I think the people who impose the most rules on themselves are the most free.

It takes extreme discipline to live a free life. If you don’t impose rules on yourself, someone else will impose them on you. The world is like a maze, and unless you make your life too big to fit in it, you’ll get trapped in it.

Sometimes I hear this lament from certain people about how they’d like to just chuck it all and go live in the mountains somewhere. Personally, I think that’s awesome – I want to do that. But these people seem to think it’s easy. As if “living in the mountains somewhere” would somehow take less discipline than living their current life.

You can take a day off from work. You can’t take a day off from your own survival. When you’re every piece of your own life, you can’t falter. You need rules to live by.

Not doing that is turning over some of the framework for your life’s decisions to others. Some level of that may be necessary, but do it deliberately if you must do it at all.

The other day in the store I witnessed an impromptu parenting moment and was, to put it mildly, unimpressed.

The woman had with her two children, looked to be about 10 and 8, both boys. The older boy said something quite unflattering and downright mean to the younger boy. The vicious statement he made also included a particularly unpleasant slur.

The adult’s response was swift but, in my opinion, quite misguided. Her response was: “Don’t use that word!”

That’s it. Then she went back to her errands.

Now, I’m not going to criticize the overall moment, devoid of context. I’m a parent, and I know a lot could be going on there. But I’ll happily criticize the general sentiment that I seem to see so oft-repeated, which is that there is such a thing as “bad words.”

People teach that to their kids as a very foolish shorthand for “don’t be mean.” But that’s not the lesson the kids learn, and it’s not the lesson they carry into adulthood. The lesson they carry into adulthood is that if you want to be mean, you also have to solve a puzzle – different words are worth different points, and your goal is to maximize offense and insult without going over the line.

We teach kids that certain words are off-limits instead of teaching them empathy, decorum, and self-control. And in doing so, we also create vulnerability to those same words in these kids – they grow up thinking that certain words are exceptions to the “sticks and stones” rule.

Yes, words – all words – have the power to hurt an undisciplined or vulnerable mind. And no, the fact that words only hurt certain people is not an excuse to use them, claiming “it’s their fault that they weren’t tougher.” We should, always, be kind. And some words in particular carry an awful lot of historical baggage that may make us more aware of their use.

But I posit that we teach the wrong lessons around this, and that we can do better.

If I put a chip in the mind of every human on Earth that completely prevented the use of certain words, and in so doing managed to eliminate a list of all harmful slurs (imagining for a moment that such a list could even be agreed upon), I would have done absolutely nothing to decrease the levels of racism, sexism, or other prejudice that exists in the world. I would not even have eliminated the tools of the “ists” of the world, for the very second they realized they couldn’t employ their previously favored slurs there would be a mad and unholy race to pick the best (worst?) replacement.

A generation of empathetic, kind, morally-upright people wouldn’t use those terms no matter how widely available and free of social consequence they were. We create social consequences for words instead of intent and actions and it makes us do crazy things, like firing one media law professor for discussing a First Amendment case about racial slurs or even firing a business communication professor who was teaching about the Chinese language for using a Chinese word that sort of sounded like an English racial slur.

Those schools fired those teachers, but I don’t blame the schools. The schools are simply responding to incentives from their customer base, as all businesses do. No, the blame lies solely with us for raising children this way. For slacking off in our lessons about politeness and kindness and empathy so that instead we’ve taught that all the bad in humanity is somehow bundled up with certain specific combinations of letters.

I don’t want my children to never use slurs. I want them to never say sentences where such slurs are appropriate components. I want them to never feel in their heart like such a sentence bears value to their hearts and the hearts of humanity. I can say vile, hurtful things in sentences composed of words that, individually, would be appropriate for any kindergarten classroom. That doesn’t make those things okay to say – they are poison for my soul if I let them reside in any mind, my own included.

Make no mistake – that lesson is the harder one to teach. Dealing with anger, pain, or jealousy in a healthy way, being compassionate to other humans (even those that are not compassionate to you) and understanding the eternal importance of even, civil discourse are all great challenges to developing minds and the mentors helping them to grow. But we mustn’t shirk those duties, and we certainly can’t be fooled – as I believe many of us have been – by the idea that policing a subset of those words will do the aforementioned for us. We have fallen into the false belief that if we simply impose enough social consequences on certain words, then people will automatically become the moral beacons we should have been raising all along.

