I'm back. Thanks, readers, for indulging me while I took a little time off from writing.
****************************************
I've been thinking about this quote a lot recently:
The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago.
The next best time to plant a tree is now.
Unfortunately, I've been agonizing lately over why I didn't start doing certain things earlier in life. I wish, for example, that I had begun compound lifting much, much earlier in my life. My body (at its current age) just doesn't respond all that well to heavy workouts. It takes me days to recover, and after a good workout of deadlifts, squats, pullups and bench presses, I am wiped. Wiped out for the rest of the day. I wish I were fitter and more robust than I am, despite all the effort I put into my fitness.
Sure, there are solutions here. I can do lighter, milder, maintenance-type workouts. I usually feel good after workouts of that level of intensity. But then I'll just be in maintenance mode. That's fine, but in maintenance mode I won't be getting stronger, I won't be growing.
This is one of those examples where I think to myself, "shit, if I had just planted this compound lifting 'tree' twenty years ago, I'd have a real tree now. I'd be much more adapted to lifting at a level that I'd be satisfied with." But I can't go back to twenty years ago and plant that compound lifting tree. I can only plant it today. (Well, technically, I planted it a few years ago, but still.)
I can come up with lots of other examples, sadly: I wish I had taken up drawing or painting earlier in life. I wish I had learned to surf earlier. I wish I had taken up language learning wayyyy earlier--like back when I was still a teenager.
And then, I recall a conversation with a friend of mine who's then-partner told her, "It's too late for me to get started on retirement. I'm too old now to bother to save money." He was just thirty-seven at the time.
Now, let's take a moment and notice the circular logic and self-defeatism of giving up on doing something simply because it's possible you could have started earlier. This should resonate with anyone embracing YMOYL, early retirement or any of the frugality strategies discussed thoughout Casual Kitchen. If your first thought is "it's too late for me" then nothing can ever be worth doing. Tough to go through life like that.
And so here, readers, is where I confess my hypocrisy to you. The complaint about not starting to save money earlier and my complaint about not starting lifting earlier are identical! They are the same.
Of course it's always easier to see flaws and hypocrisies in others than in ourselves, isn't it?
So there's my problem and my challenge--and yours too, if you struggle with the "it's too late" issue anywhere in your life: Get over yourself and plant the tree. Now.
READ NEXT: Good Games
AND: YMOYL: The Full Companion Guide Archive
You can help support the work I do here at Casual Kitchen by visiting Amazon via any link on this site. Amazon pays a small commission to me based on whatever purchase you make on that visit, and it's at no extra cost to you. Thank you!
And, if you are interested at all in cryptocurrencies, yet another way you can help support my work here is to use this link to open up your own cryptocurrency account at Coinbase. I will receive a small affiliate commission with each opened account. Once again, thank you for your support!
Showing posts with label complaining. Show all posts
Showing posts with label complaining. Show all posts
All the Things You Can’t Do -- Instead of All the Things You Can
Peter Drucker, in his seminal book The Effective Executive, makes an arresting point about focusing on what you can do rather than what you can't:
"Most executives I know in government, in the hospital, in a business, know all the things they cannot do. They are only too conscious of what the boss won't let them do, of what company policy won't let them do, of what the government won't let them do. As a result, they waste their time and their strengths complaining about the things they cannot do anything about.
Effective executives are of course also concerned with limitations. But it is amazing how many things they find that can be done and are worth while doing. While the others complain about their inability to do anything, the effective executives go ahead and do."
We see this same dynamic in many of the life domains we discuss here at Casual Kitchen--of how far too many people give away their power, complaining about things totally outside their circle of control, rather than taking specific action inside their circle of control.
Some examples:
1) Complaining about greedy food companies trying to make us all fat--instead of thinking about what specific actions you can take to help your family eat healthier.
2) Raging about the political environment, or holding generalized negative feelings about those idiots in that other party who are all total idiots. Usually this is a direct function of consuming too much media. Remember! The media's function is not to inform you, it's to capture your attention by inducing rage or fear.
2a) Related: Letting a certain orange-colored President derange you, letting him live rent-free in your head, letting him make you mad from thousands of miles away. Instead of impotently shaking your fist at him on Twitter, you could be directly and positively impacting the people right around you, right now.
3) Complaining that the investing game is rigged (because of "high frequency trading" or "rich insiders" or whatever reason), rather than taking action yourself by improving your own investing game and getting better at it. As with politics, the investing realm is cruel to those who overreact to the media. Also, an innocent question about your personal circle of control: What's the last personal finance book you read? What is the most recent concrete step you've taken to improve your family's financial footing?
4) One of the more pernicious traps of modernity: fooling ourselves into thinking we're taking action by reading and talking about things, rather than actually doing them. We get the illusion of taking action with none of the results. I wrote about one painful example of this on my writing blog, about an acquaintance who talked about a novel he would someday write. Unfortunately, his novel never existed in reality--it only existed in an idealized state in his imagination.
"The assertion that 'somebody else will not let me do anything' should always be suspected as a cover-up for inertia. But even where the situation does set limitations--and everyone lives and works within rather stringent limitations--there are usually important, meaningful, pertinent things that can be done. The effective executive looks for them. If he starts out with the question: 'What can I do?' he is almost certain to find that he can actually do much more than he has time and resources for."
And he (or she!) can do much, much more than all the people sitting around complaining. Put together.
