Words and phrases are interesting things. Each represents a package of ideas and associations, instantly unwrapped the moment we encounter them. If I say, “She stood in a cold, dark, damp basement on a winter day, with only a bit of gray, overcast sky visible through small windows around the perimeter; the rhythm of ice rain hitting the panes of glass as if it were tin the only sound in the otherwise empty house”, your brain likely began constructing the space in your mind. Without even realizing it, you might have pictured old, wooden stairs leading down to cinderblock walls. You might have had an idea of whether or not there was a scent in the air. You oriented the room a certain way and developed a blueprint. You likely assigned a height, weight, age, nationality, language, and skin color to the woman. You even decided which clothes were on her. Was she wearing a sweatshirt? Blue jeans? The answer depends on all sorts of lightning-quick assumptions and preconceptions stored away in your memory banks.
In most conditions, this is a wonderful efficiency tool. There are two conditions under which that efficiency can lead to highly problematic outcomes, including increased conflict and misunderstanding. This manifests everywhere from the political arena to corporate marketing decisions, family fights to dissolved friendships.
1. Learn to Focus on the Practical Reality of the Situation, Ignoring the Terminology
When a concept has become synonymous with a term, there is something in human nature that makes a lot of folks forget what the thing itself is. Instead, it is replaced with a general abstraction that makes it easier for things like tribalism to pop up because people get invested in the terminology. Take just three illustrations from everyday life:
- There is no such thing as “the cloud”. It doesn’t actually exist. There is someone else’s computer, in a physical location you can’t access, which is in the hands of people you don’t know. You might think that is a good or bad thing based on your own personal values and risk calculations. By being aware of it, you can make a better informed decision.
- There is no such thing as “gun control”. It doesn’t actually exist. There is gun concentration in the hands of government agents. You might think that is a good or bad thing based on your own personal values and risk calculations. By being aware of it, you can make a better informed decision.
- There is no such thing as a “stock market index”. It doesn’t actually exist. There is a list of rules that determine which individual stocks get bought at specific weightings. You might think that is a good or bad thing based on your own personal values and risk calculations. By being aware of it, you can make a better informed decision.
By focusing on the reality of the underlying situation, you can better assess the dangers, rewards, shortfalls, strengths, and weaknesses. Whenever you’re confronted with terminology or jargon, ask yourself, “What is actually happening? What do the words mean in terms of real-world action or condition?” It’s a tool that can help you spot things like the importance of changes in the S&P methodology on your own because it forces the focus from the concept to the specifics of execution.
2. Learn to Standardize Definitions of Words and Concepts When Having a Discussion
Think of a word or phrase. If you’ve ever studied linguistics or cultural nuances, you know it is highly probable the people around you aren’t necessarily using the words the same way you are. This happens not just from person to person and family to family, but from nation to nation as well. Knowing that can be a huge advantage.
[mainbodyad]Consider “friend”. The way its equivalent is used in a country like Germany is very different than the way its equivalent is used in a country like Brazil. Some use it to describe anyone who is a casual acquaintance or with whom they spend a lot of time. Others reserve it for those with whom they share an emotional intimacy, even if they speak to the person less often than an acquaintance.
Consider “God”. Several years ago, I found myself surrounded by a group of devoutly religious Midwesterners from different denominational traditions, spanning a fairly large socio-demographic range. In the middle of the conversation on the role of religion in politics, my curiosity was piqued because I had a suspicion. I politely interrupted and asked them to indulge me for a moment. I asked each of them to raise their hand if they believed God existed. Nearly all did. I then asked them to write down, on a piece of paper without discussing it with anyone else, their definition of the word “God”.
Pens down, papers collected, practically none of them defined the word or concept the same way. The answers included things like:
- God is whatever or whomever created mankind. Even if He, Himself, had a creator or came from somewhere else, that doesn’t matter because He is still God to us.
- God is the ultimate creator. Even if mankind were seeded biologically by a race of advanced, intelligent extraterrestrials as part of a biological experiment, it wouldn’t matter. He is the one who brought everything into existence in the very beginning. He’s the source.
- God is whatever gave man spirit. Even if we evolved, the moment man became man and was given a soul, which might be around 50,000 years ago when the human brain suddenly leapt forward evolutionarily, skull sizes changed, and other humanoids died out, He was the entity that elevated us and made us something else.
- God is Jesus Christ. If I died, I’d be sent to hell and tormented but because of Him taking my place, I can escape all of that and go live in eternal happiness.