Words are a symptom; an outpouring of what is in our minds and our hearts. A holy tongue cannot be attached to an unholy soul, but a holy soul will not seek poison for its tongue, even if it’s available.

You know, if you shine a laser pointer at a sponge, it stops. It won’t go through and shine out the other side.

But if you hold the sponge under a small stream of water, the water gets through.

There are a million paths that lead through the sponge. Just none of them are perfectly straight. So if you can only move in straight lines, it doesn’t matter if you’re fast and bright. You must be persistent and clever, instead.

Water is persistent and clever. Be like water.

I’m going to share a secret with you. A formula. A pretty tried-and-true way to stick out in someone’s memory.

“Once upon a time things were normal. And then they became bad, and here’s why! Then I did some cool things that only I could do. Then things were normal again, or even slightly better, because of what I did.”

That is every story ever. That’s the system. Replace the vague language with specific detail, but do not change the essential formula. That story will stick out in someone’s mind for a long time. Way longer than unconnected, irrelevant details.

Interviews. Dates. Sales calls. Family reunions.

You have cool stories in your past. You just might not know how to tell them. The above is how – use your details, truthful ones, things that really happened. But when you’re trying to figure out what order they go in, how to line them up – that’s how.

Anyone who you interact with in some way replaces you.

If you go to a restaurant, the chef there replaces you, if only for an evening, as the person who cooks your meals. By default, you do everything for yourself – all other interactions are acquired.

If you work for someone else, you’re replacing yourself with them as your boss. If you hire a nanny or use a daycare, you’re replacing yourself (at least some of the time) with them as the caregiver of your children.

It’s not a bad thing. But it’s a good reminder – always replace up. Always use someone better. Don’t replace just to replace. If you have to replace yourself, do it with someone you admire.

The best thing isn’t always good. But it’s still the best thing, and that means it’ should be your choice – the thing you act upon.

The best choice may simply be the best choice of available options. A think a truly powerful person is someone who can realize that even a bad option is the best one, and take it. If your leg is caught in a bear trap and the only way to make it back to civilization is to cut it off – well, not everyone can do that. But the ones who can’t don’t survive.

So let’s say you’re presented with an option – a course of action, a path. You don’t want to do it. Then you need to answer one question:

“If not, then what?”

If you don’t have a better idea, then then even an idea you hate may be the best idea. Of course, “nothing” is one of the choices – sometimes. Imagine you’re employed, but looking for something better. A job offer comes your way, but you don’t like it. “If not, then what?” Then you stay in your current job. Your current job may be better than the offered one. Okay.

But let’s say you’re not employed at all – you have no income, bills are piling up, etc. You get that same job offer. You still don’t like it, but: “If not, then what?” Then you starve – so take the job you don’t like, and then look for a better one.

I have a rule with my kids that makes me both more and less strict than a lot of typical parents. When I’m preparing dinner, I’ll get my kids’ input. I’ll say something like “I’m thinking about chicken and broccoli for dinner. What do you think?” If they say yes, great. If they say no – “If not, then what?” They have to make a suggestion. They can’t just say “no” and expect me to rattle off fifteen options until they pick one (parenting tip: they’ll never pick one). So I make my suggestion, and if they actually have a reasonable counter-offer, I’ll make it. If they say “how about ravioli instead,” then I’ll reward them for making a decision and make ravioli. But if they say “umm, I don’t know,” then they get my original offer.

That’s good training for anyone. “No” might be a complete sentence, but it’s not a complete plan for yourself. A long line of negatives and refusals won’t get you where you want to go. Your goal is movement. If you don’t like a particular direction, no problem – but if not, then what?

Ideas don’t have to be good.

I was in a brainstorming session with some coworkers today, and one of them shared a thought that she described as “quarter-baked.” As in, not even half-baked. I loved the term, but even more I loved the fact that she shared the idea anyway. It bounced off someone else, gathered momentum, ricocheted off someone else, and by the end of the meeting we had a process in place for a new initiative that would save us a ton of time and effort.