READ NEXT: Money Sundays: Is Looking For Tax-Efficient Investments Icky? Or Intelligent?
AND: The Official YMOYL Reading List
You can help support the work I do here at Casual Kitchen by visiting Amazon via any link on this site. Amazon pays a small commission to me based on whatever purchase you make on that visit, and it's at no extra cost to you. Thank you!
And, if you are interested at all in cryptocurrencies, yet another way you can help support my work here is to use this link to open up your own cryptocurrency account at Coinbase. I will receive a small affiliate commission with each opened account. Once again, thank you for your support!
"Most executives I know in government, in the hospital, in a business, know all the things they cannot do. They are only too conscious of what the boss won't let them do, of what company policy won't let them do, of what the government won't let them do. As a result, they waste their time and their strengths complaining about the things they cannot do anything about.
Effective executives are of course also concerned with limitations. But it is amazing how many things they find that can be done and are worth while doing. While the others complain about their inability to do anything, the effective executives go ahead and do."
We see this same dynamic in many of the life domains we discuss here at Casual Kitchen--of how far too many people give away their power, complaining about things totally outside their circle of control, rather than taking specific action inside their circle of control.
Some examples:
1) Complaining about greedy food companies trying to make us all fat--instead of thinking about what specific actions you can take to help your family eat healthier.
2) Raging about the political environment, or holding generalized negative feelings about those idiots in that other party who are all total idiots. Usually this is a direct function of consuming too much media. Remember! The media's function is not to inform you, it's to capture your attention by inducing rage or fear.
2a) Related: Letting a certain orange-colored President derange you, letting him live rent-free in your head, letting him make you mad from thousands of miles away. Instead of impotently shaking your fist at him on Twitter, you could be directly and positively impacting the people right around you, right now.
3) Complaining that the investing game is rigged (because of "high frequency trading" or "rich insiders" or whatever reason), rather than taking action yourself by improving your own investing game and getting better at it. As with politics, the investing realm is cruel to those who overreact to the media. Also, an innocent question about your personal circle of control: What's the last personal finance book you read? What is the most recent concrete step you've taken to improve your family's financial footing?
4) One of the more pernicious traps of modernity: fooling ourselves into thinking we're taking action by reading and talking about things, rather than actually doing them. We get the illusion of taking action with none of the results. I wrote about one painful example of this on my writing blog, about an acquaintance who talked about a novel he would someday write. Unfortunately, his novel never existed in reality--it only existed in an idealized state in his imagination.
"The assertion that 'somebody else will not let me do anything' should always be suspected as a cover-up for inertia. But even where the situation does set limitations--and everyone lives and works within rather stringent limitations--there are usually important, meaningful, pertinent things that can be done. The effective executive looks for them. If he starts out with the question: 'What can I do?' he is almost certain to find that he can actually do much more than he has time and resources for."
And he (or she!) can do much, much more than all the people sitting around complaining. Put together.
READ NEXT: Money Sundays: Is Looking For Tax-Efficient Investments Icky? Or Intelligent?
AND: The Official YMOYL Reading List
You can help support the work I do here at Casual Kitchen by visiting Amazon via any link on this site. Amazon pays a small commission to me based on whatever purchase you make on that visit, and it's at no extra cost to you. Thank you!
And, if you are interested at all in cryptocurrencies, yet another way you can help support my work here is to use this link to open up your own cryptocurrency account at Coinbase. I will receive a small affiliate commission with each opened account. Once again, thank you for your support!
Yes-Butting and You: Answers and Final Thoughts
If you haven't read Part 1 of this series, be sure to do so before continuing with today's post.
*************************
In the other day's post I shared a particularly dangerous variation of the yes, but conversation script that I call the yes, but by proxy script. Today, we're going to dive into what actually happens behind the scenes in this soul-sucking conversation vortex.
First, let's quickly review the script. Be as objective as you can while re-reading each of White's responses (and remember, don't get sucked into the vortex!):
Yes, But By Proxy:
White [whining slightly]: Healthy food is too expensive.
Black: You could try eating more lentils, or potatoes. They're extremely healthy foods and practically free.
W: Yes, but there are lots of poor people living in food deserts in the inner city who don't have the resources to take advantage of foods like lentils.
B: You can find lentils almost everywhere, even in the inner city. And they are so inexpensive! You can buy a pound for like $1.50 and eat them for days.
W: Oh sure, your solutions are great for you. But people who don't know how to cook, and people who don't have all the knowledge that you have, can't just "whip up" a batch of lentils.
B: You'd be surprised how laughably easy it is to boil up a batch of lentils. Seriously, anybody can do it.
W: Look, people working multiple jobs just to keep their bills paid just don't have the time to cook like that.
B: Okay. But there are lots of other foods which even easier to cook and are also inexpensive: potatoes, beans, carrots, celery, leafy greens like collards and swiss chard--
W [Interrupts]: Sure, easy for you, but people who live 15-20 miles away from the nearest Whole Foods can't take advantage of these foods the way you can.
B: Uh, wait, if you want to cook healthy food for less money, living 15-20 miles from a Whole Foods is an advantage, not a disadvantage--
W [Interrupts again]: Whatever. But just because you can eat healthy for less doesn't mean we all can.
First, an observation. White's responses all have one thing in common--they all discuss hypothetical people: a hypothetical person living in a food desert, a hypothetical person who doesn't know how to cook, a hypothetical person working multiple jobs, a hypothetical person who lives 15-20 miles from the nearest Whole Foods. And so on. Each of these hypothetical people has a hypothetically insurmountable obstacle preventing them from considering each of Black's suggestions. Convenient, right?
