Barefoot Bohemian's Blog

I’m a big believer in beliefs and in setting goals.  I’m also a big fan of making lists. In fact I could probably make a list of ten reasons why you should have beliefs and goals.  Or ten reasons why making lists is a good idea.

I’m not necessarily talking about religious or spiritual beliefs, although some of my comments would apply to those beliefs too.  And I’m not talking about those lists which exist more for the existence of the list than to help us remember something, or to make our day more efficient.  You know the kind of lists I mean:

1. Wake up
2. Get out of bed
3. Clean teeth
4. etc etc

Brilliant! Five minutes into the day and three items ticked off already.  Fortunate the first one was achieved or the day would probably not have turned out quite as productive.

The beliefs and goals I’m talking about are the things you think, the things you tell yourself, regardless of whether you would openly admit to believing them.

How do you speak to yourself and what sort of things are you saying?  Those are two very important questions which you’ve probably never considered before. You hear the things you say to yourself more than the things you hear from anyone else – including nagging partners – because you can keep repeating things to yourself long after others have stopped talking, in your sleep at times.

If you are constantly telling yourself you won’t be able to do something there’s a wealth of evidence to prove you’ll be right – you won’t.  That doesn’t mean just repeating something as a mantra will automatically make it happen but it’s more likely to.  See my comments about positivity in my last post – Ashes to Ashes.

It’s also more likely to happen if you make yourself accountable, tell a friend or family member about your goal, write it down, set a deadline for it to be completed or if it’s a long term project, set progress milestones.  These are all common, and well-known techniques for project management which can be applied to our lives.  But thought should also be given to the kind of targets or goals you’re setting yourself.

For Christmas 2013 I wanted – and was bought because I’m a luck boy – a Nike Fuelband.  That’s a bracelet which monitors your movement throughout the day and gives you a score based on your activity levels.  It can prompt you to move if you’ve been inactive for too long and you can set a daily goal which is your target for the day.  (Other similar devices are available :-))  It doesn’t get you fitter but it’s a painless kick up the backside to remind you to move.

What was interesting to me about using the device in the context of goals and targets was that if you do something like play golf or run, you are almost certain to hit a daily target of 3500 (don’t worry what the units are – they are a Nike creation).  However, if you’re not able to do any sport that day, or are travelling for most of the day, it’s difficult.  There have been many days I’ve found myself running up and down stairs at 2300 or walking round and round airports to get the last few points to hit my target.

The dilemma is where do you set the target?  Set it too low and it doesn’t really push you to achieve – so it’s not really an incentive.  Set it too high and you are certain to fail on some days.  What I found as my streak of days of achieving my target grew into months was that the target had become the main goal, not the activity which led to it.  And so after about six months I reduced the target to 3200.  This made it slightly easier to hit on non-sporty days but believe me it’s still a reasonable target.  As a result I managed to complete a year of hitting my target everyday.

I accept I am a little obsessive about some things – I prefer to call it driven – but the goal of getting a full 365 days of my target simply took over from all the other purposes of the device.  For the record I still wear it and try to hit my target but I’m not stressed is I fall short some days when normal life takes over and makes exercise difficult.

A similar example of the process taking over from the purpose and resulting in me feeling trapped is my approach to the lottery.  I have been doing the lottery since it started – you’ve got to be in it to win it, right?  How else is my life going to change into the hedonistic ideal I’m fantasising about?  And I’ve used the same numbers.  I know them off by heart and it makes renewing my entry very simple.  But now I can’t stop because I would know if those numbers came up and I hadn’t entered that week.  How gutted would I be to see my 14 million to one chance disappear because I took a break or saved a couple of pounds?  A perfect client for Camelot.

You may think these are very ‘first world problems’  and I’d be the first to agree but I’ve used them because I think they are typical of the kind of things we can get ourselves trapped in, as well as some far more important things.

Do we continue going to this society or this club because we’ve been going every month without missing for x number or months or years?  I’m sure there are similar examples in your life.  But what if we simply did what we wanted, without adding the pressure of habit then we’d have more time and we could use the positive benefits of habit for other things to create real worthwhile change in our lives.  I think it’s important to keep sight of the purpose – the destination – and don’t let the process or journey become the main goal.  Sure you need to enjoy the journey and not simply be fixated on the destination but we need a clear idea of where we’re trying to get to, or who knows where we’ll end up.

It’s about making manageable changes, slowly and constantly, because then it’s sustainable.  I hear people say they are going to start a positive habit and instead of saying they are going to do it five minutes a day, or do it three times a week – which is manageable and sustainable – they go at it like a bull in china shop and try to do 30 minutes a day or do it for 6-7 days a week.  And then they are surprised when they lose steam and give up after a short period.  Diets fall foul of similar pitfalls – but you know my thoughts on diets too.

