PsycHacks

As we move through life, it's almost inevitable that someone will become angry or upset with us in response to our behavior. However, hurt feels are not -- in and of themselves -- proof of transgression. If your own examination indicates that the behavior in question does not conflict with your moral or ethical beliefs, do not apologize. This can be taken as a confession of guilt and justify additional punishments from the aggrieved party.

The idiom "to take offense" reveals a fundamental truth on the matter, namely: offense is taken, not given. Those who have had the misfortune of having an enemy -- someone who is acting deliberately provocative -- know that they can control their reactions, so as not to give the provoker the satisfaction. This indicates that we have agency in the decision to become offended -- and also that we needn't necessarily assume responsibility when someone else has decided to become so.

People often say that relationships require compromise. However, in practice, this often amounts to the negotiated unhappiness of both parties. This is because the heart of compromise is always quid pro quo: I'll give up what I want now, and you'll give up your right to what you want later. An alternative to compromise is sacrifice, in which individuals choose to change in order to secure future benefit to themselves. Unlike compromise, there is no expectation that you will receive future consideration from your partner. It is inherently selfish -- but it preserves the freedom and dignity of the relationship.

People want what other people want. This is because the interest of others generally serves as a proxy validation of the variable under study. And to the extent that validation is delegated across a diverse and independent network, this is actually a pretty reliable heuristic. In this episode, I'll discuss an anecdote on the topic from my personal experience and explain its relevance in professional negotiations.

An approach-avoid conflict occurs when we want a relationship with a particular person at the same time that we are repelled by certain aversive or unwanted characteristics of that person. We don't want to give up what we want, but we also don't want to go after what we want. People can experience a great deal of emotional distress as a result of this ambivalence. In this episode, I'll discuss two tips for resolving these contradictory impulses: prioritizing what is over what could be, and making decisions "for now."

Many folks I talk to experience existential uncertainty. Not only are they unsure as to why they exist, but they often doubt that they should. In this episode, I extend the Disneyland metaphor used in a previous talk ("Life is like Disneyland") in order to argue that your existence is already justified by virtue of the very fact of that existence. It's very hard to sneak into Disneyland; it's even harder to sneak into being. So if you're in the park, you must have a ticket.

We're all subject to passing through moments of extreme difficulty, when nothing seems to be going our way. In those times, it's very important to maintain a humble vantage point and to temporarily lower your conditions for victory. Seek out small wins and resist the temptation to judge yourself for doing so. Small wins are like the stars: they don't provide a lot of light, but it would be really dark without them.

Humans need structure. This is because structure provides the opportunity for goal-directed behavior, which is one of the primary factors responsible for meaning and purpose. The issue is that externally-imposed structure is much easier for people to surrender to than is internally-imposed structure -- though the former is typically less fulfilling than the latter. In this episode, I'll discuss methods for improving your ability to create the structure that you can surrender to.

When we're faced with an important decision, it's a good idea to perform due diligence: to collect information relevant to the situation and to forecast probable outcomes. However, the results of this analysis alone are never sufficient to produce the actual decision. This is because decision is an act of the will, and more closely aligned with emotion than with reason. The highest to which the rational mind can attain is the calculation of odds ratios associated with certain outcomes given specific assumptions. Understanding the limits of rational thought will help improve your decision-making process.