Which brings us to the fundamental problem with White's responses--and yours too, if you ever play White's role in a yes, but script: None of these hypothetical people is you. Yet people use the existence of this hypothetical person as an excuse for not taking action.
Sure, it's entirely plausible that a person working multiple jobs might have a hard time with some of the above solutions for finding healthy, inexpensive food. But why would you invoke a hypothetical third party with these hypothetical problems as a reason for you not to embrace a possible solution?
Ah, here we go again: White isn't trying to solve his own problem, he's seeking validation. For whatever reason, Black's ideas are a threat to White's ego. And since White has run out of reasons why he himself shouldn't embrace these solutions, he resorts to employing someone else in the conversation, someone projected from his own mind. And conveniently, that someone has hypothetical disadvantages that are insurmountable:
Well, that guy over there doesn't have an internet connection, he can't read, he lives in a food desert, and he works ten jobs. There. Beat that. I win. Lentils suck.
A brief sidebar: It should be obvious to any thoughtful reader (especially those readers who actually read posts in their entirety before commenting), that I'm in no way denying that there are people out there who live in food deserts, or work multiple jobs, or don't know how to cook, or live in poverty, etc. And it's pretty certain that there are millions of people out there (including me, actually) who live 15-20 miles from the nearest Whole Foods.
Look, disadvantaged people do exist, and in no way do I intend to commit the singularly insensitive act of pretending this isn't true.
But here's the critical point: why make a false conclusion for yourself using a hypothetical disadvantaged person? I can't imagine anything more defeatist than to create a straw man with hypothetically insurmountable disadvantages as a reason for you not to consider your own possible solutions.
Moreover, it's hard to think of anything more condescending than to blithely assume that someone else can't surmount a disadvantage just because you imagine it to be insurmountable for them. For one thing, "disadvantaged" people may not be as helpless as you presume. Read some of the comments on various posts here at Casual Kitchen and you'll be shocked at how readers have surmounted all sorts of problems, setbacks and economic handicaps in their efforts to eat well for less. And yes, this includes most of the types of hypothetically insurmountable disadvantages White lists above.
But here's the thing: the hypothetical failures of these hypothetically disadvantaged people are the ultimate secret behind White's success in this conversation. By shifting the debate from his own excuses to the imagined excuses of a hypothetical, third-party proxy participant in the conversation (again, this is why I call this conversation script yes-but by proxy), he gets to bring an ally into the debate.
It's kind of like bringing an imaginary friend into an argument--but you get to pretend he's real.
Voila: White instantly captures the moral high ground, he achieves ego validation, and he has a bulletproof excuse that allows him to avoid taking action. Best of all, he wins the debate.
Furthermore, White can also attack Black by saying that by offering all of these so-called solutions (that are easy for him because he's so privileged, of course), he's being presumptuous, pretentious and/or ignorant of the condition of disadvantaged people.
Poor Black. He thought he was just sharing a few helpful ideas. Now he's a bad person.
Brilliant isn't it? And utterly ironic, because White is actually showing far more profound condescension to the poor and disadvantaged than Black.
How? In two ways:
1) By automatically presuming that disadvantaged people are too incompetent to take advantage of any solutions that might work for them, and
2) By rejecting legitimate ideas for himself, when he could use his decisions and purchasing dollars to help drive the food industry in the right direction.
By his inaction, White actually hurts the very people for whom he claims to have sympathy. Think about this the next time you're involved in either side of a yes-but by proxy conversation script.
Of course, nobody can really win this "conversation." Black was just trying to help, but he walks away wondering how he suddenly became a privileged, heartless, insensitive jerk who has no sympathy for the poor and disadvantaged.
White may have a wonderfully validated ego, but he unknowingly uses the hypothetical excuses of a hypothetical person to justify taking no action to improve his situation.
Everybody loses. Nothing gets solved.
Why am I talking about this? Because nearly every time I read (or write) an article on how to eat healthy food for very little money, every time I read or write posts talking about how many easy, quick and laughably cheap recipes there are out there, somebody inevitably invokes the yes- but by proxy script and cites a hypothetical disadvantaged person with no cooking knowledge, living in a food desert, who's bored by lentils, who works multiple jobs, who has no time, etc., etc., etc., to try and shoot down any and every possible solution.
Look, it won't work. That person is not you.
****************************************
Postscript
This is a blog about finding solutions and solving problems, so let's spend the final words of this post discussing how to disrupt, repair and reroute a conversation that's been hijacked by a yes-but script.
First of all, how often do you recognize yourself in conversations like the one above? Have you ever found yourself disagreeing repeatedly and fiercely with someone who's just trying to offer you a few ideas and solutions? Have you ever been anti-solution in your thoughts and speech when discussing something with others? You owe it to yourself, and everyone around you, to stop and ask yourself why.
Unfortunately, once in the middle of an increasingly heated conversation, it's nearly impossible for people in White's role to step outside their egos and recognize the fundamental corrosiveness of what they're doing.
Therefore, the vast majority of the responsibility for stopping this conversation script lies in Black's hands. It's Black's job, once he hears the second or third "yes-but," to disrupt the script. Stop offering suggestions--just stop--and instead, validate the person by saying back to them a rephrased version of what they just said to you. A couple of examples:
So you think potatoes are boring huh?
