willpower is for jocks. A limited resource to begin with, made even less useful by being depleted by simple decisions, like what to wear to work or eat for lunch. Constantly switching between tasks seems to be a good way to expend it as well. So relying on willpower to change your (or someone else’s) behaviour is not a sustainable strategy.

But what if you changed the environment instead?

Trying to cut back on candy and snacks? Clear out the cupboards. It’s much easier to avoid foods that take some trouble to obtain. If you need to go to the local store every time to satisfy a craving, it’s less likely that you’ll actually do it.

Trying to start exercising in the morning? Aim for 10 minutes to make the goal easy to achieve and to build positive reinforcement. Then put your sneakers and sportswear next to the bed before going to sleep.

When I finally realised that checking Facebook was likely to put me in a bad mood, I deleted the app. And the apps you want to spend less time on, but don’t want to get rid off completely? Put them in other screens and into folders. The more clicks it takes, the less likely it is you’re going to open them accidentally and without intent.

Want to watch less TV and read more? Leave the remote to another room. And when you finally come home from work and collapse on the couch, have a book waiting at arms reach.

Changing the environment is also the smart and sustainable way to create organisational change. Design processes, metrics, rewards, incentives, information flows, tools, management systems, goal setting, performance reviews etc. in a way that they support the behaviours you want to see from the people in your organisation, and discourage those that are toxic.

Want to be more innovative? Get rid of metrics that encourage people to protect business as usual. Replace them with ones that reward creativity, controlled risk-taking and learning. Get rid of informational silos and start using systems that support total transparency.

And treat those changes as experiments. Organisations are complex adaptive systems, where seemingly simple changes can have surprising and significant side effects. Just look at what happened in Yahoo: Fixed project-based employee evaluations meant that none of the top engineers wanted to work with each other, as it would have reflected poorly on their individual performance scores. Consequently the most important projects never had the best possible team working on them.

Of course, none of this matters if you don't first figure out what the desired personal and organisational behaviours are.

Further reading:

Heath, Chip & Heath, Dan (2010). Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard. New York: Random House.

McChrystal, Stanley et al. (2015). Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World. New York: Penguin Publishing Group.

GMOs, complexity, and systemic risk

There has been some good debate in a Finnish GMO-Awareness facebook group recently regarding both the pros and cons of GMOs. This has prompted me to participate as well, because I feel I have something specific to contribute to the discussion: the explanation of systemic risk.

All living organisms are complex adaptive systems individually and also on an environmental and a species level. In other words, complex adaptive systems can be nested within larger systems, and also contain smaller systems within them. A cell in itself is such a system, but so is an organ consisting of multiple cells, and an individual body consisting of multiple organs and other tissues. A collection of bodies might be called a tribe, a pack, a clan, or an organisation. In an even larger scale we can talk about species and the entire biosphere of Earth.

What all these systems have in common, among other things, is non-linearity. This means that a small parameter change in one part of the system can have cascading effects and result in vastly different outcomes in other parts of the system, or in other connected systems. A classic example of this is the flap of a butterfly in Brazil causing a tornado in Texas, as shown by Lorentz [PDF] using computational weather simulations: a minuscule change in parameters resulted in a difference between sunshine and a tornado due to non-linearity. Another example would be the way genes work. The genetic instructions for building a human body instead of that of a chimpanzee has about 4% difference, yet the outcomes are very much unlike one another, and when searching for ultimate causes that 4% difference is also underlying everything man-made that has ever come to existence and will come in the future. After all, chimpanzees are not programming computers, designing airplanes, or composing symphonies.

So what's the problem? Thanks to their complexity, interrelations and links to other systems, and non-linearity, we are utterly incapable of accurately predicting system-level risks. I will use GMOs as an example in this article, but this issue is not limited to them. What I am talking about is a property of complex adaptive systems, and therefore the same reasoning applies to all other contexts where these systems are concerned.

Changing a parameter within a system - say for example, changing a gene in a tomato to make it more resistant to a pesticide - can have effects elsewhere in the same system (a tomato), or even in other related systems (a human being eating the tomato). In fact, we have evidence of this: Dwarf wheat is a result of selective breeding and has become the dominant species globally since 1970s, as it provides a better yield than traditional wheat strains. However, what made dwarf wheat dwarfish also had an effect on the genetic structure of the grains we eat, and dwarf wheat has been linked to the growing numbers of coeliac disease and various other autoimmune conditions.

These non-linear effects can also go a long way: a worm may eat the tomato, get eaten by a bird, the bird poops on the ground, and soil bacteria eats the poop and starts dying en masse. Sounds pretty far fetched? Indeed the probability for such a chain of events to take place is extremely small - but not impossible - and that is the entire point. To test for such an effect simply cannot be done using the scientific tools we have available today. Nor would it be a feasible investment of resources to test for every conceivable small probability outcome. However, if we calculate the impact of such an event, making a further assumption that the death of soil bacteria would result in severe nutrient depletion in the soil, we would be soon facing a global food crisis.

These kinds of high-impact system-level risks would not be so scary if they were contained locally, but unfortunately the trend seems to be going in the opposite direction; towards "optimised" laboratory-grown strains with a global reach. If we discover in, say, 40 years of time that a particular GMO crop causes birth defects in human babies, it would be a tragedy if the effect was local (e.g. within a country or a state), but on a global scale it would be a catastrophe. This brings us to why GMOs cannot be compared to naturally occurring mutations within a species: The natural ones are always locally contained, and it takes generations for a mutation (or an adaptation) to spread to a population, which gives other species and the environment (i.e. other systems) time to adapt.

In the end, due to the nature of complex adaptive systems the risks we are facing are huge and we have no means to predict them. What we are doing with GMOs is effectively playing a lottery: We are staking calculable short-term benefits against the incalculable probability of a devastating negative outcome.

Where this whole GMO debate goes to a morally shady ground can be explained with the agency effect: GMOs benefit first and foremost the corporations that develop, patent, and sell them for profit. Yet they do not carry any risk for these system-level negative effects. Instead, this risk is carried by us who buy their products, and largely by the environment (which should be of everyone's responsibility). If a serious system-level issue becomes visible after a few decades, and we can confidently say that a particular GMO is the underlying cause, the developer of the GMO (who also made the most profit out of it) will not be held liable, nor do they have responsibility to compensate for the damages (if such would even be possible). This kind of environment vastly rewards risk-taking at the expense of others, and we the people end up paying the price.

Update on May 27th, 2014:

I have been asked here in the comments and on facebook about why put GMOs to a pedestal? Why is it different when compared to e.g. traditional methods of guiding the development of a species, such as selective breeding? Also, mutations taking place in nature are much more imprecise and potentially more significant than the ones done with GM techniques, so why should they be considered any less risky?

First, let me address why the risk imposed by GM is statistically and categorically different from the risks inherent in e.g. selective breeding. Naturally occurring mutations have been around for millions of years, yet life continues and as far as we can tell, these mutations in various species have not had sudden dramatic effect in the environment. If there is a statistical possibility for a mutation that has such a radical impact, the time frame of natural evolution suggests that these kinds of events have likely already happened multiple times. However, so far the only drastic change we know of regarding life on Earth has been the death of dinosaurs, and to my knowledge a natural catastrophe was the cause, not evolutionary change in some species.