So in my experience the lists and goals which work for people are when they break up their long term goal into daily or weekly targets which are achievable but not easy, they write them on a list to keep track of their achievements and they make themselves accountable in some way to achieve the goals.  But perhaps most importantly is they make sure the daily or weekly list is not overwhelming, and if they achieve it sooner one day then they reward themselves rather than adding more tasks for the day.  And if one day or week there are some unachieved goals, that’s not a failure.  Simply rewrite your list for the next day or week to accommodate those tasks.  It’s important for you to see achievement and progress however small because it’s those small incremental steps that lead to real change.  As World Record endurance athlete Stu Mittleman said:

“I never ran 1000 miles.  I could never have done that.  I ran one mile 1000 times.”

Good Luck
The Barefoot Bohemian.

So England have just regained The Ashes – something that prompted me to post a little friendly jibe at my Aussie friends on Facebook.  Why did I bother?  I don’t particularly like cricket.  I don’t follow it as a sport.  I don’t even know all the English team.  In fact I only ever pay attention to the result of The Ashes matches.

I think I did it because they care so much and would delight in rubbing my nose in an English defeat.  So I guess it’s just petty boy banter then.  But it made me think about the different approaches to sport and whether that could be a lesson for life.

Firstly why do the Aussies care so much about The Ashes?  I think it’s partly an enduring connection to the motherland even if the relationship is now more like a rebellious teenager goading their seemingly stuck-in-the-mud parents.  It’s partly their delight in performing well on a world stage – particularly with a small population as they endlessly point out to anyone who is still listening by this point.  It’s partly their relentless drive to achieve in any field and it’s partly because they love poking fun at the Poms.

But running under all that is a strong belief in positivity and they genuinely believe they will win despite the odds or predictions of experts.  They are masters of inner talk, of visualisation and of determination.  Perhaps there’s an argument that this stems from their pioneer past – at least for those who chose to go there voluntarily.  I think it’s more about their approach to sport in schools, and to life in general.  They simply don’t have the same history of inequality and lack of opportunities.  (Yes I know I’m conveniently ignoring the issue of the Aborigines – not because i’m unsympathetic or dismissive – I just don’t think it fits into this, so please bear with me).  So they see every Aussie team as a possible world beater and they go with that belief until they are proved wrong – if they are proved wrong!

So what do we English do differently? (and I’m deliberately excluding our celtic neighbours because I think they do have a different approach).  Well we love to build up sporting heroes, or icons in any field, and then we delight in tearing them down.  Before every tournament our media is full of stories about how we are finally going to be world leaders, often despite the evidence of past performances.  How many times was Tim Henman about to win Wimbledon?  How many times were the English football going to heal what will be 50 years of hurt next year?  And yet take the temperature in any pub and you’ll get a very different story.  We know most of these teams or players are not world class and we prepare ourselves for defeat, avoiding humiliation if possible.

So we have two contrasting approaches to sport – and I would argue to life in general.  The Aussies think positively, visualise success and stop at nothing in their attempts to achieve it.  The English fear the worst, hope for the best, and our overriding goal seems to be avoiding embarrassment.  We’d much prefer giving the impression we’ve done our best and missed out narrowly than really going for it and getting a battering for our efforts.  The Terry Butcher bloody bandage image of sporting resilience now seems to be sadly lacking from many of our sporting heroes.  I’m sure there’s another article in the possible reasons for this – our approach to competitiveness, money in sport, fear of failure etc etc

So which is better if we move outside the world of sport and think of this in terms of everyday life?  As usual I think the answer lies somewhere between the two.  I’m a massive advocate of positive thinking, removing negativity and visualisation etc.  But I also strongly believe this is not enough and on its own rarely results in positive changes to people’s lives.  I believe it needs to be tempered by realism.  No amount of positive thinking or visualising me being able to jump off a tall building and fly is ever going to make it happen.   That’s why losing weight or stopping smoking using willpower alone is very difficult.  Some people mistake realism for negativity.  Yes it can be, if it’s ‘unrealistic realism’ or if it’s just placing unnecessary obstacles in your way.  But identifying real obstacles or difficulties you are going to face and tackling those effectively is positive.  It shows your determination to achieve your goals and in my experience this is a far more effective way of making changes and getting where you want to be.  And if that means you need some help then ask for it.

So should we change our approaches to our sporting teams?  Of course not – it would take all the fun out of whipping the Aussies by an innings and 78 runs.  And after all, the Rugby World Cup is just around the corner where Australia are ranked third in the world, making them more likely to win than England, who are fourth.  (See what I’ve already started to do there?)  So let’s see if favourite status fails them again.  Perhaps they can spend the extra few weeks of not having The Ashes to worry about to come up with a reasonable justification for their usual low population argument when they consider the teams ranked 1 and 2 have significantly fewer people.  (Australia – 24 million New Zealand – 4.6 million Ireland – 5 million).  I’m just saying ……. we love you really but you’ll never get me to admit it.