- God is a word for the universe as a whole; the force that keeps everything together and that causes atoms to arrange themselves in replicating systems; that saying, “Leave hydrogen alone long enough and it begins to think about itself”. That’s God. It is everywhere. We are in it. It is around us.
- God is a word we use to describe phenomenon we don’t, yet, understand.
The result was shock. “Wait … you actually think …”, “You can’t possibly believe…?”. It was fascinating to listen to the half hour that followed because they just assumed the word they were using for this package of ideas – in this case, God – was the same between all of them. They never checked. They took it for granted.
If you doubt it, try it yourself. Often, people who grew up in the same household and attended the same religious institutions or houses of worship will come away with different definitions, never, actually, talking about it as it exists somewhere just below the surface of their conscious mind. Try it with other words or phrases, too.
- How do you define “Love”?
- What do the words, “I’m sorry” mean? When are they appropriate to use?
- What is “Poor”?
- What is “Rich”? Is it a given level of income? Net worth? Having to not work while earning enough to live the life you want? An absolute number?
- What is “Good?”
- What is “Successful?”
- What is “Cheating” in the context of a romantic relationship? (Interestingly, there seems to be a substantial gender divide that might be rooted in the biological way affection is expressed and interpreted. Women tend to look at an emotional connection as cheating – when an affair happens, the most common question is, “Do you love her?” – whereas men look at the physical act as cheating – when an affair happens, the most common question is, “Did you sleep with him?”.)
- What is a “Lie”? (For some people, it’s knowingly stating a factual inaccuracy. For others, it can include remaining silent and refusing to correct a misconception.)
The list goes on and on but the point remains: You can’t just plug in your own definitions when listening to others, you have to try and calibrate what it is they are actually saying, through the lens of their own worldview and past experience. Great speakers have long known this, utilizing code words to break through to certain demographics, knowing how they will resonate with a particular group. A lot of conflict resolution can be enhanced by figuring out where the real disagreement is.
A major upshot of clarifying words like this has to do with personal life strategy. It lets you avoid Benjamin Graham’s observation that, “Criterion based upon adjectives are necessarily ambiguous”. If you want to arrange your life, don’t say, “I want to be successful.” Define success. Give it tangible, specific, objective, measurable numbers or metrics. If financial, is it being in the top 20% of household income? The top 1%? Is it having 40+ hours a week of free time with no responsibilities? Is it being respected in your field? Is it establishing a food pantry and providing 10,000 free meals per year to homeless or low-income people in your community? Avoid the false comfort of imprecision whenever it can be avoided. Draw the bullseye on the canvas then shoot for it. That way, you’ll know whether you are succeeding or failing at what it is you sat out to do.
This discussion is closely related to the Culture Code mental model. If you’ve never read about it, do take the time. You’ll be glad you did.
[mainbodyad]
Reader Comments (19)
Comments are presented chronologically, with replies indented beneath the comments to which they respond.
Zaphod
April 10, 2015
Excellent. I often marvel at the ability of great politicians to say things very specifically for an intended audience for an intended misinterpretation, while not really saying anything at all. They may act like idiots, and most people eventually assume that's true, but some are very very particular in exactly what and how they say things. it's impressive in a sad sort of way, but something to be aware of and learn how to use to your advantage.
Joshua Kennon
April 10, 2015
Replying to Zaphod
I remember reading an interesting article a few years ago that talked about how this might become more difficult in the next decades because American culture lacked a shared social background now that certain institutions have declined. It used the example of President Obama giving a speech and mentioning something about, "We've been to the mountain top and seen the Promise Land", which, of course, evokes a very specific narrative for a super majority of Americans over a certain age who grew up in Sunday school and who know the plight of Moses leaving Egypt, sojourning in the desert for 40 years; how, upon his sin of striking the rock for water, God banished him from the Holy Land but permitted him to glimpse it before death.
These coded messages are everywhere. The most recent one I came across that really caught my eye was during the Indiana backlash that consumed nearly every newspaper, Internet sight, and television network. When a business called Memories Pizza stated they wouldn't serve a gay couple pizza for their wedding, supporters who agreed with their "fight" sent them $842,442 in gross donations before the platform's cut of the revenue. The interesting thing, though, is the language. The fundraising sponsor said (you can still see it at that link), "You stood in the gap with them". Being in the middle of the Bible Belt, that phrase has a very specific meaning to a very specific group that I don't think those in New York or California might necessarily pick up on right away. It's an allusion to Ezekiel 22:30, in which God is telling the prophet he had "poured out [His] indignation on them [and] consumed them with the fire of [His] wrath" because "I was searching for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand in the gap before Me for the land, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one." In other words, by giving money to the "we won't serve them" crowd, they were demonstrating to God there were still righteous people in the land and that He shouldn't destroy the country. Some of the conversations around here indicate that was a motivation for those giving; that it was there way to prove America was still worth saving so God wouldn't wipe us all out. (Of course, it doesn't seem to make any sense when you read the prior verse, in which God also tells the prophet the reason he wiped out all of these evil people is because they oppressed the poor, mistreated the immigrant, and practiced oppression. The irony of which seems to be lost on them ...)