As for selective breeding, it has also been around at least for tens of thousands of years, and in that time no drastic changes to the environment caused by selective breeding have happened either. In other words, we have tens of thousands of years of empirical evidence stating that this method is safe. With GM our amount of evidence can only be measured in years or decades. This creates the statistical difference between GM and the naturally occurring methods of genetic change, which affect more genes (shotgun approach) instead of the selected few as in the case of GM (scalpel approach, as one commenter eloquently put it). There is much more historical evidence suggesting that selective breeding is safe than there is for GM.

However, for all fairness I must say that selective breeding may have also become more risky than what our tens of thousands of years of empirical evidence suggests. This is because for the majority of history selective breeding has had only local impact. Now with globalisation however, the scale of impact can be much larger and happen much faster than ever before.

References:

For understanding systemic risk I recommend the book Antifragile by Nassim Taleb. For a short version explaining risk and fragility there is this letter, which also explains how systemic risk is fundamentally different from the classical understanding of risk (classifiable outcomes and probabilities).

As for understanding "scientific" research and possible reported beneficial effects from GMOs (this also applies to all research on medical, nutritional, and public health issues), I recommend reading Richard Feinman here, here, and here.

Who controls your life?

This is a topic I have been wanting to write about for a long time, but it has been difficult to gather my thoughts and more importantly find the resolve required. Perhaps because this is something that makes me want to scream inside. Here goes.

Do you feel unhappy about some aspect of your life? Not in the perfect relationship you dreamt about when you were young, but hey the guy/girl you've settled with is not that bad. Maybe you drift through workdays in a state of semi-consciousness, hoping to lay low enough not to raise any unwanted attention while browsing celebrity gossip sites. Sure, it's not the job you wanted. Not even the profession you secretly desired, but your parents got you convinced that you'd be better off studying law instead of breeding miniature pigs. One day you realize that those love handles are starting to really show, but what's a girl to do? After all, you spend good 4-5 hours a week on a treadmill in the local gym and always eat your vegetables.

Guess what, no one is going to solve those problems for you, or otherwise change your life for the better.

Step 1

You have to take complete no-bullshit no-excuses ownership of who you are and where you are in your life. You have to man up. Not happy with the job? It's your fault, your responsibility. You've made some bad decisions. Not happy with your guy? Nor the ones before him? You have bad taste. Your fault. Always turning off the lights when having sex because you don't want him to see you naked? Your body, your fault, your responsibility.

You cannot change your life and fix things unless you are ready to take full, absolute, complete responsibility of your actions. The past and future ones alike. What you need is naked honesty. Because only by going through this necessary step will you be able to truly own your problems. Ownership leads to control, and control means you can finally start changing things.

I cannot stress enough the importance of this part. Stop. The. Fucking. Excuses. You don't eat Ben & Jerry's in evenings, slouched in front of the tv, because "it was a hard day at work." You eat that shit because you choose to do so. Relationships, jobs, friends etc., they are all choices. If you are not satisfied with something, it's time to choose again. If you are not the one who controls what those choices are, then who does? If you are not the one living your life, then who is? How can you call yourself a free individual if you won't accept the responsibility that comes with freedom?

You can take control of your life if you want to, but before that you need to take responsibility of every single aspect of it; all the decisions, actions, and their outcomes. No one else can do that for you. To imagine otherwise is to be a puppet, a subject to other people's machinations. Do you think the company you work for has your best interests in mind? Or your spouse? Or your parents? Fuck no. They may believe so and even get you convinced, but they are not you. They can't possibly know what it's like to wake up in your skin every day, or what really goes on inside your head.

Step 2

Start making some decisions. After you have accepted raw, unfiltered, naked responsibility, it's time to identify what you want to change. What aspect of your life is in most desperate need of improvement? Don't try to do everything at once. This is big stuff, so it's better to proceed one issue at a time.

After you've acquired your target, you need to decide how to tackle it. What will you start doing differently?

Don't like your job? Start scouting for a new one, but this time actually spend some time figuring out what your heart desires to do. Unhappy in your relationship? You have two options: you can leave, or you can work on it and see if it can be turned into a happy one. What doesn't work is sitting on your ass and expecting things to change on their own. Or repeat doing the same things that got you where you are now. This is about taking responsibility of your life, remember? And if you indeed eat your vegetables and spend 4-5 hours a week on a treadmill but are not getting the results you want, your method is obviously not working. As Einstein said; "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Step 3

Do your research. I have to admit that this step might be something that is more suited to a geek like me. However, I have found it to be extremely effective in multiple domains. What it means is that instead of making just any decision, you strive to make an informed one. Not sure what you want to do for a living? Read a couple career guides, find out what your Myers-Briggs personality type is, and see if you can identify what your values are (you know, things like integrity, learning, love, joy, honesty etc. that guide your behaviour in both conscious and unconscious level).

I was never able to lose weight following the "eat less exercise more" adage, but after I eliminated sugar and grains from my diet and started lifting weights instead of spending endless hours doing cardio on the "fat burning zone", I got in the best shape of my life in a matter of months. This probably would not have happened unless I had started questioning my assumptions and studying nutrition and exercise more in detail.

Change tends to be difficult as it is. Don't make it more difficult by using inferior methods.

Step 4

Act. Decisions alone are worth nothing unless they are followed by actual changes in your behaviour. This won't be easy. The single best book I have read about the topic is Switch by Chip and Dan Heath. Read it if you are serious about improving your life. Nevertheless, here is a quick summary about how to improve the odds of succeeding in a behaviour change.

1. Make sure you really understand what your goal is, and more importantly why you want to achieve it. Is your goal really to hit the gym 4 times a week, or is there a deeper goal, e.g. the desire to lose weight, and you simply assume that going to the gym is the best strategy for achieving that goal? The goal should also be your own. Not something someone else tells you should do. Change is easier when you know where you're going and why it's worth it.

2. Knowing something isn't enough to make change happen. Every single person knows that smoking is unhealthy, stupid, and pointless, yet they keep doing it. What you need is a catalyst that propels the change forward. This is not something you know or learn, but something you feel. Try to find the feeling that keeps you motivated to change.

3. In most cases it is easier to break down the change into small steps, and tackle one step at a time. This builds momentum and confidence that you can actually achieve what you set out to do. Want to eat healthier? Don't overhaul your entire diet at once, but start by fixing your breakfast. After it has become a routine and takes no conscious effort, move on to the lunch, and so on.*

4. Behaviour is largely environmental. We see something that triggers a familiar thought process and we act automatically. The more often we repeat a behaviour, the more ingrained it becomes. For example, if you often buy some last-minute candy at a check-out counter in the local grocery, the script for that behaviour gets triggered every time you are at a check-out counter, and it takes willpower to overcome it. Willpower, as we know, is a limited resource and when it gets depleted the impulses take over. The trick is to tweak your environment in such a manner that it prevents undesired behaviour while supporting desired ones. Eating healthy is a lot easier when you don't have cupboards full of beer, candy, cookies, and chips. Even small environmental changes can have a surprisingly large effect.

5. One way to create a trigger for the desired behaviour is to determine beforehand when, where, and how you will behave in the new way: "When I am in the coffee shop, sitting opposite to my date, I will smile a lot and be genuinely interested about his life. I will also listen to everything he says, giving my complete attention." Visualising yourself behaving in a situation has a similar effect on your brain than if you actually did it in real life. This will make the desired behaviour more natural, familiar, and easier to trigger when the actual situation occurs.

* As I said, this works in most cases. If, for example, you have a gluten intolerance this kind of approach is just going to keep you feeling miserable. Sometimes a zero-tolerance approach is a necessity. 

