I wanted to feature a really important message that was central to the conversation I had with Shane Sams, the founder of Flipped Lifestyle and our next SISD guest. As we get into in the interview, Shane went through some major pain and hurt to discover what he wanted and needed to do with his life. His story is powerful and I encourage you to tune in for the full conversation. All you need to know is that this pain fueled his desire to make a change. As he puts it, that’s the catalyst, but that’s not enough, you need to see the dream too. And that’s what Shane did.

If you want to make a change, you need to be motivated to do it and you need to be prompted into action, and if that change is big and sustainable it needs to be a sustained motivation. Then, if you actually want to make it happen, and realize the dream, you need to learn how to do it. Watching and learning from other people who have done it can be the template to get started to creating it for yourself.

This line was featured in a song written by the very talented musician Julia Price.

"Like a dream that don't come true, something better will come to you."

It’s a tough reality to accept, but let’s think more about it. Our dreams are our deepest desires that we attach a lot of our fulfillment and meaning to. It’s a motivational piece that encourages us to work toward something we value. When our dreams don’t come true, our sense of value and worth goes with it.  

However, in this line in Julia Price's song, she presents an alternative perspective. Perhaps our brains are limited in what we can even dream about! Our perspectives are narrow to our own lens and experiences, and what we label as “our dreams” might not be what we want most. It’s in this linear way of thinking that we fail to determine what’s the best fit for our life trajectory, and there’s a larger plan that will take care of us. It’s about surrendering to the process, and viewing setbacks as flags to remember to have faith.

When presenting something to someone, give them two options to choose from. Two days to grab a coffee, two time slots to grab a phone call, two offers.

The reason why this is important is because we can lose people if we give too many or too few options. First, if we want anyone to take the next step with this we need to tell them how to do that. So, at the very least one option is required. But, when it’s just one then it seems rigid. There’s no sense of autonomy or agency in the decision, and some people might perceive that as inequitable and they’re less likely to pursue the activity. However, when there are two options, people feel like they have a choice, that their schedule and bandwidth is being respected, and it sets a better foundation.

On the alternative side, having too many options presents its own challenges like decision fatigue. Have you ever been presented so many options that you don’t even know where to start, and you give up? This is a science a lot of restaurants are very cognizant of on their menus.

Of course there’s leeway here and there and case by case, but keep this in mind when trying to book a time with someone. It’s an empathetic practice to design your outreach in a way that it will be best received. I encourage you to present two options the next time you pitch something and see how it goes.

What do you do when you face adversity? Do you fold and cry and stop in your tracks? No of course not, the ONLY thing you can do is move forward as best as you can, and move forward with the right perspective. That’s exactly what Matt Zinman shares as he elaborates a bit on this idea of facing life adversity.

Matt articulates the mindset we need to adopt when approaching life. It's a mindful, grateful, practical, and resilient mindset that can find the best in overcoming any obstacle. We need to give ourselves credit for our pasts and see it as a strength, recognizing how far we’ve already come, and use that to move forward.

I wanted to present an interesting thought in the book I’m reading, The 10x Rule, by Grant Cardone. I do like the mentality and philosophy of setting massive goals going way above and beyond to accomplish them, it’s an interesting form of accountability that forces us to be at our best. There’s a second part to the philosophy I’m trying to wrap my head around that I want to share.

Grant says, "you don’t want to compete with the people in your space, but you want to dominate them". The reason is that if you’re competing then you’re always using them as a reference point to measure your own performance. So by choosing to dominate, you set your own standards and therefore pursue your own potential, not the potential established by others.

The part that is difficult for me, and seems to be incongruent in my mind is how this all equates to success. Grant shares that to be successful you must dominate, and he defined success in the classic form. It comes from the same root word that is in the word successor, which historically has meant to overthrow or replace in power. For me, success doesn’t need to come at the expense of other people, and this philosophy has an undertone of scarcity and limited resources.

Having said all of that, I know it comes from a good place, and later in the book Grant does speak to the difference between abundance and scarcity, but I’m still processing it all and coming upon my own understanding.