Another one you see that doesn't seem to ping on the radar of people outside this part of the country is the phrase, "A time such as this" or "for such a time", which is an allusion to Esther 4:14. Politicians and their supporters will sometimes use it as a sort of code to indicate so-called Dominion Theology, which is the belief that elected or appointed officials have been elevated to positions of power specifically to enact God's will. It sails right by secular voters but is like a flashing beacon for those at whom it is aimed. If I recall correctly, the last time I heard it was Arizona governor Jan Brewer. It made me laugh a little because almost none of my East Coast friends had any idea what she meant. It was just this innocuous phrase that didn't even warrant a second thought but served as a tribal signal heard loud and clear (which gets into signaling theory, one of my favorite topics in the whole world).
It really is such a fun area to study ... It also makes you wonder, to what degree, historical texts can never be fully appreciated because we lack the then-cultural nuance to understand what isn't being said or what entire backstory might be implied through a small word or phrase. That was one of the big lessons I remember from my college history courses. You have to learn to set aside your modern mind as much as you can and put yourself in the proverbial shoes of the person about whom you are reading, who had very different beliefs, conditions, and incentive structures.
Zaphod
April 10, 2015
Replying to Joshua Kennon
I often think about the historical cultural aspect, especially when people from disparate continents and millenia are trying to fit in an ancient text into their life and fighting about things without any context.
One example like you mentioned always makes me chuckle, the story of Samson (among others) and the buying and selling of mandrakes to get things they want. Because we mostly have no idea what that is our mind basically deletes that detail, turns out its a hallucinogenic and all these prominent bible figures were involved in the trafficking, selling, and use of drugs. Hilarious! Lots of things like that, you dont know what you dont know.
Matt
April 10, 2015
While here you mention how the same word can mean multiple things to different people, it also goes the other way -- multiple words can relate to the same idea, which makes people argue over the metaphors even though they actually agree on the underlying issue. Metaphor and narrativized abstractions can be amazingly efficient if people recognize that it is an imperfect proxy for a complex idea, but unfortunately too many people end up getting married to the narrative, which can cause huge misunderstandings and a tribal us vs. them mentality even if people generally believe the same thing.
I've had a couple friends that had strikingly similar religious/philosophical beliefs. The catch was that one self-identified as Christian while the other identified as spiritual but non-religious. So one obviously included Jesus as a central part of his belief system while the other simply described "God" as a the universe/a spiritual life force that binds us all together. Both of these people seemed to believe that the purpose of life is to have a personal relationship with Jesus/the universal spirit and to let Jesus/the universe live through us so that we are infused with its divine perfection. But when I noted how it was so interesting that the beliefs were strikingly similar despite the fact that one originated from the Western Abrahamic tradition while the other originated from the Eastern philosophical tradition, both people cited irreconcilability because of narrative differences instead of appreciating the similarities. (Oh no, they don't believe the same as I do because their belief clearly doesn't include Jesus, which means clearly are doomed to Hell -- or alternatively -- they don't believe as I do because their belief includes this crazy story about Jesus, resurrection, and virgins conceiving!)
Just like narratives, metaphor, and general abstraction can make people think they are talking about the same thing when in fact they are not, it can also make people think they are talking about different things when in fact, they are! I like to think of words as a "translator" that helps us understand complex ideas. Words simply translate an objective, abstract idea by connecting it to something that is familiar to you given your experiences and culture. Unfortunately, people too frequently think that the translator is the point of debate rather than underlying idea.
This is one reason why I think Munger's focus on interdisciplinary study is so powerful. Being knowledgeable in many different areas helps you understand critical concepts from different narrative perspectives and allows you to communicate more effectively with people of all sorts of backgrounds. Even if they don't get one metaphor, perhaps you can grab another one from your extensive knowledge and see if that is intuitively easier for them to understand given their experiences. Learning to focus on the underlying idea without becoming attached to the narrative makes you that much more dangerous when trying to discuss abstract concepts with other people.