In the end, you decide. Do you want to cruise through your days more or less on an autopilot, as a bystander to whom life just happens, or do you have the guts to take control of it? Let me know in the comments.

How to find your calling

One of my oldest friends turned 30 last weekend. As a happy coincidence, I met more than a few people in the birthday party who I have known for a long time, but haven't seen in person for years. We are all in our late 20s, and one thing kept coming up again and again as we talked: almost everyone had changed - or was thinking of changing - the direction of their life.

A guy I hadn't met in eight years had graduated with a Master's Degree from a technical university, only to find out that working in front of a computer was not really suited for him. Now he is in medical school with a year and a half to go. Another friend had been doing odd jobs, even graduated as an electrician, but is now studying fish industry in a university.

I have a similar story. I spent 5 years (give or take, as some of that was part-time) as an IT consultant at Accenture, despite realizing after the first year or so that working on enterprise IT systems is not really what I would consider my calling. I didn't even know what my calling was, just that it wasn't IT. And by calling I mean what I find interesting enough to be intrinsically motivated to do in the long-term, preferably for a living.

It took me years to find something to do that I am genuinely excited about. The important point is, though, that I did not just stumble on it. I was purposefully searching for it and keeping my eyes open for anything that might hint me to the right direction.

I am a reader, so reading became my method of discovery. As I was trying to find out what it is that I want to do, I read career guides. I read books on personal development. I read books on business, entrepreneurship, philosophy... And I started to discover certain themes that interest me. I could not pinpoint one particular thing or profession I wanted to do, but I was able to identify elements that an ideal profession should largely consist of.

Some of these elements came from what I was reading and fascinated about, and some from my past experiences. For example, I don't know why, but I am genuinely interested in the human aspects of business; organizational cultures, workplace dynamics, and entrepreneurship. I love to learn and get bored easily when the learning, or growth, stops. I get excited when I have a chance to speak in public, and doing something creative makes me feel alive.

During the process of discovery I also forayed into some entirely different directions. After having a minor role in the Korean TV drama Athena, and knowing my interest in photography, I entertained the possibility of making my way into film industry. However, before making any huge life-decisions I bought some books on cinematography, directing, and screenwriting to get an idea of what working in the film industry would be like. I still find certain aspects of it interesting, but eventually I decided it is not the best fit for me. I came to similar conclusions about designing videogames. Although, as a byproduct of learning more about how games work, I have become very much interested in gamification; especially how game mechanics could be used in management and business contexts.

One guy who was in the same class with me in elementary school told me in the party that he had been training to become a machinist. However, what he really wanted to do was to work with computers, and was trying to get into a university to study programming. The thing is though, as I explained to him, that in all but few cases you actually need a degree to do something. If programming is what you want to do, then what are you waiting for? You don't need to study it in a university in order to get a permission to do it. If that's what you really want, then search online for some programming tutorials and just start learning. Start a personal project that helps you learn and keeps you motivated, and just start doing.

As it is uncertain that my friend will get into the university, and considering the classes won't start until fall, I asked him to imagine if he'd spend just couple hours every day learning to program. How much he would already know after a month, 6 months, a year..? He would have something as a proof of his skills and something concrete that would help him land a job.

Assuming of course that he actually wants to do what he told me. Maybe he is still somewhat uncertain. In that case getting into a university and graduating four years later into a wrong profession is a huge price to pay. A price that could have been avoided by experimenting the work beforehand. You can do this kind of experimentation as a purely mental exercise, visualizing different aspects of the work. Or even better, you can actually "simulate" the work - in this case by sitting in front of a computer and actually doing some programming.

There seems to be this quest that calls for many of my generation; we are trying to discover where our talents and interests meet, and how to make a living of it. For me it took over three years of active searching and in the end the answer was nothing I would have expected it to be. All I had was hope that someday I will find it, and the knowledge that at least I am constantly doing something about it, instead of just sitting on my ass hoping for something to happen.

No one else can figure out the answer for you. It is your life and your responsibility.

Knowledge and Conviction

In the past couple years I've slowly come to the conclusion that the more you know about something, the more difficult it becomes to talk about it with people who are unfamiliar with the topic. Positive psychology is such a thing for me and so is nutrition. When talking about them I will easily go into the specifics - usually the ones I've studied most recently - and fail to communicate on the broader level that would make more sense to the person I'm talking with.

This problem is emphasized by the fact that usually the more you know about something, the less black and white your perception becomes. When it comes to complex systems like human behavior or metabolism I could have given you much clearer answers two or three years ago than I can now. Now it's all entangled in 'ifs' and 'on the other hands' and 'howevers'. Let's take low-carbohydrate diet and weight loss as an example:

Low-carbohydrate diet will promote weight loss because 1) it reduces insulin secretion, and 2) it reduces the amount of triglycerides your body can produce. This leads to less storage of fat and fat tissue releasing fatty acids into bloodstream to be used for energy. Pretty clear so far. But now we forgot about gut health. Eating foods that irritate gut - and carbs have little to do with this - might lead to foreign molecules getting into bloodstream, causing an inflammatory response and in worst case some really nasty autoimmune problems. Inflammation also has an impact on metabolism. And we haven't talked about leptins yet. Damn those pesky hormones... So it's not just about insulin and its effects on fat storage, or the effects of systematic inflammation, but we also should consider the effect that leptins have on satiety. Leptin resistance leads you to feel hungry even though you just had a large meal...

Here is my completely unscientific representation of how much you know about a topic is related to how convinced you are about the extent of your knowledge.

The more you learn, the more mechanisms you identify that all play a role in a complex system, and the less certain you become about how the cause-and-effect chains actually work. It gets complicated quickly and makes accounting for every possible factor and variable a tough job. And when you are continuously learning new things, you are also coming up with more questions that remain unanswered. As a consequence the limits of your knowledge and understanding become painfully obvious.

It's interesting to listen to the low-carbohydrate diet discussions in the locker room at my gym, or in a bus, or in a restaurant. It's immediately evident that almost everyone has gotten their information from mainstream media. There's no intelligent questioning of the principles behind the dietary approach, there's no discussion about the underlying biological mechanisms or causality, and there definitely is no exploration of alternative explanations to why it works beyond "it's the carbs, maaan."

The biggest problem is that when your primary source of information is the highly digested piece in a newspaper, tabloid, or a women's (or men's) magazine, it's easy to become disillusioned about the extent of your knowledge. After all, shouldn't the newspaper article contain everything an average Joe needs to know about the topic? Isn't it the job of the journalists to find and communicate the truth in any matter? (1)

If only it was so easy. Reality is always more complex than a newspaper article. It's easy to blindly trust an expert who claims to know the true path, packages it in a simple and appealing box, and discredits anyone who is not a true believer. When asked for specifics or presented with contradictory evidence, the expert can always hide behind  complex jargon and confusion and smoke and mirrors. He knows the jargon so he must be credible, right? And his solution was so... reasonable and pretty and everything! (2)

In proper scientific inquiry there is always substantial disagreement amongst experts. Who do you trust? Who do you believe in? Even in scientific communities the elusive "truth" often becomes a matter of belief, not of knowledge or facts. Even Albert Einstein, one of the brightest minds of recent history, spent years and years during the later stages of his career trying to unsuccessfully refute some of the more disturbing aspects of quantum mechanics, simply because - and despite all evidence to the contrary - he refused to believe them to be true. (3)

Here is how you can identify someone who has actually taken the time to dive into a topic, and has the courage to tell the truth about the extent of her knowledge: She will not give you yes or no answers. That person operates in the gray area between yes and no, and is likely to start with "it depends" when you ask her something. Be vary of those who claim to have the definite answers and paint you a picture of black and white world, no matter how tempting that world might be in its beauty and simplicity. (3)

The black and white world is full of statements like:

• The fat you eat goes straight into your thighs/belly/wherever it is you don't want it.