So what I'm hearing is you have concerns for people who live far from Whole Foods.
Another possible solution (courtesy of commenter Little Les in yesterday's post): Black can take the initiative and reframe the conversation from the beginning by saying something along the lines of Yes, it can be expensive, but I know how to cook healthfully for very little money, would you like some tips?
These are both examples of pre-emptive validation (for lack of a better term), and in both cases they reduce the potential threat level (in White's mind, that is) of the conversation.
And then shut up. Let your act of validation--and your silence--disrupt the yes-but script. Watch what happens next.
It's up to us to try to help our friends, family and readers avoid indulging in repeated, robotic excuse-making. Take action.
Related Posts:
How to Give Away Your Power By Being a Biased Consumer
Ten Tips on How to Cut Your Food Budget Using the 80/20 Rule
A Recession-Proof Guide to Saving Money on Food
Death of a Soda Tax
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
If you enjoy reading Casual Kitchen, tell a friend and spread the word! You can also support me by purchasing items from Amazon.com
via links on this site, or by linking to me or subscribing to my RSS feed. Finally, you can consider submitting this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to bookmarking sites like del.icio.us, digg or stumbleupon. Thank you for your support!
*************************
In the other day's post I shared a particularly dangerous variation of the yes, but conversation script that I call the yes, but by proxy script. Today, we're going to dive into what actually happens behind the scenes in this soul-sucking conversation vortex.
First, let's quickly review the script. Be as objective as you can while re-reading each of White's responses (and remember, don't get sucked into the vortex!):
Yes, But By Proxy:
White [whining slightly]: Healthy food is too expensive.
Black: You could try eating more lentils, or potatoes. They're extremely healthy foods and practically free.
W: Yes, but there are lots of poor people living in food deserts in the inner city who don't have the resources to take advantage of foods like lentils.
B: You can find lentils almost everywhere, even in the inner city. And they are so inexpensive! You can buy a pound for like $1.50 and eat them for days.
W: Oh sure, your solutions are great for you. But people who don't know how to cook, and people who don't have all the knowledge that you have, can't just "whip up" a batch of lentils.
B: You'd be surprised how laughably easy it is to boil up a batch of lentils. Seriously, anybody can do it.
W: Look, people working multiple jobs just to keep their bills paid just don't have the time to cook like that.
B: Okay. But there are lots of other foods which even easier to cook and are also inexpensive: potatoes, beans, carrots, celery, leafy greens like collards and swiss chard--
W [Interrupts]: Sure, easy for you, but people who live 15-20 miles away from the nearest Whole Foods can't take advantage of these foods the way you can.
B: Uh, wait, if you want to cook healthy food for less money, living 15-20 miles from a Whole Foods is an advantage, not a disadvantage--
W [Interrupts again]: Whatever. But just because you can eat healthy for less doesn't mean we all can.
First, an observation. White's responses all have one thing in common--they all discuss hypothetical people: a hypothetical person living in a food desert, a hypothetical person who doesn't know how to cook, a hypothetical person working multiple jobs, a hypothetical person who lives 15-20 miles from the nearest Whole Foods. And so on. Each of these hypothetical people has a hypothetically insurmountable obstacle preventing them from considering each of Black's suggestions. Convenient, right?
Which brings us to the fundamental problem with White's responses--and yours too, if you ever play White's role in a yes, but script: None of these hypothetical people is you. Yet people use the existence of this hypothetical person as an excuse for not taking action.
Sure, it's entirely plausible that a person working multiple jobs might have a hard time with some of the above solutions for finding healthy, inexpensive food. But why would you invoke a hypothetical third party with these hypothetical problems as a reason for you not to embrace a possible solution?
Ah, here we go again: White isn't trying to solve his own problem, he's seeking validation. For whatever reason, Black's ideas are a threat to White's ego. And since White has run out of reasons why he himself shouldn't embrace these solutions, he resorts to employing someone else in the conversation, someone projected from his own mind. And conveniently, that someone has hypothetical disadvantages that are insurmountable:
Well, that guy over there doesn't have an internet connection, he can't read, he lives in a food desert, and he works ten jobs. There. Beat that. I win. Lentils suck.
A brief sidebar: It should be obvious to any thoughtful reader (especially those readers who actually read posts in their entirety before commenting), that I'm in no way denying that there are people out there who live in food deserts, or work multiple jobs, or don't know how to cook, or live in poverty, etc. And it's pretty certain that there are millions of people out there (including me, actually) who live 15-20 miles from the nearest Whole Foods.
Look, disadvantaged people do exist, and in no way do I intend to commit the singularly insensitive act of pretending this isn't true.
But here's the critical point: why make a false conclusion for yourself using a hypothetical disadvantaged person? I can't imagine anything more defeatist than to create a straw man with hypothetically insurmountable disadvantages as a reason for you not to consider your own possible solutions.
Moreover, it's hard to think of anything more condescending than to blithely assume that someone else can't surmount a disadvantage just because you imagine it to be insurmountable for them. For one thing, "disadvantaged" people may not be as helpless as you presume. Read some of the comments on various posts here at Casual Kitchen and you'll be shocked at how readers have surmounted all sorts of problems, setbacks and economic handicaps in their efforts to eat well for less. And yes, this includes most of the types of hypothetically insurmountable disadvantages White lists above.