People are far too afraid to share their quarter-baked ideas.

Even in designated “brainstorming” spaces, too many people are afraid to “think out loud.” They want their ideas to be perfect (or at least complete) before they share them. Don’t do it. Don’t hoard your thoughts, especially when creativity is the watchword.

If you have to put a disclaimer on your vocalized thoughts in order to feel confident enough to share them, do so. Nothing wrong with it. Just say, “this is just a quarter-baked idea, but…”

It’ll never bake the rest of the way unless you put it in the oven.

I just saw an absolutely fascinating question posed on Twitter. The question is: “Assume you’re having difficulties finding a serious romantic partner. You meet someone who’s all the things you want, except you’re not attracted to them. There’s 0 spark. Would you take a drug (dosed weekly) that induces attraction to this person so you could be with them?”

I just have so many thoughts about this question and its implications that I felt I had to use space here to think them out loud.

First, my answer is an enthusiastic “yes.” Let me begin by actually drawing on an exercise I often use with my clients when doing career exploration. I tell my clients to draw a circle and divide it into some number of sections – somewhere between 4 and 8, doesn’t really matter. Then I tell them to fill in the slices with things they think make a “great job.” Common choices are: Satisfying Work, Great Boss, Good Wage/Salary, Location, Good Company Culture/Reputation, etc. We explore how each of those things matters, but there will always be trade-offs and you need to be prepared to examine those trade-offs in order to find a career you really love.

Now, some simple math here: if you have two people and they draw identical charts, but then one of them wakes up and decides that “Location” doesn’t really matter to them at all and they’re removing it from consideration, then that person has more options. It’s as simple as that. There’s absolutely a meta-trade-off between how many trade-offs you’ll accept and how many options you’ll have.

Now, the same thing can apply to romantic partners. Your “circle” could includes slices such as: Shared Values, Personal Ambition, Intelligence, Charm, Appearance, Social Status, Wealth, or any number of things. But if two people draw the same circle and then one of them gets to just remove ANY of the slices, that person will have more options overall. Simple math, no judgement attached.

Now, think of it another way – for better or ill, many people consider “wealth/income” (or at least wealth/income potential) as a factor for their ideal romantic partner. So imagine if the question was framed “You meet someone who’s everything you want, except they’re destitute through no fault of their own (i.e. they’re not lazy or irresponsible). They’re otherwise perfect. Would you date them if some organization was willing to give them a stipend equal to 50% more than the median income in your area while they dated you?”

What these questions both do is essentially take that slice of the circle out of the equation. Now, for some people, that slice is already absent. Some people don’t have “attractiveness” or “wealth” in their circle at all. Other people have it as a very large slice. People are so varied and strange and cool that anything you think is odd or unusual might very well be so in terms of statistical representation, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen or that it doesn’t work for those people. So when I tell you that there are already people who care absolutely zero about their partner’s appearance or income and are perfectly happy, don’t scoff just because you don’t feel the same way.

Or think of it like the career example, because that might be easier to wrap your head around: imagine that no matter what job you took, you’d get a decently above-average salary. Wouldn’t that significantly expand the number of jobs you’d consider taking? Surely there are several jobs that you know you’d love and would meet all the other criteria, but you don’t take because they simply don’t provide you with the amount of income you require. So by simply removing one of the many criteria you use to make such a decision, you broaden your pool.

So basically the interpretation I have is a straightforward one – anything that increases the mathematical likelihood of me achieving my goals without undue side effects is generally a good thing. So why then would anyone not say “yes” to the initial question?

I can think of two primary reasons: Associated Effects, and Moral Purity.

By “associated effects,” I mean the fact that no quality about a person truly exists in a vacuum. For instance: your healthy habits absolutely affect your physical appearance and on average, people in better health tend to be found more attractive to others. So assuming I took this drug and found someone attractive no matter what, it’s still possible that I may decide that I don’t want to partner with someone with terrible eating habits, lack of personal care, a drinking problem, heavy smoker, etc. I might artificially find them attractive, but I don’t want them in my life. However! While I think that many other people may respond this way, I think this is discounted by the phrasing of the question itself: “someone who’s all the things you want.” For me, that would mean that they’re healthy and have generally positive habits, so that eliminates the possibility of someone who is unattractive because they smoke a lot of meth or drink ten liters of soda a day.