• If you eat cholesterol-rich foods, you will end up with high cholesterol.

• Human beings are rational decision-makers.

The real world is messy, ambiguous and sometimes counterintuitive. Welcome to the real world.

References:

(1) To get some idea about the "evidence" behind media headlines in the field of medicine, watch these TED talks:

Goldacre, Ben (2011). Battling bad science. TEDGlobal 2011, [video online]. Available at: http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science.html [Accessed 21 November 2012].

Goldacre, Ben (2012). What doctors don't know about the drugs they prescribe. TEDMED 2012, [video online]. Available at: http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe.html [Accessed 21 November 2012].

(2) For some hair-raising reading on this topic, check: Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2008). Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions and Hurtful Acts. Pinter & Martin Ltd. (Buy from Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk).

(3) Isaacson, Walter (2007). Einstein: His Life and Universe. [Audible edition, Unabridged] Simon & Schuster Audio. 

Act the way you want to be

Sokcho - Shot with Nikon D90, 10mm, f8, 1/50, ISO 200

Here's a photo that I shot with my Nikon D90 and a wide-angle lens in January 2011. It was taken in a town called Sokcho, on the east coast of South Korea. Last night I spent a good 90 minutes or so working on it first in Lightroom, then in Photoshop. Why? I'm not making any money with it. It does not have a higher purpose. It's not going to make me famous. In fact, I'm fairly certain it will have no impact at all on my life - or yours - so why spend all that time? After all, I could have just posted it online as  it came out of the camera without any of this extra effort.

One answer to that question is that I am proud of my work. Granted, I'm not a professional but I hold myself to a certain quality, and if I don't live up to that expectation it is me who suffers the most. I can cheat others but never myself. I want to look at the picture I have created and say that it is done according to my best ability. If I publish something that I know I can improve with my current set of skills, it always comes back haunting me later.

Steven Pressfield, in his brilliant book The War of Art talks about becoming pro. He does not tell you how to do it, but he argues that if you don't first start acting and behaving like a pro, it's unlikely that you will ever become one. "Act the way you want to feel" said a happiness researcher.

Pressfield is an acclaimed author, so for him being a pro meant writing an hour after hour every single day, even when he hadn't yet published anything and there was no guarantee that he ever would. For me it means having certain standards when it comes to the photos I publish. More lately it has also started to mean that I rarely leave the house without a camera with me.

However, perhaps the most important reason for spending last night immersed in this image was that for those 90 minutes I was engaged, in a state of flow, and generally enjoying myself. I was creating and time lost its meaning. This, I think, is worth pursuing. What have you done to feel the same?

Left: after post-processing - Right: straight out of camera

How to attract women like a married man

Every now and then you hear guys talk about how it seems so difficult to find an interesting, clever, and a beautiful woman when they are single, but as soon as they start dating they become chick magnets and suddenly that kind of quality women are around every corner. On top of that, many of them seem to be attracted to these guys - something that was completely unheard of before! One moment you’re just another single guy trying to get the attention of a beautiful woman. Start dating, and you become magic.

The scarcity principle is one explanation; people are always more interested in things that seem unobtainable or rare. Then there is social proof; someone else has already done the screening for you. But how do you create the same effect without starting to date and consequently remove yourself from the marketplace?

Most guys do the mistake that they imagine their life would become somehow better when they introduce a woman to it. This presupposes that there is something wrong in their lives, or that something is missing. Their lives feel incomplete, and they imagine that a woman’s presence will fix it. This creates neediness and I think women can sense it when you interact with them - if not consciously, then at least in the more primitive parts of their brain.

So if you want to attract a beautiful, clever, and an interesting woman I’d say stop trying. Stop being just another guy who approaches her with nothing unique to offer. The reality of attractive women is that they get approached multiple times a day, and this becomes a bother. They’re not necessarily bitchy, but they need to develop ways to make snap judgements about the men who approach them, and be able to shrug them off in the blink of an eye.

Instead, think about your life. What do you value? What do you enjoy doing? What kind of life you want to be living in the next five years? Start systematically improving your life so that it becomes so enjoyable you don’t need a woman on it, or necessarily even have time for one. Doing this will cause few things to happen:

• You will have a lot more fun

• You are in control of the fun, it’s not dependent on anyone else

• You will stop projecting that air of neediness

• You will become seemingly unavailable, which makes you appear even more desirable

• Women will notice how much you enjoy your life and want to be part of it

Most importantly; a decision to involve a woman into your life will not be anymore about trying to fix something that is broken, but about making an already great life even more enjoyable.

You and your life, the whole package you have to offer to a woman is a product. How can you sell it if you don’t like what you’re selling in the first place?

Thoughts, ideas, and freeing your mind

It has been a long time since my last article. I have found excuses to keep me from writing, afraid that I wouldn't have anything to say. But each journey begins with the first step, and for me the first step seems to be the most difficult one to take. After that my mind starts to work on its own and words flow through my fingertips. I hope you enjoy my incoherent ramblings! 

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
None but ourselves can free our minds.
- Bob Marley

Thoughts have power, moreso when followed by action. And action is rarely present without the thought. You don't just get out of bed in the morning and go to work like a robot who has no say on what it's programmed to do. You think about what needs to be done before leaving the house, and you may even stop to think why you are going to work. Maybe you're saving money for a vacation, or maybe you feel like you are helping to make the world a better place through what you do for a living. In any case, you did not just end up where you are, but you rather got there as the end result of countless actions; actions preceded by thoughts.

Thoughts have power to manifest themselves in physical reality. The Wright brothers thought that a flying machine can be created. They believed it to be possible, even though the idea seemed ridiculous to others. But then again, it was the Wright brothers who created the world's first airplane. It was not someone who thought it couldn't be done.

Edison thought that it is possible to create light in a controllable way with electricity. He believed it so much that he famously invented 10 000 ways how to not create light before coming up with the lightbulb. What if he would have quitted? What if he would have buried his head in his hands in defeat, saying that "it is not possible" and fully embraced that thought?

Edison's lightbulb and the airplane of the Wright brothers did not exist in observable reality. They were literally born out of intangible ideas, and by taking action these men were able to turn their ideas into physical reality. Ideas and thoughts behind these inventions existed before their physical manifestations.

Our thoughts, beliefs, and how we see our relationship with the outside world provide a framework through which we operate. And our belief in what is possible and what isn't is a direct result of how that framework is built. For many people that framework was structured in a way that prevented them from even thinking about the possibility of a human being walking on the moon. But there were some with different frameworks. Some people thought it could be done, and believed in it, and it became reality.

Here is the kicker: that framework has your mind on a short leash. Since childhood that framework has been built in a way that certain things are taken for granted; as a truth that should never be questioned. This has lead most people to succumb to the notion that life is a fixed pattern of birth-childhood-school-work-retirement-death, and as a result they aren't able to see it for what it is: just another idea.

