Matt Metzgar

Commercialization

A lot of website owners probably struggle with the issue of commercialization.  Once a website gets hits, then the questions begin: should a person somehow try to capitalize on these hits and turn them into cash?

There are many facets to this.  The first, and one I think that is often overlooked, is that sometimes a website gets big hits because it's non-commercial.  If a person is simply blogging for enjoyment and to share knowledge, this authenticity attracts people to some degree.  Most people are a bit jaded after all the bogus sales pitches they've heard over a lifetime, and it can be refreshing to hear from someone who has nothing to sell.

Second, financial incentives definitely can alter a writer's behavior.  If consumers are paying money for a website, then they will come to expect certain things from the producer.  And now blogging can turn into a job, which can affect the quality of the information produced.  I would rather write when I feel fresh and because I want to, not because I feel pressured to.

Third, why do websites "have" to make money?  I don't think it's about literally needing more money.  Most bloggers aren't begging on the street corner for change.  Many companies offer free blogs and the costs of additional hosting space is minimal.

I think the hidden issue in all this is entitlement.  If a person puts in effort and produces something of value, then there is the feeling that they should be entitled to some reward.  I have to admit, I felt this way when I was getting this blog started.  But there are many different types of rewards besides financial ones.

In terms of evolution, this is "recipriocal altrusim".  In other words, people help others and then in a roundabout way they are eventually rewarded.  In hunter-gatherer tribes, this might have been gifts in terms of food or status within the tribe.  Or in the simplest way, people just said "thanks."

As such, this is the fuel for my blog, not money.  Repeat visitors and the occassional good word is enough to let me know that I'm doing something right.  If someone else wants to charge for their website or run ads, it's their prerogative.  I don't think it's immoral or bad, but it's maybe an issue they haven't thought all the way through. 

The Excuse Factory

One behavior I see time and time again is the ability of people to create excuses.  For example, I've seen this in all kinds of work settings over the years.  One person says a certain change can't happen.  Yet if they leave the position and someone else comes in, then the change often magically happens.

People make a lot of excuses when they don't want to change.  I ran into this a good bit when I was teaching college also.  I would always start off each semester with what I called the "$100,000" question.  I asked the students that if they would be rewarded with $100,000 if they got an A in the class, how many thought they could accomplish it.  Almost all hands went up every time.  But of course, not everyone got A's.  So to me, it was primarily a motivation problem: they had the ability to achieve the goal, but the motivation wasn't clear or strong enough over the course of a semester.

This same problem of course happens with weight loss.  Plans are made and broken.  And if a person is called out on it, they will often fire up the "excuse factory" and continue creating excuses until they create a semi-plausible one.

I think it's better to be honest about these things.  If a person tries something and it doesn't work, well then just try again or try a different method.  There's no need to cover things up with a web of excuses.  It's really a matter of taking responsibility: each person is captain of their own ship. 

Trajectories

I think it is relatively easy to see a person's "life trajectory" once you get to know them.  I believe you can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy where a person will be in 5 or 10 years.  This is good if a person is on a positive trajectory, but not so good when he or she is not headed in the right direction.

What's more difficult is to predict your own trajectory.  I think there are all kinds of biases and self-perception issues that make it difficult to predict your own future.  But a friend from the outside could probably do it pretty well.

What's even trickier, I think, is to change your own trajectory.  It seems to take a massive amount of energy to get things going in a different direction.  Maybe it's force of habit, I don't know.  But it all goes back to that simple saying: "if you always do the same thing, don't expect any different results."

TV vs People

Here is a longer paper(pdf) about how television viewing affects life satisfaction.  Only economists would phrase things this way, but they believe that tv replaces "relational goods" or in other words, relationships.

The paper goes on to state that tv creates a network of virtual relationships that actually replaces real social relationships.  This can help explain why rising incomes in developed countries do not lead to more happiness.  People spend their money and time on tv-type entertainment and invest less in relationships.

The Meaningful Path

Occassionally, I meet older couples who don't have children, and it always strikes me as a strange situation.  It's one thing if a couple has trouble conceiving or isn't settled yet.  But it's an entirely different situation when a couple "chooses" not to have children.