Joshua Kennon
April 10, 2015
Replying to Matt
What a wonderful comment!
Allen Jarboe
April 10, 2015
This leads into another good discussion of objectivism vs relativism; once everyone has written down their definitions of God (or whatever) and argued about it for a bit and then realized there is (not always but with a lot of things) no way to prove or determine what the true definition ought to be. So are there objective truths?
To me, in a lot of mainstream reporting/writing people take the lazy way (what I deem to be lazy or maybe better said intellectually dishonest) and say no there aren't objective truths; when logically something being true or false, (or existing or whatever) has nothing to do with it's ability to be proven.
In case my wording is weird or misunderstood God either exists (or insert whatever definition you want) or he doesn't regardless if you can prove it.
Mr.owenr
April 10, 2015
Whenever another person is using a word that implies a definition that does not match the ultimate global authority concerning the definition of English words I let them know just how wrong they are.
ImReallyBadAtChoosingUsernames
April 11, 2015
I love this topic, growing up in different places I learnt a lot about how simple words have very different meanings to different groups of people. Especially if you take it accross languages, some words have no direct translations, others dont even exist. If you look at the idea of siblings:
In english you have brother and sister, seperated by gender.
Yoruba has "egbon" and "aburo"* (older sibling, younger sibling). Its a cultute very concerned about respecting your elders.
Chinese is much more specific "jie jie", "mei mei", "ge ge", "di di". (older sister, younger sister, older brother, younger brother)
*My parents spoke yoruba at home, but English is still my first language. I have 3 elder brothers, so growing up I thought "egbon" meant elder brother. Not until we moved back and I heard it spoken in different contexts did I realize the actual meaning of the word.
This already a long comment, but I would just like to thank you so very much for both this blog and the about.com. You've introduced me to so many new topics and ways of thinking. 😀
Brett
April 11, 2015
Joshua -
This post immediately made me think of a blog post that I read a few years ago about the underlying message that Patek Phillippe relies on to market their watches. Specifically, how the tag line:
"You never actually own a Patek Philippe.
You merely take care of it for the next generation"
functions as a sort of dog whistle targeted to the mass affluent portion of the population that aspires to intergenerational wealth. The point isn't the watch. The watch symbolizes "success" in the form of being the man to finally set your family line up in perpetuity - the man responsible for his offspring having "family money."
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/luxury_branding_the_future_lea.html
The blog post wanders a bit, but closely tracks your overall point in your Culture Code post of intentionally tailoring a message so that it strongly resonates with a narrow target audience of potential buyers, while going over the heads of the general population - or even sending a different, intentional message to less affluent buyers: "The man that you see wearing a Patek has real money." It is a nice thing to be aware of. I would love to own a Patek Calatrava or an AP Royal Oak, but, at 27, I love having that extra $30k compounding in my net worth more - and taking care of it for the next generation.
Anyways - love the blog, I rarely comment but check it every day. Have you considered putting up a weekly/monthly post of your reading list? I think simply offering a list of titles would be incredibly valuable to your readership. I find it hard to find identify good non-fiction books that make me think or identify helpful mental models. I'd be happy to share a list of some of the books that I've read recently as well.
-Brett
Eric
April 13, 2015
Fantastic post! This somehow made my brain to formulate a strategy for business meetings in the future.
FratMan
April 18, 2015
1. When you read deeply unpopular texts and things flatly rejected by mainstream culture for their abhorrence, do you have a concern that some of those thoughts will enter your worldview? When I'm a part of a culture, I find myself slightly drifting to blend with that culture, and I was wondering if you experience that intellectually with your countercultural readings or if you are able to keep the walls of your mind tight.
2. In the early days, did you ever have to deal with the frustration of researching an idea but having the valuation slip away before you could meaningfully act upon the idea? It happened to me with Walgreen a few years ago and Philip Morris International this week. I suppose that's why cash positions get recommended, so you can act upon a situation when you see it. I'm curious if any part of the stock buying process bothers you in that you identify something great (which eats up some of your time) but your opportunity doesn't arrive because you can't combine the knowledge with the means (although it's not like you were goofing off beforehand--you were using available funds to make other purchases previously). I understand this is a first-world problem.
3. Maybe this is something that you think about as someone who writes prolifically online--what would be your checklist response/recovery if you ever got caught up in a Justine Sacco or Britt McHenry flare-up. What's the process for leading an excellent life after a (deserved?) public shaming of sorts?