But here's the thing: the hypothetical failures of these hypothetically disadvantaged people are the ultimate secret behind White's success in this conversation. By shifting the debate from his own excuses to the imagined excuses of a hypothetical, third-party proxy participant in the conversation (again, this is why I call this conversation script yes-but by proxy), he gets to bring an ally into the debate.
It's kind of like bringing an imaginary friend into an argument--but you get to pretend he's real.
Voila: White instantly captures the moral high ground, he achieves ego validation, and he has a bulletproof excuse that allows him to avoid taking action. Best of all, he wins the debate.
Furthermore, White can also attack Black by saying that by offering all of these so-called solutions (that are easy for him because he's so privileged, of course), he's being presumptuous, pretentious and/or ignorant of the condition of disadvantaged people.
Poor Black. He thought he was just sharing a few helpful ideas. Now he's a bad person.
Brilliant isn't it? And utterly ironic, because White is actually showing far more profound condescension to the poor and disadvantaged than Black.
How? In two ways:
1) By automatically presuming that disadvantaged people are too incompetent to take advantage of any solutions that might work for them, and
2) By rejecting legitimate ideas for himself, when he could use his decisions and purchasing dollars to help drive the food industry in the right direction.
By his inaction, White actually hurts the very people for whom he claims to have sympathy. Think about this the next time you're involved in either side of a yes-but by proxy conversation script.
Of course, nobody can really win this "conversation." Black was just trying to help, but he walks away wondering how he suddenly became a privileged, heartless, insensitive jerk who has no sympathy for the poor and disadvantaged.
White may have a wonderfully validated ego, but he unknowingly uses the hypothetical excuses of a hypothetical person to justify taking no action to improve his situation.
Everybody loses. Nothing gets solved.
Why am I talking about this? Because nearly every time I read (or write) an article on how to eat healthy food for very little money, every time I read or write posts talking about how many easy, quick and laughably cheap recipes there are out there, somebody inevitably invokes the yes- but by proxy script and cites a hypothetical disadvantaged person with no cooking knowledge, living in a food desert, who's bored by lentils, who works multiple jobs, who has no time, etc., etc., etc., to try and shoot down any and every possible solution.
Look, it won't work. That person is not you.
****************************************
Postscript
This is a blog about finding solutions and solving problems, so let's spend the final words of this post discussing how to disrupt, repair and reroute a conversation that's been hijacked by a yes-but script.
First of all, how often do you recognize yourself in conversations like the one above? Have you ever found yourself disagreeing repeatedly and fiercely with someone who's just trying to offer you a few ideas and solutions? Have you ever been anti-solution in your thoughts and speech when discussing something with others? You owe it to yourself, and everyone around you, to stop and ask yourself why.
Unfortunately, once in the middle of an increasingly heated conversation, it's nearly impossible for people in White's role to step outside their egos and recognize the fundamental corrosiveness of what they're doing.
Therefore, the vast majority of the responsibility for stopping this conversation script lies in Black's hands. It's Black's job, once he hears the second or third "yes-but," to disrupt the script. Stop offering suggestions--just stop--and instead, validate the person by saying back to them a rephrased version of what they just said to you. A couple of examples:
So you think potatoes are boring huh?
So what I'm hearing is you have concerns for people who live far from Whole Foods.
Another possible solution (courtesy of commenter Little Les in yesterday's post): Black can take the initiative and reframe the conversation from the beginning by saying something along the lines of Yes, it can be expensive, but I know how to cook healthfully for very little money, would you like some tips?
These are both examples of pre-emptive validation (for lack of a better term), and in both cases they reduce the potential threat level (in White's mind, that is) of the conversation.
And then shut up. Let your act of validation--and your silence--disrupt the yes-but script. Watch what happens next.
It's up to us to try to help our friends, family and readers avoid indulging in repeated, robotic excuse-making. Take action.
Related Posts:
How to Give Away Your Power By Being a Biased Consumer
Ten Tips on How to Cut Your Food Budget Using the 80/20 Rule
A Recession-Proof Guide to Saving Money on Food
Death of a Soda Tax
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
If you enjoy reading Casual Kitchen, tell a friend and spread the word! You can also support me by purchasing items from Amazon.com
via links on this site, or by linking to me or subscribing to my RSS feed. Finally, you can consider submitting this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to bookmarking sites like del.icio.us, digg or stumbleupon. Thank you for your support!
The Worst "Yes, But" of All
Last week, we talked about the pernicious defeatism of the yes, but conversation script.
In today's post we're going to discuss a different and slightly twisted version of the yes-but script. And the reason I want to go over this particular conversation script is for one reason: This specific yes-but script prevents more people from embracing healthy and affordable food solutions than any other single cause.
Learn to recognize this conversation script. Know it. And the next time you hear a friend, acquaintance or family member start to play this script, pull them out of the vortex.
I call this conversation script type yes, but by proxy, and I'll give an example below, using the exact same conversation starting point that I used in my last post. See if you can spot the psychological implications behind White's responses, and watch what happens as the conversation quickly goes off the rails:
Yes, But By Proxy:
White [whining slightly]: Healthy food is too expensive.
Black: You could try eating more lentils, or potatoes. They're extremely healthy foods and practically free.
W: Yes, but there are lots of poor people living in food deserts in the inner city who don't have the resources to take advantage of foods like lentils.
B: You can find lentils almost everywhere, even in the inner city. And they are so inexpensive! You can buy a pound for like $1.50 and eat them for days.