Then there’s “moral purity.” I think some people might simply have a problem with the artificial nature of it all. Certainly I have a certain ill feeling when I consider the reverse: if I imagine discovering that my partner loves everything about me but has to take a drug to not feel physically repulsed by me, that might make me feel a certain way. I wouldn’t want a partner to feel that way. But that line of reasoning forces a very base, chemical/biological reaction to carry a lot of romantic weight! I mean, consider this scenario: you meet someone who you find wildly attractive. There’s 100% spark – but you despise everything else about them. By your definition, they’re a terrible person who would rank a 0 in every other category in your pie chart. Yet the spark is undeniable. Would you call that “love?” Would you date that person? Marry them? Would you advise a friend or family member in that situation to just take the plunge because truly they must be “the one?”

Certainly not! But if 100% Spark and 0% Everything Else isn’t love, then why should we say that 0% Spark and 100% Everything Else isn’t love? Find a couple that’s been married for 50 years and is still moon-eyed over each other, and I guarantee it won’t be because of “spark.” It will be because of lasting, enduring partnership built on all those other pie slices.

My honest guess is that if such a drug were invented and some people took it, it could wear off in six months and no one would notice. People who are fundamentally compatible bond, and whether that bond endures or not has to do with the people within it and the circumstances around it, not the spark. The whole reason we even use “spark” as a metaphor is because a spark doesn’t sustain – it either ignites something else or goes out.

So if the only thing standing in the way of you and something amazing is one tiny detail that is almost guaranteed to be temporary – physical attractiveness in a partner, a long commute for a job, the color of the paint on the walls of your dream home – just pretend that pill exists, and take it.

When a problem is easy, we see a solution clearly. That clarity solidifies the answer into a single point in conceptual space – no fuzzy outer area, no grey borders between right and wrong. Two plus two equals four.

So in our minds, we often associate “easy” with “clear.” Thus, we apply an equal reversal to both concepts: if “easy” is “clear,” then “difficult” must be “ambiguous.”

Hogwash. But easy to understand how people get there. They see a big, complicated problem and because the answer isn’t clear, they assume that the answer must also be “somewhere in the middle” or some such nonsense.

To be certain, some problems in your life will have answers that aren’t clear. It’s not wrong to acknowledge that. What’s wrong is thinking that every difficult problem you face lacks a clear, single answer just because it’s difficult to figure out what that answer is.

Most humans are so bad at determining cause and effect that we actually get it exactly backwards. Not only do we fail to identify the correct causes for the effects we’re examining, we actually mistake the effect for the cause in the same chain.

If you’re frustrated by something, try saying out loud the effect that frustration has on your life. Then reverse the two and see if that sentence helps explain your frustration. Here’s an example of a frustration: “Girls won’t talk to me.” So here’s what that sentence looks like if you say out loud the effect this has on your life: “Girls won’t talk to me, so I’m bitter and mean.”

Now flip it around: “I’m bitter and mean, so girls won’t talk to me.”

If there’s a lightbulb floating over your somewhat embarrassed face, then congratulations. A moment of introspection has given you a better course of action.

Let’s try it again: “I never get promoted.” The effect it has on you: “I never get promoted, so I half-ass my job.” The Flipside: “I half-ass my job, so I never get promoted.” Ahhhhhhhh.

Now, there’s definitely some “which came first, the chicken or the egg” going on here. But it doesn’t matter! Whichever came first initially, now eggs create chickens and chickens create eggs and that will go on forever unless YOU stop it. Don’t look for self-righteousness in blame or fault-finding. If the cycle is “I don’t get promoted, so I half-ass my job, so I don’t get promoted, so I half-ass my job, so I don’t…” then it doesn’t matter where it started – it matters where it ends.

And it ends with you, choosing a different course.