4. On a related note, does that fear ever prevent you from candidly discussing certain topics on the site? I don't think you've ever discussed race and identity politics in depth here, and I'm curious if you think that our grandparents were wise to say that certain topics should be avoided in public commentary forums (especially when they don't directly relate to what you're trying to accomplish).
5. If someone has a mistaken impression of you (driven by first impressions) and they are regularly but not intimately part of your ongoing social network, (1) would you find it worth it to correct the impression or would you write it off like a bad insurance policy and move on to different people, and (2) what steps would you take to correct the impression? Do you have any idea on how long and what specifically it takes to erase an unfortunate first impression?
6. At Sardar Biglari's last annual meeting, he remarked that he was shocked at how many "idiots managing large pools of money exist in the United States." He said that in response to a question about big surprises since becoming a higher-than-normal profile investor. Do you share the same sentiment?
*Addendum: I've noticed in some of your writings that you omit citations to people who are unpopular when you want to discuss a specific idea they mentioned. Is that just your literary writing style or do you deliberately avoid mentioning the potentially controversial individual so that people won't devalue the worthwhile concept by association with an individual they devalue?
7. You often refer to yourself as a value investor, and you've posted your excellent returns (so clearly the process works for you). Have you ever done an alternative reality study of what your returns would have been if you simply purchased the stocks with the highest growth rates you imagine are likely for the firm, without concern for valuation? When I did a study of companies with super high growth rates that I have been able to identify (but didn't buy due to high, and in some cases, astronomic) valuations, I'm shocked at how much better of an investor I would be if I simply bought stocks with the highest earnings per share growth rates and let everything else be damned. However, we're six years into a bull market, and I suspect that may significantly skew the results, so that is why I seek your counsel.
8. Do you think that 3G management is excellent in the second phase of their growth after they initiate the cost cutting? I mean, Heinz revenues are down since they moved in. My contention is that they do an excellent job of cutting off the fat, but they also cut off some muscle as well, and I'm curious as to how you perceive the super long-term consequences of their management style (on a 20+ year basis rather than a five to ten year basis). I prefer the Buffett-to-Huggins structure over the 3G-to-Anheuser-Busch structure, but you seem to laud the decision, and I want to improve my cognition on what I'm missing.
9. Do you think the rise of the "Me, Me, Me" culture, where achievements are bragged about on Facebook and the virtue of modesty and self-sacrifice seems to be on the decline in the U.S. will carry any nasty consequences, or do you see Facebook narcissism as mostly harmless fun?
10. And lastly, I'd be curious for your thoughts on what you'd do if you got a legal job offer from a tobacco company that paid you significantly more (60%) than what you could make from your next best alternative, with the next best alternative giving you fulfillment on a six/seven out of ten level while the day-to-day work for the tobacco company would be a large question mark in terms of personal fulfillment.
innerscorecard
April 24, 2015
Replying to FratMan
I would be interested in your thoughts on Sardar Biglari as well, on your own web site. By the way, I'm curious as to why you turned comments off on your site? (Or are they just blocked for me in China?) Are you trying to imitate Warren Buffett (buying companies paying dividends, but not paying one yourself)? 🙂
Scott McCarthy
May 10, 2015
Replying to innerscorecard
Oh how I wish Biglari Holdings were large enough for Joshua to delve into on here. I'd love to see him write about the treasury stock and compensation issues they've got.
innerscorecard
May 17, 2015
Replying to Scott McCarthy
Haha, well I honestly don't think he'll ever do it - barring something insane happening like Sardar getting arrested for misappropriating the company's cash - outright fraud (which won't happen, but it could, as with any company and any executive).
But it would be nice to have the standard Joshua Kennon level of clarity of thought on the matter.
Anyways, there is a lot of both good and bad writing on Sardar Biglari out there already, especially for the size of the enterprise, as well as a huge amount of primary source material. Anyone who wants to be informed has the raw material to make a judgment already.
dave (nestle)
April 24, 2015
Replying to FratMan
Two things:
1. Joshua, why has the ability to up/down vote been taken away from guests? Has it been abused? (it reminds me of the government 'forcing' motorists to get EZ Pass.) I guess I will sit in traffic.
2. Mr. Tim, I have decided to support the cause and buy your (combo) e-books. I will be using a teeny-weenie-tiny portion of my 2015 Nestle dividends for this purpose. Good fortune to you!