W: Oh sure, your solutions are great for you. But people who don't know how to cook, and people who don't have all the knowledge that you have, can't just "whip up" a batch of lentils.
B: You'd be surprised how laughably easy it is to boil up a batch of lentils. Seriously, anybody can do it.
W: Look, people working multiple jobs just to keep their bills paid just don't have the time to cook like that.
B: Okay. But there are lots of other foods which even easier to cook and are also inexpensive: potatoes, beans, carrots, celery, leafy greens like collards and swiss chard--
W [Interrupts]: Sure, easy for you, but people who live 15-20 miles away from the nearest Whole Foods can't take advantage of these foods the way you can.
B: Uh, wait, if you want to cook healthy food for less money, living 15-20 miles from a Whole Foods is an advantage, not a disadvantage--
W [Interrupts again]: Whatever. But just because you can eat healthy for less doesn't mean we all can.
Just like the sample conversation from my last post, you might think this conversation seems contrived and unrealistic. Nobody would be so ridiculous as to repeatedly fire off comments like the answers from White, right?
Uh, think again. In fact, the last three responses from White are actual statements someone wrote in another blog in response to my post The "It's Too Expensive to Eat Healthy Food" Debate. Go ahead, see for yourself. Sadly, this "made-up" conversation is all too real.
Okay. It goes without saying that White is being defeatist, and even a bit ridiculous. But there's a deeper problem with each one of White's statements that makes his position totally indefensible. Can anyone see what it is?
Readers, share your thoughts in the comments section, and I'll come back tomorrow with a follow-up post that discusses the answer.
Related Posts:
A Reader Asks for Help
The Worst Lie of the Food Blogosphere
The 25 Best Laughably Cheap Recipes at Casual Kitchen
Spreading the New Frugality: A Manifesto
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
If you enjoy reading Casual Kitchen, tell a friend and spread the word! You can also support me by purchasing items from Amazon.com via links on this site, or by linking to me or subscribing to my RSS feed. Finally, you can consider submitting this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to bookmarking sites like del.icio.us, digg or stumbleupon. Thank you for your support!
In today's post we're going to discuss a different and slightly twisted version of the yes-but script. And the reason I want to go over this particular conversation script is for one reason: This specific yes-but script prevents more people from embracing healthy and affordable food solutions than any other single cause.
Learn to recognize this conversation script. Know it. And the next time you hear a friend, acquaintance or family member start to play this script, pull them out of the vortex.
I call this conversation script type yes, but by proxy, and I'll give an example below, using the exact same conversation starting point that I used in my last post. See if you can spot the psychological implications behind White's responses, and watch what happens as the conversation quickly goes off the rails:
Yes, But By Proxy:
White [whining slightly]: Healthy food is too expensive.
Black: You could try eating more lentils, or potatoes. They're extremely healthy foods and practically free.
W: Yes, but there are lots of poor people living in food deserts in the inner city who don't have the resources to take advantage of foods like lentils.
B: You can find lentils almost everywhere, even in the inner city. And they are so inexpensive! You can buy a pound for like $1.50 and eat them for days.
W: Oh sure, your solutions are great for you. But people who don't know how to cook, and people who don't have all the knowledge that you have, can't just "whip up" a batch of lentils.
B: You'd be surprised how laughably easy it is to boil up a batch of lentils. Seriously, anybody can do it.
W: Look, people working multiple jobs just to keep their bills paid just don't have the time to cook like that.
B: Okay. But there are lots of other foods which even easier to cook and are also inexpensive: potatoes, beans, carrots, celery, leafy greens like collards and swiss chard--
W [Interrupts]: Sure, easy for you, but people who live 15-20 miles away from the nearest Whole Foods can't take advantage of these foods the way you can.
B: Uh, wait, if you want to cook healthy food for less money, living 15-20 miles from a Whole Foods is an advantage, not a disadvantage--
W [Interrupts again]: Whatever. But just because you can eat healthy for less doesn't mean we all can.
Just like the sample conversation from my last post, you might think this conversation seems contrived and unrealistic. Nobody would be so ridiculous as to repeatedly fire off comments like the answers from White, right?
Uh, think again. In fact, the last three responses from White are actual statements someone wrote in another blog in response to my post The "It's Too Expensive to Eat Healthy Food" Debate. Go ahead, see for yourself. Sadly, this "made-up" conversation is all too real.
Okay. It goes without saying that White is being defeatist, and even a bit ridiculous. But there's a deeper problem with each one of White's statements that makes his position totally indefensible. Can anyone see what it is?
Readers, share your thoughts in the comments section, and I'll come back tomorrow with a follow-up post that discusses the answer.
Related Posts:
A Reader Asks for Help
The Worst Lie of the Food Blogosphere
The 25 Best Laughably Cheap Recipes at Casual Kitchen
Spreading the New Frugality: A Manifesto
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
If you enjoy reading Casual Kitchen, tell a friend and spread the word! You can also support me by purchasing items from Amazon.com
via links on this site, or by linking to me or subscribing to my RSS feed. Finally, you can consider submitting this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to bookmarking sites like del.icio.us, digg or stumbleupon. Thank you for your support!
Avoiding the "Yes, But" Vortex
For attention-span challenged readers: today's post is a relatively long 900 words, and it goes beyond food into psychology, conversation scripts and victimhood. Just a friendly warning.
*********************************
There are plenty of people out there who have a real knack for whining and complaining--about food prices, about how much time it takes to cook, about big food and so on.