Consumerism is another example. It has become such an ingrained part of our thinking of how life should be that most people keep on creating artificial wants and needs; they buy this and that in pursuit of fleeting moments of happiness and excitement. I don't think many of them have stopped to question the origin or motives of this kind of behavior.

How the culture or the society wants us to live our lives is not a physical object that you can touch and observe. It is something that has gotten into our minds already at an early age, and then entangled itself to the framework. After you realize that these are just ideas, you begin to see you don't need to act upon them unless that is what you truly want.

This is what seeing things differently means. You can dismantle the framework that other people take for granted, and identify where it serves your purpose and where it is better to be reshaped or torn down altogether.

If you adopt this mindset you start to notice some interesting things around you. Take manners as an example: What we consider to be 'good manners' is simply one kind of behavior among other behaviors. That behavior in itself does not carry any value or any notion of 'good' and 'bad'. It is the framework in our heads that provides the context through which we observe and judge whether a certain behavior fits inside our concept of 'good' or 'bad' manners.

I think here lies the essence of an entrepreneur. They are, by definition, people who have an ability to question things that others take for granted, see them differently, and evaluate their worth. They are not limited by what others think can or can't be done. They have the ability to decide for themselves which behaviors provide value and which ones are better to get rid of.

For most people the framework is a master who needs to be obeyed. For entrepreneurs and other creative minds the framework is a tool. And if that tool is wrong for the purpose or task at hand, it needs to be changed.

In which group you belong to?

The stories no one tells you

Have you heard how sometimes a drowning man, or a survivor of a shipwreck, has been helped ashore by a dolphin? This kinds of things come up in the news every now and then. Are they proof that dolphins are intelligent and benevolent? Do dolphins know that by doing this they are saving a human life? Or are they just being playful?

Photo by ladybugbkt

And what about the times when the dolphins ignore a struggling swimmer and let him drown? Or start towing or pushing him to the open sea instead of land? We never hear about these stories. It doesn't mean they wouldn't happen, but there's no one alive to tell them. Maybe a dolphin is just being playful, pushing and pulling the drowning man to wherever. The stories we hear are told by those who were lucky enough to be pushed ashore and lived to share their experience, and this distorts our perspective on reality. We are inclined to think that dolphins are benevolent creatures.

I was reading this article by Everett Bogue about becoming successful by setting unrealistic goals and I realized that many of the blogs I read are written by people who are making their income online with an illusory ease. In the process they seem to have achieved freedom, happiness, and financial security - and all of them are saying that you can do it too! This is connected with personal development, as the process involves shedding many of your limiting beliefs and learning things about yourself. These people make it sound so easy even when they say it isn't.

Don't get me wrong, I admire what these people have done, but similar to the drowning man saved by a dolphin, are we only hearing one side of the story? I don't know of any bloggers who are focusing only on their failures and how difficult it is to become successful in your chosen trade. In fact, I don't even think people want to read about this stuff. It's much nicer to read 'from rags to riches' kinds of stories. They give hope.

The few times I've seen people blog about where they failed the articles have always included very profound analysis and soul-searching to figure out what went wrong and how to learn from it, so I wouldn't consider these failures in that sense. The best way to learn is to try and fail and try again.

Humans have a tendency to wrongly estimate the likelihood of different events to occur. The more first-hand evidence we see about specific things the more common we assume them to be. This is why it's normal for a layman to grossly overestimate homicide rates. These events always make it to the newspaper and TV headlines so people are much more exposed to them than e.g. deaths caused by heart disease.

In a similar way I've begun to wonder if the number of lifestyle design, personal development, and online marketing blogs is skewing the actual data. Maybe these successful bloggers are just a dime in the dozens of failures, but because it's very rare to hear about those failures we assume that achieving what these people have achieved is somehow easy and commonplace.

What do you think?

Confessions of a WoW addict

World of Warcraft (WoW) came out in Europe in February 2005. I started playing it a month earlier during the final beta test phase, and I kept playing it for about four years straight - except when I was doing my student exchange in Malaysia in 2006. However, even at that time I was eagerly looking forward to the first big expansion (The Burning Crusade) to come out, and I was following WoW news sites and watching WoW videos created by other gamers.

All in all, I was rather hardcore about the whole thing: I was the founder and leader of one of the best guilds - a group of players organized to work together - on the server in which I played. Eventually we merged with another guild so we could achieve more together, and we did. We became the first ones on the whole server to beat most of the toughest opponents in the game. I also wanted to give up my position as a leader because it got simply too tiring to run the whole thing and to deal with egomaniacs, who for some reason seem to be particularly attracted to multiplayer online games...

What finally stopped me playing WoW for good is actually rather embarrassing. In the end of 2008 I was becoming more and more fed up with the game. I had graduated a year and a half earlier and was working full-time. What I didn't want was to come home after work and play a game that started to feel like work, too. I felt obliged to play it. Then I finally realized after a period of denial that I was not getting any enjoyment out of it anymore, but instead it was making me anxious and frustrated.

I figured that I might enjoy certain aspects of the game (mainly player vs. player combat, in which the players fight against each other in teams instead of trying to beat the computer controlled opponents) if only I had a different character class. At the time of writing there are 10 different classes one can choose from, with each having unique abilities and a different "role" to play: some are good at dealing damage, while some heal others or are able to withstand damage. All characters also have a host of supporting, more situational abilities. Unfortunately the one I played at the time was a definite underdog in player vs. player combat, which was one of the reasons for my frustration with the game.

Given my skills and knowledge of the game, it would have taken me about 9 days - meaning 9x24 hours of actual playtime - to create a new character and reach a level in which I might have enjoyed playing WoW again. However, I didn't feel like going through the whole process of leveling up another character, so instead I paid a company to do it for me. Considering how much money I made at the time, it felt like a good deal. The only problem was that it's against WoW's terms of use and I got caught, losing my entire game account. That was the end for me, and I didn't mind! In retrospect, paying some $99 to get rid of one of the worst addictions that I've ever had is not a bad deal.

After I stopped playing, I started to really realize just how huge time-sucking vacuum the game is. As I put WoW behind me I shifted my focus on other things, took the concept of character development - where you play your character in the game and develop its skills, get better equipment and more abilities - and started applying it to myself. I began developing my skills and abilities for real: I read books and blogs to acquire knowledge, and I fixed my diet and exercise habits to become fit.

Ever since I stopped playing the game and started to focus on the real me instead, I've been pondering why is it that these kinds of games are so addictive? How come there are people so immersed in playing them, that they even forget to eat and sleep?

First of all, I don't think many people get to really experience feelings of success or accomplishment in their daily lives. We tend to move through our existence in mindless drudgery; wake up in the morning, go to work or school, and for the rest of the time try to keep ourselves entertained. And I think here is the key: why bother trying to achieve something big and meaningful, when it's safe and secure to live a dull life and grasp moments of instant gratification by watching tv and playing video games?

This is what we've been conditioned to do since we were kids. We've been lulled into settling for this safe and secure life which doesn't provide opportunities for personal growth, and we rarely even know how to look for those opportunities. After all, personal growth is a scary thing to do. It means facing and really getting to know yourself, your own shortcomings, your desires, and accepting and embracing them. It means getting out of your comfort zone and putting your psyche in the line of fire; something will change or shift and you will not be the same person as you were before. Something dies, and something is born anew.

A lot of adults are living their lives in a state of continuing adolescence. There's no need to really take responsibility. You can forget about the feeling of incompleteness - why you might be unhappy or feel like your life has very little meaning - by simply turning on the TV or logging into an online game where you can be the hero; destroyer of evil and protector of good! But what if we didn't have television? What if we didn't have computer games or Internet? How would you then spend your time? What would you do to get your buzz? To feel like you've accomplished something?

