Journal

Context is at all times a combination of Agents and Situation; i.e., who’s involved and under what conditions. For example:

• If your co-worker calls you at 2 a.m. to ask you for a favor, the Agents are you and your co-worker, and the Situation is the call.
• If you get in an argument with your parents over who was supposed to feed the dog, even though it was 100% on them, the Agents would be your parents and yourself, and the Situation would be the argument.
• If you go on a karaoke date, the Agents are you and your date, and the Situation is the karaoke date you thought of to impress your date with your musical skills, failing to remember the fact that you’re mainly an instrumentalist, not a rock singer, and proceeding to butcher “Don’t Stop Believing”.

You get the point. The issue is that in any context, Agents and Situation can often become so intertwined that it can be difficult to be objective about either element separately; hence, about the context as a whole. There are two things you can do to counteract this, depending on which element you want to focus on:

1. If you want to see an Agent or Agents with objectivity, leave the Agent(s) constant and switch out the Situation.

If you’re grabbing lunch at a great restaurant with your potential roommate, you might think “Hey, we get along great; surely we could share the rent!”

But if you switch out the Situation and instead spend a workweek living with your potential roommate, you might find that you’re annoyed by the strawberry jelly they eat with their bare hands and leave traces of on every doorknob, and all of a sudden you’re not so excited about sharing the rent with this person.

When you’re not sure how you feel about an Agent or Agents, leave the Agent(s) constant and switch out the Situation. Now, take another look.

2. If you want to see a Situation with objectivity, leave the Situation constant and switch out the Agents.

If your significant other always says this one thing that makes you feel terrible about yourself, then that’s okay because no partner is perfect and all relationships have their problems, right?

But if you switch out the Agent, your significant other, and instead it’s your co-worker who says that same thing, over and over again, you would probably say something, because why would you have to deal with that? By switching out the Agents, you can clearly see that you’re not in a good Situation.

When you’re not sure how you feel about a Situation, leave the Situation constant and switch out the Agents. Now, take another look.

So, how can you be objective in any context? Separate Agents and Situation, move them around, and see each objectively. Now, take another look at the whole context. Even if it’s still the same, your perception of it might not be.

Last summer, I lived for a month and a half in Beijing. It was a life-changing experience, due in no small part to the city’s world-famous cuisine.

One evening, a local friend took me to Beijing’s best Hot Pot restaurant for dinner. Since I’d heard wonders about Beijing cuisine, expectations were high. And expectations were exceeded. The restaurant staff sang a song for the foreigner (i.e., me), my friend and I finished our delicious meal, and then we got the check. I’d never been so happy to pay for something.

The following evening, we had dinner at a different restaurant: Beijing’s best Peking Duck restaurant. This time, the restaurant staff sang a song for the foreigner (i.e., me again — I peaked), we began our meal, they brought us the check to pay at our convenience, and then we finished our meal. We paid, of course, but we weren’t particularly excited to do so. It was more a “they gave us food, so now we give them money” sort of thing. It was transactional, not generous.

The food was equally delicious in both restaurants, so what was different? The first restaurant provided an enveloping experience, which we were then happy to pay for, while the second one inserted paying into the experience, which prevented us from losing ourselves in it.

So whatever you do, don’t bring the metaphorical check until your metaphorical patrons are done with their metaphorical meal. Metaphors aside, bringing what you want into the picture before you’re done giving will do a disservice to both those you want to give to and to yourself.

Give them the full experience. Then, ask for what you want, if anything. Hopefully, by that point, they will already want to give it to you.

When I was 18 years old, I decided I wanted to learn how to sing. I had been playing the guitar and writing lyrics for years, so singing was the natural musical next step.

I set up my first vocal lesson and was ecstatic. I was finally going to learn how to breathe properly; I was finally going to learn how to project properly; I was finally going to learn proper posture; I was finally going to learn all these new things until, one day, I was finally going to be able to sing like my favorite singers!

Not quite.

My desire to add knowledge was quenched as soon as I expressed it to my new vocal instructor at the beginning of our first lesson. After I let her know all I wanted to learn and do and accomplish, she said something along these lines:

Every human being is born singing. You can already sing. You don’t have to learn how to do something you can already do. All you have to do is unlearn the improper vocal habits you’ve accumulated since you were born. Then, your voice will be free.

