Intention without Attachment
2023.09.09 - 2023.09.22
TL;DR my top content of the past two weeks is:
The Tim Ferriss Show Ep. 692: Arthur C. Brooks — How to Be Happy, Reverse Bucket Lists, The Four False Idols, Muscular Philosophies, Practical Inoculation Against the Darkness, and More
Tim Ferriss delivers again. It took me quite a while to narrow down my highlights from this one. I still need a better way for processing these value-dense episodes.
My first highlight is connected to the concept of enough that was central to my last post.
I was making a mistake of thinking that my satisfaction would come by having more. The truth of the matter is that lasting and stable satisfaction, which doesn't wear off in like a minute, comes when you understand that your satisfaction is your halves divided by your wants. Haves divided by wants. … You can increase your satisfaction temporarily and inefficiently by having more, or permanently and securely by wanting less. (A.C. Brooks)
satisfaction = haves/wants (s = h/w)
A simple ratio.
We have three mastiffs. My wife wants four. Her satisfaction is at .75. I want two. My satisfaction is at 1.5. Neither of us are satisfied.
Regardless, I think this concept still works. But, it appears the ideal ratio is 1:1. To have what you want, or to want what you have. No more. No less.
Another example. We have a nice house. I want a different house. A bigger house. I really want a bigger living room. (Because we have three mastiffs.) I’m dissatisfied because I want more than I have.
But when I take a moment to reflect on it, I am mostly happy with our house and I love where we live. I don’t need to buy a new house and move to be satisfied. I just need to make our living room bigger. Or downsize our pack. But realistically, I need to make our living room bigger. Or, as The Eagles said, Get Over It!
This leads to the concept of satisficing vs. maximizing. But I will save that for another post.
My second highlight is the reverse bucket list. Tim and Arthur start the episode talking about how Arthur uses the reverse bucket list to eliminate his attachment to his wants.
I need a reverse bucket list. Not that I’m not going to get nice things in my life, but I’m going to be consciously detached from them by going through the exercise of writing them down and crossing them out. … “Maybe I get it and maybe I don’t, but I’m going to cross it out as an attachment.” (A.C. Brooks)
I don’t think I’ve ever really had a traditional bucket list. I don’t have one now. But maybe it’s time to try a reverse bucket list.
Intention is fine, but attachment is bad. (A.C. Brooks)
Sounds simple, but what does that really mean? And, why is attachment bad?
If you're super attached to it, then you're going to freak out when something throws you off. And furthermore, you're not going to recognize the fact that it is the voyage itself that is the adventure of life, not actually reaching the particular destination, whether it's the original one or one that turns out to be better or worse or wherever you wind up. (A.C. Brooks)
I see this in life and work.
In life, I am often attached to how an event will be in my mind. And when it doesn’t meet those expectations, that picture, I am usually very disappointed.
In work, I have repeatedly experienced the bad that comes with attachment in organizations that are consumed by outputs and dates, delivering a what by a when, rather than driving outcomes for their customers and companies.
Also in work, I have seen the bad side of attachment to specific ways of working. Including Agile ways of working, which I believe is the antithesis of the intent of the founders of the agile. (I’m using different capitalization of “agile” intentionally here. If you know, you know.)
… one of the greatest attachments that people have in modern life is to their views and opinions. That's a real attachment. It can be as dangerous as your attachment to money or power. … so I looked at it and I thought, am I weighed down by attachment to my views, to my political views? So I wrote down five of my strongest political views and I crossed them out. (A.C. Brooks)
I think I need to explore this application of intention without attachment. I am attached to my views and opinions, especially those on politics and religion. I think I do a reasonably good job respecting others views and opinions. But I am very opinionated, and that might not serve me well.
The final highlight I’m sharing here is about happiness. I would not say I am a happy person. In fact, I have depressive tendencies and one might describe me as gloomy, like Arthur describes his father.
And Arthur calls out a mistake I am certain I make frequently.
One of the biggest mistakes that people make as we talked about before, is that people say, “I want to be happy, but…” And then they talk about some source of unhappiness in their life that they think blocks their happiness. And that’s the wrong way of thinking because you can get happier even if you’re unhappy, absolutely 100 percent all day long … (A.C. Brooks)
According to Arthur we also have the wrong goal.
Happiness is not the goal and unhappiness is not the enemy. Getting happier is the goal. (A.C. Brooks)
Getting happier requires a good definition of happiness and Arthur provides one.
Happiness and its feelings are associated with three tangible phenomena in our lives that we can actually understand and manage: enjoyment, satisfaction, and meaning. Those are the three things that we need in balance and abundance. (A.C. Brooks)
He also provides examples of how to improve or increase all three. I have plenty of work to do on each.
If you don't provide your product's investment and governance framework, one will be provided to you. (J. Cutler)
And, though you may want to provide your own, you may not have a choice. But if you do, I think John offers a great option.
Consider a different game more similar to a startup/investor game. (J. Cutler)
The folks at The Ready also promote adopting alternative investment models, including the startup/investor model.
I am talking about 1) a progressive funding model and 2) a model for holding yourself accountable for what you do with the company's money. (J. Cutler)
John later asks
Would you fund your team if you controlled the budget? (J. Cutler)
It’s very easy to get attached to your team, or your product. I’ve been there. We need to ask ourselves this question far more often. And we need to be willing to take appropriate action if the answer is “No”.
This game encourages a mindset shift. It moves teams from merely delivering features or projects to becoming stewards of investment and growth. The game makes sustainable, differentiated growth the goal. (J. Cutler)
And, I would argue, it is a model for intention without attachment applied to our teams and products.
The Leap Show w/ Ilana Golan: Chuck Garcia - "The Moment That Defines You”
I shared my top five highlights from this episode of Ilana Golan’s podcast on LinkedIn. In the interest brevity and DRY (don’t repeat yourself), you can find them here.
Better Ways
In my opinion, intention without attachment is a better way.
P.S. I have two musical selections this time.
First, “You Can't Always Get What You Want” by the Rolling Stones. Arthur references “Satisfaction” during the episode, which is most certainly the obvious first choice. But, this is a very strong second.
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You just might find
You get what you need, ah yeah
I think I’ve said it before. I can almost always find a Rush song that fits. Today it’s “Prime Mover” from 1987’s Hold Your Fire. This may not have been the first Rush album I heard, but it was definitely the first new release I heard when my older brother started listening to Rush.
The point of the journey
Is not to arrive
Anything can happen