Of course, long time readers know exactly how Casual Kitchen feels about whining and complaining: It isn't allowed. Instead, I ask my readers to seek out solutions and take action.
However, there's a special, nearly irresistible "complaint script" that I'm seeing crop up lately in other food blogs and in interactions among commenters here and elsewhere. I want CK readers to be able to recognize this complaint script--and more importantly, not get sucked into it.
This script was first identified by the psychiatrist Eric Berne in his popular and controversial book Games People Play.
Here's a standard example, courtesy of Wikipedia:
Why Don't You/Yes But:
White: I wish I could lose some weight.
Black: Why don't you join a gym?
W: Yes, but I can't afford the payments for a gym.
B: Why don't you speed walk around your block after you get home from work?
W: Yes, but I don't dare walk alone in my neighborhood after dark.
B: Why don't you take the stairs at work instead of the elevator?
W: Yes, but after my knee surgery, it hurts too much to walk that many flights of stairs.
B: Why don't you change your diet?
W: Yes, but my stomach is sensitive and I can tolerate only certain foods.
And so on. This conversation script goes on and on until Black gives up in frustration and White triumphs, having proven that his problem cannot be solved.
Why am I talking about this? What role could this bizarre conversation script have in a cooking blog?
Because this script, in all of its negative, soul-sucking glory, shows up surprisingly often in some of the conversations we have right here at Casual Kitchen. Let's look at another imaginary example, one that I suspect might sound rather familiar to long-time Casual Kitchen readers:
White: [in a whining and defeatist voice] Healthy food is too expensive.
Black: You could try eating more lentils, or potatoes. They're extremely healthy foods and practically free.
W: Yes, but nobody wants to eat lentils. Nobody wants to live like that.
B: Well, what about potatoes? They are really healthy!
W: Yes, but potatoes are boring.
B: Well, there are lots of different recipes containing potatoes. Look--here's a recipe for scalloped potatoes!
W: Forget it, there's no way I'm going to turn on the oven in my apartment in the summer.
B: Well, wait--this recipe is for scalloped potatoes on a stovetop... it only takes like 20 minutes!
W: [Pauses, thinks] Yes, but do you really think I'm going to slice all those potatoes? I'll go crazy!
Sigh... and so on.
In this case, White subverts a truth (that healthy and inexpensive foods might actually exist) by offering up "yes, but" statements on irrelevant aspects of the argument (potatoes are boring). This allows White to reject Black's entire suite of ideas, regardless of how useful, logical or compelling they are. This is ankle-biting in its worst form.
You could perhaps argue that the conversation above is an unrealistic caricature of a real conversation, but the truth is, it's not. You'd be shocked (then again, maybe you wouldn't) at how often people will go around and around and around, on progressively thinner and thinner rhetorical ice, in order to repeatedly shoot down even the most creative ideas and thoughts.
My point in sharing the conversation snippet above is simply to show how White's closed mindset, negative tone and endless yes-butting sucks the life out of both participants.... and solves nothing.
Some psychology-speak for a brief moment: Obviously, the yes, but conversation above isn't really about the cost of healthy food. That's a trap, a misdirection play. Black thinks the conversation is about healthy food, but it isn't. The conversation is really about the validation of White's feelings and ego.
Sadly, the worst irony of the standard yes-but conversation is how White remains blithely unaware that he's fiercely defending his ego at the cost of rejecting a whole range of potentially useful ideas and solutions, most of which would likely make him happier, healthier and more personally effective. You'd think at some point White would recognize that he's firing off an unending supply of excuses and rationalizations and step out of this ridiculous feedback loop. Unfortunately, his ego is too invested in being a victim of an insoluble problem.
Does this sound at all familiar? How many people would rather sit around and claim, for example, that the food industry is too powerful for the average consumer to do anything about it? That hyperpalatable foods are too irresistible? That healthy food is too hard to find at a reasonable price? That food companies are evil, or worse, are specifically plotting to make us all fat? How many us can see ourselves in the two sample conversation scripts above, wanting to lose weight or wanting to eat healthier, yet we fail to take action--and worst of all, fight off every idea or suggestion that comes our way?
Why am I writing about this? For one reason: even though the readers of Casual Kitchen are full of exceptional suggestions for even the most distraught and downtrodden readers, the bottom line is, no matter how creative, helpful and insightful your ideas are, you are simply doomed if you get caught up in this script.
Defeatism comes in many forms. Don't let yourself get sucked into this vortex.
Readers, please share your thoughts!
Update 8/11/10: There's a lot more to say about the so-called yes-but script, and I've since written two follow-up posts to this article. They address a special type of the yes-but script, one I believe that prevents more people from embracing healthy and affordable food solutions than any other single cause:
1) The Worst Yes-But of All
2) Yes-Butting and You: Answers and Final Thoughts
Related Posts:
Why Spices Are a Complete Rip-Off and What You Can Do About It
Scarred For Life By a Food Industry Job
The Pros and Cons of Restaurant Calorie Labeling Laws
Guess What? We Spend Less Than Ever on Food
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
If you enjoy reading Casual Kitchen, tell a friend and spread the word! You can also support me by purchasing items from Amazon.com via links on this site, or by linking to me or subscribing to my RSS feed. Finally, you can consider submitting this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to bookmarking sites like del.icio.us, digg or stumbleupon. Thank you for your support!