I put "chooses" in quotes because evolution really didn't set up children as a choice.  Evolution made sex fun, and then voila, children appear nine months later.  In other words, it is not supposed to be an intellectual choice; there is no mental framework for weighing the costs and benefits of children.  It is just a natural outcome of a relationship.

I used to think having children was strange, now I think not having children is strange.  Having a child around feels very, very natural.  And whatever preconceived ideas I had about children have discarded; parenting is mostly a visceral, emotional process.  And I love it.   

Seeing Red

Last weekend, I saw the local Gap store had a number of advertisements for its "Red" product line.  Red was launched in 2006 to help fight HIV in Africa.

I've read where articles which are critical of the Red effort.  They believe that companies are using the Red idea to help increase sales and build their company image.

My thought is: who cares?  It really doesn't matter why a company engages in charitable efforts, as long as they do it.  Whether it's to boost sales or its true social responsibility, the bottom line is that money gets raised for charity.

So far Red has raised over $45 million, so I would say the campaign has been successful.  How great would it be if more companies created charitable product lines?  This isn't communism, companies shouldn't be forced to give back.  But a company that is doing well should be encouraged (prodded?) to give back to the community.

Bad Philosophies

I think philosophy is an underdeveloped subject in general.  I took a couple of philosophy classes back in college, and they were pretty bad.  Rehashing Greek philosophy, lots of confusing jargon - none of it seemed very usable in the day-to-day sense.

I'm waiting for someone out there to modernize philosophy, to make it more scientific and applicable.  I do think that the beliefs that make up a person's philosophy (whether conscious or not) ultimately determine the direction of their life.  I almost think it's like a mathematical formula, such that if a person believes "x", then their life will turn out a certain way in the long run.

That's the tricky part about a life philosophy, is that you need a long time horizon to see the results of it.  Many people can achieve success in the short run, but end up disintegrating over the years.  A lot of this is predictable, too - you can see where the lack of a proper foundation/philosophy will eventually yield bad results.

Charismatic Leaders

For some time, I have had a theory about why certain "motivational gurus" are successful.  The person that first comes to mind is Tony Robbins, of late-night infomercial fame.  This guy has made millions selling his products, yet it's unclear exactly what he's selling (and why he's successful).

This research paper answers my question.  The paper shows that leaders who are masters of positive emotional expression have the most impact on their followers.  When a leader expresses positive emotion, a process of "mood contagion" takes place that lifts followers' spirits.

All this makes sense to me and gets to the core of what Tony Robbins and others are selling: a psychological pump-up.  Robbins' advice is mostly common sense, dealing with focusing on your goals, modeling successful people, etc.  I fail to see how this advice alone has led him to riches.  It is more likely that his expressive style of communication lifts the moods of those listening to him, and this does indeed have value.

After all, we're all chasing positive moods, or what psychology calls "positive affect."  This explains why the average person would much rather listen to Bill Clinton give a speech than George W. Bush, even if the words were exactly the same.  One can arouse emotion fairly well and the other cannot.

Maybe Tony Robbins should run for office....

Elvis and Evolution

I had to give a "motivational speech" at work, but I instead decided to look at motivation from a different angle.  Biologists show that all animals (humans included) have a natural drive towards "protean behavior" - or in simpler terms, creative behavior.

I decided to do a Powerpoint about the natural urge for creativity and the problems that can happen when that drive is blocked, such as in the life of Elvis Presley.  Here's the short Powerpoint. 

Making Changes

I'm fairly certain my neighbors are alcoholics.  Twice a week I see their trash can out front loaded with empty beer bottles.  Whenever they're out on their porch, I hear the clang of beer bottles. 

Do people like this ever change?  And how did they end up down this road in the first place?  You read about Alcoholics Anonymous and how it helps people.  But a couple of years ago I dug a little deeper and found this not to be true.  Though the media promotes AA as successful, the numbers say otherwise.

One thing I do remember reading is the process of people who were successful in cleaning up.  It was often a gradual process, where the person would drink less and less, and still occassionally have a few beers.  But these people were successful in bringing their drinking down to a normal, social level. 

I think the idea that alcoholics should stop drinking cold-turkey is flawed.  It may work for some, but it probably fails for most.  It's very reasonable to make changes in small, measured steps.  To completely remove an ingrained habit is not only difficult, but the burden of trying to do it all in one fell swoop may make it virtually impossible.