Brilliant. The point, I realized, was not to learn how to breathe properly, but to unlearn improper breathing. It wasn’t to learn how to project properly, but to unlearn improper projection. And it wasn’t to learn proper posture, but to unlearn improper posture.

Suddenly, there was no pressure. I didn’t have to do anything. I didn’t have to add. All I had to do was to not do. I had to subtract. And subtraction is easier, cleaner, and clearer than addition.

So if you’re looking to learn something, start by unlearning. If you’re looking to do something, start by not doing.

If you want to add, subtract.

There seems to be the implied assumption that an ideal result; i.e., whatever end you wish to achieve, is somehow separate from the process you move through in your pursuit of it.

In reality, the process is the result.

The steps you take in order to achieve an end, shape that end.

For example, say I, hypothetically, want to write an article titled “The Process Is the Result”. I know, it’s a radical idea, but let’s go with it.

If I want the end result, the finished article, to be clean and minimal, then my process has to reflect that: I have to write and edit the article in a clean, minimal manner. But if wanting that same end result, my writing is over-elaborated and my editing nonexistent, then my result, no matter how hard I try to hide it, will not feel clean and minimal.

Apply this same principle to anything you’re moving toward in your life:

• If your ideal result is to have a lean, relaxed, athletic body, then forcing your muscles at the gym with bodybuilder weight-lifting routines will probably not get you there.
• If your ideal result is to write the best novel you can write, then spending most of your reading and writing time on BuzzFeed and Twitter will probably not get you there.

The examples could go on and on.

To be clear, none of the ideal results above, or in your life, are right or wrong.

Coherence is not determined by what your ideal result is, but by whether your process is in harmony with that result.

Perhaps you do want to have Schwarzenegger’s body, in which case, keep lifting, and then run for Governor. Perhaps you do want to make your living as a short-form blogger, in which case BuzzFeed and Twitter are great tools.

It all depends on what you want. You choose. As long as the process and the result are in harmony, it works.

For anything you want, ask yourself: Is my process in harmony with my ideal result? If it is, great. If it isn’t, adjust either your process or your ideal result.

Because if the process isn’t in harmony with the ideal result, then the actual result will be in harmony with the process.

Many of us are familiar with Simon Sinek’s book Start With Why or with the ideas presented therein, some of which are also present in his first TED Talk.

Start With Why provides us with an insightful way of thinking about communication, branding, marketing, or selling, in a way that inspires others to take action.

In essence, this is what Sinek sets forth in Start With Why:

Everyone knows What they do — their product or service, some know How they do it — their process, but few know Why — their purpose.

Most individuals and companies communicate What they do first, then How, and then, maybe, Why — if they even know their purpose, that is.

However, it’s only those that Start With Why — those that know and communicate their purpose first and clearly — that are able to sell their ideas and change the world.

Simple, elegant, and insightful. Any of us looking to become better communicators can learn and improve by practicing Sinek’s ideas.

But then comes the tagline that has come to define Sinek as well as Start With Why; the tagline that inspired me to write this article:

“People don’t buy What you do, they buy Why you do it…”

…Except we don’t.

We might feel like we do.

But we don’t.

Which is why, when buying, we should Start With What.

Because at the end of it all, once our emotions are done guiding our buying behavior, moved by the seller’s Why, we’re left only with What we bought.

We might feel like we’re buying a Why, when we’re really buying a What.

This cognitive illusion, born in the neurological space that separates Why and What, leads us to participate in all kinds of over-emotional buying behavior:

• We feel like we’re buying style, when we’re really buying a shirt.
• We feel like we’re buying innovation, when we’re really buying a smartphone.
• We feel like we’re buying independence, when we’re really buying an apartment.
• We feel like we’re buying musical tradition, when we’re really buying a turntable that doesn’t even sound that great and that we will never use, until, one day, we finally decide to donate it to Goodwill.

I’m sure we can all relate to each of these examples.

I’m sure.

My point is this: When buying, Start With What.

To do so, you can ask yourself the following questions:

“What do I want or need?”

“What features or specifications will fulfill that want or need?”

“What product or service has those features or specifications?”

That’s it.

It’s not about the seller’s Why.

It’s about you and about What you want or need.

The only instance where the seller’s Why or How could and should come into play, is if either of the two infringes upon your nonnegotiable principles, in which case the What is out of the question from the beginning.

In all other instances, when buying, Start With What.

Is What you’re thinking of buying What you want or need?

If it is, perfect.

If not, Why buy it?