*********************************
There are plenty of people out there who have a real knack for whining and complaining--about food prices, about how much time it takes to cook, about big food and so on.
Of course, long time readers know exactly how Casual Kitchen feels about whining and complaining: It isn't allowed. Instead, I ask my readers to seek out solutions and take action.
However, there's a special, nearly irresistible "complaint script" that I'm seeing crop up lately in other food blogs and in interactions among commenters here and elsewhere. I want CK readers to be able to recognize this complaint script--and more importantly, not get sucked into it.
This script was first identified by the psychiatrist Eric Berne in his popular and controversial book Games People Play.
Here's a standard example, courtesy of Wikipedia:Why Don't You/Yes But:
White: I wish I could lose some weight.
Black: Why don't you join a gym?
W: Yes, but I can't afford the payments for a gym.
B: Why don't you speed walk around your block after you get home from work?
W: Yes, but I don't dare walk alone in my neighborhood after dark.
B: Why don't you take the stairs at work instead of the elevator?
W: Yes, but after my knee surgery, it hurts too much to walk that many flights of stairs.
B: Why don't you change your diet?
W: Yes, but my stomach is sensitive and I can tolerate only certain foods.
And so on. This conversation script goes on and on until Black gives up in frustration and White triumphs, having proven that his problem cannot be solved.
Why am I talking about this? What role could this bizarre conversation script have in a cooking blog?
Because this script, in all of its negative, soul-sucking glory, shows up surprisingly often in some of the conversations we have right here at Casual Kitchen. Let's look at another imaginary example, one that I suspect might sound rather familiar to long-time Casual Kitchen readers:
White: [in a whining and defeatist voice] Healthy food is too expensive.
Black: You could try eating more lentils, or potatoes. They're extremely healthy foods and practically free.
W: Yes, but nobody wants to eat lentils. Nobody wants to live like that.
B: Well, what about potatoes? They are really healthy!
W: Yes, but potatoes are boring.
B: Well, there are lots of different recipes containing potatoes. Look--here's a recipe for scalloped potatoes!
W: Forget it, there's no way I'm going to turn on the oven in my apartment in the summer.
B: Well, wait--this recipe is for scalloped potatoes on a stovetop... it only takes like 20 minutes!
W: [Pauses, thinks] Yes, but do you really think I'm going to slice all those potatoes? I'll go crazy!
Sigh... and so on.
In this case, White subverts a truth (that healthy and inexpensive foods might actually exist) by offering up "yes, but" statements on irrelevant aspects of the argument (potatoes are boring). This allows White to reject Black's entire suite of ideas, regardless of how useful, logical or compelling they are. This is ankle-biting in its worst form.
You could perhaps argue that the conversation above is an unrealistic caricature of a real conversation, but the truth is, it's not. You'd be shocked (then again, maybe you wouldn't) at how often people will go around and around and around, on progressively thinner and thinner rhetorical ice, in order to repeatedly shoot down even the most creative ideas and thoughts.
My point in sharing the conversation snippet above is simply to show how White's closed mindset, negative tone and endless yes-butting sucks the life out of both participants.... and solves nothing.
Some psychology-speak for a brief moment: Obviously, the yes, but conversation above isn't really about the cost of healthy food. That's a trap, a misdirection play. Black thinks the conversation is about healthy food, but it isn't. The conversation is really about the validation of White's feelings and ego.
Sadly, the worst irony of the standard yes-but conversation is how White remains blithely unaware that he's fiercely defending his ego at the cost of rejecting a whole range of potentially useful ideas and solutions, most of which would likely make him happier, healthier and more personally effective. You'd think at some point White would recognize that he's firing off an unending supply of excuses and rationalizations and step out of this ridiculous feedback loop. Unfortunately, his ego is too invested in being a victim of an insoluble problem.
Does this sound at all familiar? How many people would rather sit around and claim, for example, that the food industry is too powerful for the average consumer to do anything about it? That hyperpalatable foods are too irresistible? That healthy food is too hard to find at a reasonable price? That food companies are evil, or worse, are specifically plotting to make us all fat? How many us can see ourselves in the two sample conversation scripts above, wanting to lose weight or wanting to eat healthier, yet we fail to take action--and worst of all, fight off every idea or suggestion that comes our way?
Why am I writing about this? For one reason: even though the readers of Casual Kitchen are full of exceptional suggestions for even the most distraught and downtrodden readers, the bottom line is, no matter how creative, helpful and insightful your ideas are, you are simply doomed if you get caught up in this script.
Defeatism comes in many forms. Don't let yourself get sucked into this vortex.
Readers, please share your thoughts!
Update 8/11/10: There's a lot more to say about the so-called yes-but script, and I've since written two follow-up posts to this article. They address a special type of the yes-but script, one I believe that prevents more people from embracing healthy and affordable food solutions than any other single cause:
1) The Worst Yes-But of All
2) Yes-Butting and You: Answers and Final Thoughts
Related Posts:
Why Spices Are a Complete Rip-Off and What You Can Do About It
Scarred For Life By a Food Industry Job
The Pros and Cons of Restaurant Calorie Labeling Laws
Guess What? We Spend Less Than Ever on Food
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
If you enjoy reading Casual Kitchen, tell a friend and spread the word! You can also support me by purchasing items from Amazon.com
via links on this site, or by linking to me or subscribing to my RSS feed. Finally, you can consider submitting this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to bookmarking sites like del.icio.us, digg or stumbleupon. Thank you for your support!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