Joshua Kennon
April 24, 2015
Replying to dave (nestle)
I didn't know it had. It's probably more Disqus B.S. The management team that offers the product has no problem making changes unilaterally, taking away power from site owners. For example, they thought nothing of suddenly making all upvotes "visible" if you hover over the upvote button. They then took away the downvote functionality entirely. Site owners can't turn either feature on or off. It's idiotic. It reminds me of Woopra, which I was happy to pay a lot of money for but then every update made the product worse than it had been to the point I canceled.
I'll look into it.
FratMan
May 8, 2015
Replying to Joshua Kennon
Hey Josh--You've mentioned before that you have resources for determining someone's identity when they send you threatening e-mails and what not. I have a situation on my hand where I've received multiple intimidating e-mails in a short time period that seem quite unbalanced and make specific references to my location, and I have chosen to respond to none of them, and will continue to do that. However, I'm trying to get a handle on the level of the threat. What tools could be at my disposal?
FratMan
April 24, 2015
Replying to dave (nestle)
1. Dave, that's a Disqus change (not a Joshua change). The idea is that people who are logged in are more credible upvoters/downvoters.
2. Thanks Dave! I hope you find it useful.
Innerscorecard--Re: Biglari, there seems to be a bit of arrogance dashed with an FU spirit towards the shareholders (read: OWNERS) of the firm. When he gets asked a specific question about personal travel expenses, strategy, or incentive cost structure, he reverts quickly to "we have previously disclosed enough to estimate intrinsic value" or "if you don't like it, don't invest with us." When your explanation for something is "leave if you don't like it", you probably don't have a good reason for doing it.
As for your second question, maybe. I talked with that marketing guru Seth Godin once, and he emphasized to me the difference between being busy and being productive. Answering comments in web forums can keep you busy all day, but is it productive? Of course, it depends on how you define those terms. If "helping others" is the pure definition of productive, then it clearly is productive. If "being productive" involves making money, increasing traffic, directly growing a business, then you can fritter days away responding to comments.
In my case, I reached the point where the quality of questions I was receiving had become so high that I did not have time in my day to address it. People don't ask "what is a dividend" where I can write a one-sentence response: "Cash paid out from a business to its shareholders". Instead, I get questions that require a decent amount of thought, and maybe hours to write. My toolbox of knowledge isn't as extensive as Joshua's, so it takes me a while longer to figure things out, and it takes me even longer to write. I am in class for most of the day, I go on long bike rides most days, and I like to regularly socialize, and I decided I would rather spend my excess hours beyond that getting my work done for school as quickly as possible, producing my own content for my site and SA, following the St. Louis Cardinals, and reading.
Of course, that answers the question of why I don't usually respond, but it does not answer the question as to why I closed comments. While Joshua has a generally adoring readership, I don't. In most posts, I would get something contentious. For instance, earlier this year, American Express projected flat earnings per share growth for a bit and then 12-15% earnings per share growth after that. I got that straight from AXP officers. Although I mentioned that in my article, the lone comment was something like: "YOU MADE THAT UP1! YOU JUST LIE TO CREATE EARNINGS FIGURES YOU WANT." Well, if I leave it there and ignore it, people will leave my article with questions about my credibility. If I answer, "Hey, I got the estimates from American Express and you can see it on the Zacks website here: http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/164393/american-express-to-end-contract-with-costco-shares-fall ", then I have to spend time that I don't currently have answering questions to people who, frankly, write discrediting things. And if I don't respond, some readers will assume that the criticism contains some truth. Eventually, I realized that because: (1) I don't have time to respond to most queries, and (2) I'm sure not going to pay $62 per month to host an online site that is scattered with credibility attacks against me, I concluded that I would just remove the comments as a trial to see if that made things better.
Well, it did. I've found that I've been more productive because there isn't time in my day spent putting out fires and being busy without being productive, and it also stops me from giving in to other biases to which I'm susceptible. For instance, people that like you often do so because of who you are, and what you currently believe. That makes personal growth difficult if you are at all conscious of peer feedback. I've found that I'm able to personally grow better when I write articles from the perspective of "assume I've never written prior ideas I'm trying to defend, and I'm going to trying and be as rational as I can right now for my audience." Eliminating comments permits me to avoid the fallout that comes with change, evolution, and personal growth.
In short, the decision had to do with time management, the few "this is why we can't have nice things" readers, and a desire to combat my own susceptibilities where I am prone to let peer feedback personally affect me.
I know that I'm writing this on a post in which I asked Joshua quite a few questions that would take quite a bit of time to answer. Fortunately for the civilization, there are plenty of people better than me out there.
Guest
April 25, 2015
Freedom of joshua.. < www.Jobs234.Com