It's not only the feeling of achieving something that makes online games addictive. There is the social aspect as well.The game world has its own rules and measures of success - for example in WoW being able to beat a tough opponent before anyone else in the game is a source of pride and prestige. There are competitive aspects beneath the surface, and I happen to be a rather competitive person by nature, so for me it became important to be one of the best in the game - and I ended up playing a lot to get to that point.

In offline games it doesn't matter so much how well you play because similar social aspects and competitiveness are missing, but online you want to show the others just how good you are and how much you have achieved. Like I said, in that world you can be the hero. You can be someone.

The problem is that you are someone only as long as you play the game. Outside people don't know about your achievements in the game world. Outside there are different rules and different measures of success. So when you are not playing the game anymore you may not have much to celebrate. I feel like I was in a limbo for the two years when I played WoW intensely. I feel like my life was on hold; I was just doing my work, and then spent the rest of my time immersed in the game world.

But I guess you can cheat yourself only long enough before reality kicks in - and when it does, it does it hard. Then you stop and think "What the hell am I doing... Is this how I want to spend my limited time on the face of the Earth?"

I think a big difference between achieving things in the real world and in these online games is that in the games there is a much more limited set of rules, and the games are designed in a way that everyone can feel like the hero of the day. You know from the get-go what you need to do to progress, and the more you progress the better you feel. A bond is born between the real you and your avatar in the game world.

Life, on the other hand, is not so simple and we've been receiving mixed signals since we were kids about what we should do and have to feel happy. We've been conditioned to believe that education, good job, house, car, marriage, and children is what life's all about, but there are numerous people who have all that and yet they are miserable. So maybe we've been lied to. Maybe there is something else that will make you feel like your life has a purpose, a meaning, or a direction and that you are being congruent to that purpose and living it.

Finding that purpose is by no means an easy task. And there is no Gandalf that will come and tell you that you need to pack your things, travel to Mordor, and throw The One Ring into the Mount Doom. You can read every self-help book there is, which will likely provide you with good tools, butin the end you're still on your own when it comes to figuring out what your life will be about.

In the game world you know all the time what you should be doing to get to the next level, but in real life you don't. In the game world you have a direction where you're heading to and you know where it will take you. In real life it's much more difficult to find something even remotely like that and you can never be sure where you will end up, or what surprises are in store for you.

Now, what if you knew yourself well enough to realize what you want to achieve in life? What if you had a grand vision you know would benefit the rest of the humanity and make you feel like your life has meaning? And what if there was a system, or a toolset that provides you with a sense of direction, telling you what steps you need to take and what you need to do to get closer to your grand vision? What if - in the same way you're guided through the game world - you could receive similar guidance in real life enabling you to realize your potential?

Wouldn't that be something!

An outward look at life

In my previous post I talked about how we humans are made of trillions of smaller lifeforms such as cells and bacteria, and that those lifeforms are completely unaware that they are part of this indefinitely more complex structure we call human. If you haven't read my previous post, please read it before this one, as it provides an introduction to some of the concepts I'll be discussing here.

If the cells are aware of only other cell sized constructs, similar to us being aware of things that hold meaning to us and that exist in the world in which we operate, could it be possible that we are also just a part of a much larger organism? That organism would be indefinitely different from us and existing in a different world from ours. We would have no possible way to comprehend it or see our part in its existence.

And what if that organism has a completely different form of life than we humans do? We have defined life from our perspective, but could there be life that is so incomprehensible to us that we automatically choose to ignore or overlook it?

Take a city or a society as an example. You could say, that a city works with an intelligence of its own that is way beyond the intelligence of any single person. If there's a blackout in the city, someone knows how to fix it. There is a system for finding the person to fix it and a system to find the system that would find the person. And there is a force holding these systems together. People run the transportation systems that enable the city to operate, work on jobs without which the city - or parts of it - would fall apart, and create new constructs that shape and enhance the city. To me this sounds eerily familiar to what the cells are doing within our bodies.

Think of the way a city devours the lives of its inhabitants for its own purposes: A higher organism that is feeding upon a lower one, and by doing so accomplishing more than the lower organism can accomplish alone.

These ideas are from Robert M. Pirsig's book Lila, and Pirsig says that people have a habit of thinking that a city is a "work of man", but what man invented it? Was there a group of people who jointly decided how it should all go together? And if "man" invented societies or cities, why are all societies and cities so repressive of "man"? Why would "man" even want to invent internally contradictory standards and arbitrary social institutions for the purpose of giving himself a bad time?

We are used to think, that evolution stops with the highest evolved substance; the physical body of man. We perceive cities and societies as subordinate creations of man. But the problem with this line of thinking is, that if a city is a creation of man then the same thought pattern dictates that man is just a creation of the individual cells that constitute human body. And that those cells are a creation of protein and DNA molecules, and DNA is a creation of carbon and other inorganic atoms. In the end this line of thinking would dictate, that individual electrons contain the intelligence needed to build cities all by themselves.

If, on the other hand, you accept that there are evolutionary patterns that are not dependent on biological substance, cities start to make a whole lot more sense. When societies, cultures and cities are seen not as inventions of "man" but as higher organisms than biological man, it becomes much easier to understand the phenomena of war, genocide, and other forms of human exploitation. "Mankind" is not inherently interested in getting itself killed, but this organism that is a pattern of values superimposed on top of biological human bodies, doesn't mind losing a few bodies to protect its greater interests.

Consider the way you are expected to live your life; you study, graduate, work and then retire. And by doing that whose interests are you serving? Who is the beneficiary? It's not going to be you. Not in this modern world. More than anything it's going to be the organization that employs you. And the organization can be seen as a social organism that converts the accumulated biological energy into forms that serve itself. It uses your energy throughout your life to grow stronger, and when you have become too old and weak to be of use, it excretes you and finds another younger person full of energy to take your place and do the same thing all over again.

An inward look at life

If you think my previous post wasn't trippy enough, maybe this one is more to your satisfaction. The concepts I talk about here were inspired by Robert M. Pirsig's wonderful book Lila, as well as Richard Dawkins's TED talk The universe is queerer than we can suppose. And as a disclaimer, don't take these things seriously word-for-word, but instead stay open minded and focus on feeling what kind of thoughts they might provoke in you.

Let's look at you. What you are made of. We can start from atoms, move up to molecules and further zoom out to see the individual cells. There are trillions of them, and cells are considered as a basic form of life. There is life in you. You are not just alive as a person, but there are individual lifeforms within you, performing different functions without which you wouldn't survive.

You might not see the wondrous reality I'm trying to convey by saying these things. It can be difficult to grasp the concept of cells having a precious life of their own. But what about bacteria, clearly a form of life? Most of them aresingle-celled organisms that eat, procreate and evolve. And there are dozens of different species of bacteria living in your gastrointestinal tract alone. Do you consider them being part of you?

If you said "no, they are freeloaders or parasites," would your mind change if I told you that without those bacteria you wouldn't be able to convert nutrients into usable forms, synthesize vitamins, or eliminate toxins? You would probably die without the bacteria that is living inside you.