Good Luck
Barefoot Bohemian

After a gap of far too long it’s perhaps a little odd that I have decided to mark my return with an article about nastiness. But then if you didn’t appreciate ‘odd’ you probably wouldn’t be reading this blog anyway.

It was prompted by a reminder of how unnecessarily nasty people can get, often for little or no reason.  This got me thinking whether nastiness could ever be justified and whether being nasty says more about the state of mind of the ‘nastor’ than the contents of the nasty comments say about the ‘nastee’. (I know those aren’t real words – but they might be now).

So when do people usually resort to nastiness?

1. I guess the most obvious example is because they are simply a nasty person.  You know the type – they generalise and exaggerate the truth to make a nasty dig at you, often when you’re at your most vulnerable.  They keep you permanently on edge, unsure how they will react and you are always waiting for the nastiness to ooze out and poison the conversation.  Quite often they project their views on to you with comments like “I don’t think you like me” or “Why are you always so mean to me?”.  So what do you do about these people?  Well first, take a look at your own actions and see if you did anything to provoke this behaviour, try to see the situation from their perspective and decide if this is an isolated display of nastiness, a misunderstanding, or if they really are an inherently nasty person – and to be fair there aren’t that many of these around but they are out there! If you think it’s a one-off then speak to them and try to sort things out.  If you’re convinced they are just a nasty piece of work then move on my friend, you already have a perfectly good arsehole and life is way too short to surround yourself with any more.
2. I think the next most common example is – when the subject of the nastiness (nastee) deserves it and I suppose we have to accept there may be occasions when this is justified. But how often can we truly say a person’s actions or comments are so heinous that they deserve both barrels of nasty vitriol?  I suppose the test of this is how you will feel about the event months later.  Does it really merit the abuse you dished out?  If the answer is ‘yes’ then blast away, don’t let me stop you giving the bas@ard what they seemingly so richly deserve.  If the answer is ‘no’ then perhaps you just lowered yourself to their level without just cause and you have learned to hold back a little next time.
3. Another occasion is when the nastor thinks it will make them feel better about whatever has happened.  They see themselves as the victim and only a rich dose of venom will right the wrong. This is the “I gave them a piece of my mind’ syndrome.  Be careful about this, often you don’t have enough mind to be giving it away to every Tom, Dick or Harry especially when it rarely makes any difference to the outcome of the disagreement.  And think about when you’ve done this – did you actually feel better or did it leave you more shaken, upset and struggling to convince yourself you feel better for saying what you said?
4. Then there is the time when the nastor needs to feel justified in their actions and so is trying to provoke a response from the nastee.  If the nastee responds with a similar outburst then the original nastor can feel their attack was eminently justified – in fact mild by comparison and it ‘proves’ what a thoroughly unpleasant person the nastee is and so they merit the nastiness (see point 2).  It is incredible how determined some people can be in pursuit of this self-justification, even doggedly continuing as if the nastee is taking issue with them when in fact he/she is not rising to their bait at all.  This is very common and stems from the insecurity of the nastor.
5. It can also be used to emphasise the severity of an issue, which again is a form of self justification (see point 4).  The nastor is attempting to demonstrate just how bad the perceived original offence is, otherwise they would not have reacted in such a nasty manner. Really? Or are they Points 1 or 3?

So what’s the point of all this?  Am I going soft or about to confess I’m going to join a religious cult, or devote my life of charitable causes?  No, I still believe in calling a spade a shovel, in voicing your opinions and if necessary, voicing them with passion and in forthright language.  I think hiding your true feelings, lying, cheating and betrayal are far worse than giving someone your honest opinion.

But I feel the boundary between doing that and being nasty has blurred considerably.  I see daily examples in the media, on social media and in everyday life when people are making a valid point, expressing it strongly but fairly and then they go and spoil it all by saying something nasty (to misquote the famous lyric).

It seems we reach for the nasty bucket way too quickly and don’t hesitate to pour the contents over anyone who has been unfortunate enough to have crossed our path. I rarely see an example which is justified.

My experience is that as soon as an argument, discussion or disagreement becomes personal and nasty, it lurches in a completely different direction.  It deflects away from the true cause of the problem and creates a new problem which inevitably takes over and dominates the rest of the interchange – I suppose we all care about ourselves more than other issues so we leap at the chance to defend ourselves.  People grab at the insult and use it to justify whatever they feel they need to say or do in their defence.

When this happens you can forget about resolution and, depending on the severity of the nastiness, any chance of reconciliation may have flown out of the window too.  My advice is stick to the facts, keep emotions in check and don’t be too quick to reach for the vitriol to strengthen your argument – it will dilute it instead.

And if you can’t see what a wonderfully constructed argument I’ve put forward then you can all sod off because you’re clearly too stupid to appreciate my wisdom. 🙂

Good Luck and please share your thoughts.
The Barefoot Bohemian