I want to touch on something I’ve been hearing recently but I haven’t gone deeper with it yet. It resurfaced when John Assaraf was on the virtual panel of the FashInnovation Worldwide talks, and it’s about our awareness and what it provides us with.

‍

He mentions that our awareness is external, meaning that we can acknowledge the way things have been that we didn’t recognize at first, which I imagine includes subconscious behaviors. Then, when we gain that awareness, we process it and internalize it, adding a new layer to the awareness which is our perception. It’s within that perception where we choose how to take a responsive action, which is more deliberate than merely reacting to our new found awareness.

Awareness gives us choice, it’s within our choices that our freedom lies.

Imagine if everything you wanted you got on the first try? You set your sights, made the effort and poof, it worked! How easy would life be? We all know that’s far from reality, but that’s what we should be thinking about right now. 

I don’t know about you guys, but sometimes when I put myself out there I fail to get what I wanted. Then, I get discouraged and self-critical and lose confidence. That doesn’t need to happen, and that shouldn’t happen. If it’s something we really want, we should try again and give it another go. Get more creative or specific about what you want and how you’re going to get it.

Good things in life don’t come easy, which means we should expect to fail a few times before achieving it! We don’t take this philosophy because we don’t hear people talking about how they failed to reach their goals, but it happens. I imagine that wouldn’t be the case if you tried again and continued to pursue it with persistence.

We can flip the script in a few ways. We can rewire the meaning of no. What if I told you what you wanted was 10 no’s. How excited would you be to hear your first no? That’s a David Meltzer mentality. Or, what if you measured your success by the number of responses you got, yes or no, and find validation in that. Would you be more likely to keep asking and keep pushing?

"If at first you don’t succeed, try and try again.  Don’t give up too easily persistence pays off in the end."

Are you familiar with Parkinson’s law? It’s the idea that work expands to fill the time you have allotted to do it. Let’s first use an example from my own work. For preparing an intro for a Self Improvement Sit Down guest, I could either allocate a full hour to write the intro, or only 20 minutes. Either way, the time I allocate is how long it will take to me complete the task. Now, that we understand the principle, let’s quantify the trade-off.

Doing it in an hour means I can really pull in information. I can review all of my notes on the guest, re-listen to intros of the guest on other podcasts, and take my time on the way I position every word. Or, in 20 minutes, I act more on the intuition I’ve built up previously in my preparation, focus more on not missing any major concepts rather than the perfect flow of the words, and get it done in a third of the time.

This trade-off between “quality and speed” is something we all experience across the board, but with respect to Parkinson's law there’s one other factor that’s important, which is urgency. When I have less time, I work with more focus and apply more mental energy because it’s required of me. And I find that in this particular case, the impressions I can get down in 20 minutes is 95% of what I could accomplish in the hour, and the trade-off for time is worth it.

So, to summarize Parkinson's law, work expands to fill the time you’ve allotted to doing it. Experiment with yourself and some of your tasks to see how you perform under different time constraints, and evaluate the quality of your work so you can quantify the trade-off for yourself.

I wanted to bring back and elaborate on something that I talked about last weekend in the SISD with Dr. Sangeeta Sahi. We talked about this idea of perfection, and why we are so desperate to strive for it. But, guess what! Nobody’s Prefect!

It’s hard to see that because we see the “perfect” version of everyone else. Why that is? It’s because that’s all they choose to share. I want to present an alternative opinion that we touched on in the conversation, it’s that perfection is actually a disadvantage, and once you understand that for yourself, you won’t want to be prefect either.

The dictionary definition of perfect is, “having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be”. What this suggests, but doesn’t overtly state, is that perfection is observable and external. It doesn’t speak at all to the means required to achieve that end. Behind the scenes, the people and things that appear to be “perfect” were produced through processes that aren’t sustainable or flexible. This means that they were designed specifically for one application, which has already come and gone given the speed that the world is changing at, making perfection virtually unattainable.

That’s why Darwin’s theory of natural selection and “Survival of the fittest” operates in a different way. Darwin states, “it’s the species most adaptable to change that persist and thrive”. Don’t strive for being perfect, nobody’s prefect. Instead strive to be authentic and diversified, also known as unique. Because the more adaptable you are to the things present in the current environment, the more amazing things that happen.