Your life is made possible by the lives of trillions of smaller creatures within you. And those creatures have intelligence. Not the same form as we - the more complex organisms - have developed, but intelligence nonetheless. The cells are sensing their surroundings and react to it. Think of a white blood cell destroying harmful bacteria: It has to be able to tell the harmful ones from the beneficial ones, and it has to know how to eliminate the threat. It learns and remembers. This is why we can have an immunity to a disease, and why we get vaccinated. Our cells learn to recognize a harmful pathogen and how to get rid of it.

Now imagine for a moment that you are a cell; a simple form of life living inside the body of a human being, performing your function, reacting to your surroundings, procreating and evolving. Would you be aware that you are just a tiny part of a larger and indefinitely more complex living organism? Your surroundings, the world in which you operate, is completely different from the one in which humans operate. Your sensory equipment would not be able to comprehend the world of humans, as that world has no significance for a single-cell organism like yourself.

The lifeforms you, as a human, are made of are in most likelihood unaware of your existence. They are aware of lifeforms and constructs that are more related to their own size and have meaning to them. Similar to us being aware of buildings, mountains and other people. We do not sense the bacteria in our food or on our bed sheets, but the living organisms inside us do.

Our brains have evolved in a way that helps us navigate the world in which we operate. We sense our surroundings three dimensionally because it allows us to comprehend and navigate a reality that holds meaning for us. This, however, makes it difficult for us to imagine and understand that there can be millions of variations on how different lifeforms sense their environment, including those operating in the world consisting of cell-sized constructs.

A dog, for example, may sense smells in a completely different way from how our brains interpret them. Maybe their brains convert the smells into three dimensional images the same way our brains convert the light that hits our eyes into shapes and colors. Have you considered that before? We do not "see" in a direct sense of the word. Our brains decode the signals from our optic nerves and project the interpreted and decoded reality outwards. In other words, what you see is an image created by your brain using the light that hits your retinas as a reference.

Now, I think this post has enough food for thought already as it is, so I'll leave it at that. However, this was meant as more of an introduction to another, perhaps even more trippy topic which I'll try to cover in my next post. And as always, your comments and thoughts are highly appreciated!

Are we lost in our heads?

We are currently living the high point of human evolution, and every single day is the next high point as our knowledge and understanding is constantly increasing. As little as 50 years ago people wouldn't have believed if you told them about how the whole world will be interconnected, and how vast amounts of information are available at practically everyone's fingertips.

We have put man on the moon, explored the deep seas and created magnificent works of art. The increase in humanity's understanding of ourselves and the world we inhabit has been phenomenal, and never before have we glimpsed so deeply into how our bodies and minds work.

However, this increase in knowledge and the culture that values intelligence more than anything else has caused another kind of change in us; we have began to live our lives inside our heads. You might have a differing opinion of this, but I have started to notice that when people say "me" they mean their mind, their personality, their character. They are excluding the physical body from the concept of "me". I believe it's very common these days to refer to "my body" as something that's separate from "me", and consider it more like a possession instead of an integral part of your being.

Like Ken Robinson put it when talking about university professors; for them the body is just a means of transportation for the mind.

Ever since reading The Vegetarian Myth I have been bugged by a question that Lierre asked, but didn't really answer properly in the book: As it seems evident that agriculture is both destroying the planet and our health, why did we start doing it in the first place? What caused humanity to make the switch from hunting and gathering to farming?

I have been thinking, that maybe this polarization - or separation - of body and mind started already before we made the switch, and it was actually one of the underlying reasons for inventing agriculture.

I find it really disturbing, that we have become so alienated from our bodies and our physical needs, that we have no idea anymore about what is good and healthy for us. The low-fat high-carb vs. low-carb high-fat battle is the perfect example of this. It does not matter which approach is the key to eating healthy, or maybe it's neither of those two, but how have we ended up in this situation in the first place?

Does a lion spend time thinking whether or not eating a zebra is healthy for it? Or do koalas consider that maybe it would be a good idea to try something else than eucalyptus leaves for a change? No, their whole being is hardwired to eat what works the best for them. They do not rationalize like we humans do. Instead, they listen and hear and do what their bodies tell them is the right thing to do.

I am not saying that rational thinking is the cause of all evil and should be abandoned, but at least on a personal level I want to re-establish the connection between mind and body, and come to accept that they are interconnected in more levels than I can imagine. One does not exist without the other, and the body is not just a dumb, automated vessel that gets your mind around to different places, but instead it has a profound effect on how well the mind actually works.

This is something I noticed very clearly when I started my own low-carb diet; the increase I experienced in my energy levels and positive attitude surpassed all my expectations! This connection works both ways too: A 2007 study [PDF] found that a group of athletes who visualized exercising their hip muscles experienced similar strength gains as the control group who went to the gym and did the actual exercises.

There is a lot more to our bodies and minds than we realize. Instead of getting more and more stuck in the mind, I think everyone should practice listening and interpreting the signals that the body is sending. On a deep level you - your body and mind, together - know what is the right thing to do. If that inner knowledge wouldn't exist, human species would have become extinct already thousands of years ago.

Is having a passion really that important?

Based on my experience so far, most of the entrepreneurial personal development books are about "finding your passion" - or defining your biggest interest in life, and then focus on how to turn that passion into a source of income. The goal, of course, is that you could do the thing you love and in the process earn a living. It's a splendid goal to have, don't get me wrong, but is it realistic?

The books usually offer you questions and techniques to find that passion, such as:

• What activity would you do for free, just because you are passionate about it?

• What activity would you pay to do, just because you enjoy it so much?

• If you would win in a lottery and never had to work again, what would you do?

• What would you be willing to do for the rest of your life?

• Who are the people you admire and most want to be like? What interests do they have?

• What specifics do you enjoy? It could be people, computers, working with your hands, teaching, inventing or any kind of combination of multiple things.

The answers that stem from asking these questions would then indicate what your deepest interests and passions are. I actually do believe, that for some people these questions can be helpful and provide valid answers, but then again I also believe that you need to be rather passionate by nature - or able to feel more deeply about things - to really gain some insight from these questions.

You see, I wouldn't call myself a passionate person and that is a problem with exercises like this. I like riding motorcycles, I like snowboarding, I enjoy doing works of art and I am interested in reading and learning. But is any of these activities something I would consider a passion and could not imagine living without? Not really. In some cases it's almost the opposite. I don't believe I would enjoy life that much if most of my time was spent tinkering with Photoshop or reading books.

Another problem is that people change. It's a cliché but it's true. As a teenager being a snowboarder was my identity. It wasn't just something I wanted to do, it was me! It was not only about doing the actual activity, it was the music I listened to, the clothes I wore, the friends I kept, the magazines I read. It was a complete lifestyle and I enjoyed it. Fast forward 6-7 years and I hardly hit the slopes during winter. Not that I wouldn't want to, but there are now other things in my life and snowboarding has lost its importance.

Would you be willing to make a commitment to some passion of yours for the next 5-10 years? Are you sure that your interests won't change in that time?

I have been struggling with these questions since I first became aware of them. I can only identify things I like, but not really things that I'm truly and deeply passionate about. There are also quite a few things I imagine I would have a deep interest in, such as architecture, industrial design and medicine, but the realist in me does not see any options to even verify if that actually is the case; I don't have talent at drawing, and even if I'd get in a medical school it would take six full years before I'd be able to find out whether or not being a doctor is what I want.

The best advice I've come across is to simply be open-minded and try anything that appears interesting. You think gardening might be fun? Go to the library and read a bit more about it. Does it appear even more exciting as your knowledge increases? How about setting a small garden to your yard or balcony or getting a summer job taking care of a public park? Still enjoying it, or is it starting to lose its appeal?

With this approach, passions are seen more as temporary - although quite likely very strong and all-encompassing - interests, and the idea is to pursue whatever excites you at the time while also accepting the fact, that at some point the interest might start to lose its appeal. When that happens, it's not a fault in your character and you shouldn't blame yourself for "not knowing who you are anymore", but instead start the process from the beginning and perhaps find something else that captures your interest.

I would love to hear from people about how they have found their passions, and not just the fleeting ones, but the ones that have stuck for years and are still going strong. How did you discover them, and how do you feel about them? Have your feelings changed over time? Have you thought about ways to turn your passion into a source of income?

Other sides of ownership

I don't know about you, but I believe that people live their lives in pursuit of happiness. Whether or not they consciously realize this doesn't matter. I believe that whatever choice or action a person does, the underlying reason for that particular action relate to the assumption, that by acting the person will feel a little bit happier afterwards. In a bad situation this could also mean, that people will act based on what they believe will cause the least amount of unhappiness or discomfort.

I think that this pursuit of happiness is very much evident in our buying decisions. Why would you buy e.g. a particular car, a pair of jeans, a hi-fi system or a pet unless you expect your quality of life to take a turn to the positive with that purchase?

You may reason, that you need a car to get to work, but you still need to choose which car you want and here the "happiness factor" comes into play. Same goes for buying clothes; I've lost quite a bit of weight during the year, so most of my jeans are too big for me now, but the main reason I got a new pair was that I enjoy looking good. Pure and simple. I can still use the ones that are a bit oversized for me - and obviously I need to wear pants or I'd freeze - but the main factor for choosing this particular pair was the positive feeling I get when I know I look good wearing them. Happiness, again.

But what is happiness, really? I had never paid much attention to this before, but watching the brilliant TED talk Matthieu Ricard on the habits of happiness struck a chord in me. One part of the talk in particular, where he says that people are focusing their attention on the outside, the outer conditions, and concentrate on the things they feel they want or need to obtain in order to be happy. Or when something goes wrong people respond by trying to fix the outside. However, according to him our control of the outside is limited, temporary and often illusory. On the other hand, when focusing on the inside, isn't it the mind that translates the outer condition into happiness or suffering?

The impact of those words has echoed in my head since I first heard them. I felt enlightened. I felt that I found the map that will guide me to enjoy life more, and to be content with what I have. Simply by realizing, that no matter what the outer conditions are the feelings of happiness or anxiety are all in my head, I gained control over those emotions. If something annoying happens, let's say I drop a glass and break it, I get a rush of negative feelings, but now I am able to recognize them for what they are and in a way turn them off. I choose not to have those feelings take over me.

Strangely, this worked even when I was stopped on my motorcycle for speeding a few months ago, and lost my driver's licence as well as one months salary in fines. I chose not to let it get to me and whenever I started thinking "what if I had taken a different road?" or "why did I go so fast, stupid!" I stopped that line of thought immediately. Having those thoughts would not have changed the situation one bit, but they would have made me feel a lot more miserable about it.

So what does this have to do with owning stuff? First of all, when you realize that your mind translates ownership into happiness, you will start to evaluate every single purchase decision from a different point of view. You will also realize, that since happiness is all in your head, buying more stuff is not necessary in order to become happy. Furthermore, whatever you own will lose its appeal over time, sooner or later. This seems to apply also in extreme situations. According to Dan Gilbert, even lottery winners were not able to gain any long-term sustainable happiness although they were able to buy pretty much anything they wanted.

There is also the rarely considered darker side to owning things. This may not apply so much in clothes and other minor possessions, but I certainly felt it when I bought my first motorcycle a bit over a year ago. It was the single biggest purchase I had ever made, and I also needed to take a loan in order to be able to buy it. Now suddenly this vehicle that was meant to give me freedom was starting to take a huge space in my thoughts. I started to worry about crashing it, the increasing gas prices, high insurance costs, regular maintenance costs, where to put it for winter and so on. I did enjoy riding it, hugely, but I never anticipated to have all these other emotions. My dream came with unexpected mental baggage, and when I sold my bike couple months ago I felt relieved to lose that baggage.

In Fight Club, Brad Pitt's character hits straight to the point when he says that "The things you own end up owning you." I know that I will be worrying again in a year about where to store my furniture and other things if I'm going to leave Finland for a student exchange. At that time I will probably curse all the unnecessary stuff that I have accumulated. The less you possess the more you have freedom.

"Desire can't be satisfied by fulfilling. It grows more and more and there is no end of desires. If a person becomes a king of a country he desires other countries. But the one who doesn't want to possess any thing possesses everything. The desires can be given up by understanding desires."
-Sri Baba Hari Dass, 1973 (from the book Less Is More)

Living a life of your own standards

So, today is my birthday. I'm 25 now. In one way you could say that I have 40 "productive" years left before retirement. 40 years to work, save money for pension and dream about the things I want to do when I finally get free, and have both the time and the money. I think that's a load of crap.

Me and Fred enjoying beers after a 10km Great Wall hike.

I don't really believe in retirement as an institution. Most people are happy to sit quietly on the ride that has been decided for them. They accept that the only way to live their lives is the norm of the society, which goes something like birth-childhood-studies-work-retirement-death. But who said that this is the way it should go?

If I remember correctly, the modern pension systems were born after industrial revolution to ensure that factory workers can support themselves after they become too old to continue working. This, first of all, means that the pension institution is relatively young, and the birth-childhood-studies-work-retirement-death pattern is not a norm in the history of humanity. However, I don't see people challenging it. I don't see people trying to improve it or rethink what would be a better way to celebrate human existence and to enjoy the limited time we can spend on this planet.

It's almost as if after you've spent your whole life making money for others, that you're allowed to enjoy the fruits of your labor and truly focus on your own interests and passions. How can it be, that the society expects this from you, and if you want to break the pattern and actually pursue your dreams younger, you will be frowned upon, thought as an eccentric or in worst case purely crazy.

As for me, I want to break the pattern. I need to do it. I don't know how, but figuring out ways to escape the 9-to-5 is on the back of my head constantly. It is one of the main motivators for me to go and study entrepreneurship in Helsinki School of Economics this fall. And by escaping the 9-to-5 I don't mean creating a life that would allow me to lie on the beach drinking margaritas until I grow old. That would become boring quickly. No, I mean getting control of my own life and doing the things I enjoy doing. If I could work on something related to e.g. photography and image manipulation - or snowboarding or motorcycles - I don't think I would even want to "retire," because that is something I already enjoy doing for free. The whole concept of retirement loses its value if you can figure out how to live your dream.

When retirement is not seen as freedom waiting at the end of a long narrow tunnel, you can start to think of ways to have the experiences you desire earlier in your life. Tim Ferriss talks about the concept of mini-retirement, which basically means taking an extended time such as few months or a year off-work to do whatever it is you want to do; travel the world, build a house, drive a motorcycle from Europe to Asia etc. Now, wouldn't it also be more enjoyable to have these experiences while you're still physically in good shape, instead of when you are over 65 and even playing checkers can make your heart pound in excitement.

So, what are your plans for life? Have you ever even thought that you don't have to live the life of birth-childhood-studies-work-retirement-death? It is just a pattern that has been very strongly imprinted on you by parents, teachers and society, but in no way can it be proclaimed as the "right" way to live a life.