How to Beat the Competition (Blog)

[Shilpan]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

When it comes to blogging, the hard part doesn't have to be the thinking and writing. The hard part could be taking some kind of action and then writing about it later.

Consider the polyphasic sleep and raw food diet trials I did. The thinking part was pretty easy -- other people inspired those ideas. The writing part was time consuming but still easy; I just logged what actually happened. The hard part was running the experiments. Any blogger can get the idea for these experiments. And anyone can log their day-by-day experiences. But relatively few will be in a position to actually run the experiments.

Even consider a simple article like How to Become an Early Riser, which was my first real blogging hit (7-8 months after I started blogging). It's about 1,000 words of fairly straightforward text, and it only took me an hour to write. The hard part was the years I spent trying to master this habit and finding a solution that worked for me.

You can get a lot of mileage in blogging from figuring out what would be interesting/helpful/important to read about but which fairly few people would be willing or able to do.

A lesson I learned from my time participating in a local improv troupe: If you're clueless as to the best way to act out a scene or character, go big! Aim for big gestures, exaggerated expressions, and over the top act-outs. Even when you miss the mark, the result is usually fun for the audience to watch.

The blogging equivalent of this is that if you have no interesting ideas to write about, go big and create your own news.

Steve,

Great post. I learned one important lesson from you. As you've mentioned, while designing games, you were successful only when you used creative imagination rather than synthatic imagination. With creative imagination, you were able to desgin unique games that created a niche. As Wallace D. Wattles wrote "Be creative not competitive", creative mind can achieve infinite goals because its ideas are BIG.

Shilpan

[Keith]

I'm surprised noone's linked this article yet: Paul Graham covering the "Do hard stuff" angle.

What You'll Wish You'd Known

P.S. I'm looking forward to Steve's book, too. The blend of principle and practical sounds perfect. (Don't you just love alliteration? ).

[DavidDavidDavid]

Bruce: I'm not sure if what you and Steve say applies across-the-board, as you two apparently seem to mean it to be.

Steve's own voice is inimitable, to be sure. Any author's is.

But even there someone can simply put a different twist on things and run off with it. As someone who once flirted with the advertising industry, I can imagine how each one of his most popular articles can be given a certain twist such that it wouldn't be plagiarism per se, but definitely use Steve's ideas to leapfrog him in the site-traffic game. (Of course, Steve with his computer background would probably just utilize some SEO secrets of his or some such!)

Now I'm not saying that that would be easy at all. (Indeed, it's even "chilling" to see a "knock-off" like neilsattin.com -- "The Heart of Personal Development" -- and see how slavishly it apes Steve's site.) But I am certain that if we were to somehow get a bunch of Madison Avenue folks together, they could cook up a way to out-Steve Steve.

Going for the harder idea will only go so far. I mean, look at someone like Ralph Nader. He's very much maligned by everyone, even though he took on the "hard ideas" that no one would touch -- indeed, even to this day. But he's really succeeded in transforming the life of the American consumer -- i.e., all 280-million-plus of us, every time we buy something, practically -- and see how other politicians ran away with his ideas. For example, did you know that he is responsible for the lemon laws regarding automobiles? (IIRC the documentary "An Unreasonable Man.") And all these safety recalls -- he started that! But does anyone remember? No, instead all these other politicians get in front of the cameras and proclaim their outrage at tainted toys and whatnot....

Anyway, to recap: I think I understand the point you and Steve are making, but I'm just not so sure we're having the same exact conversation. It seems more like we're discussing related issues, but not precisely the same thing.

[DavidDavidDavid]

seeker: Not to steal Steve's thunder regarding his up-coming book, but heck, do you really put that much trust in a book?? Even them TV manuals have been wrong on occasion, you know!

Ultimately, personal development is personal. I don't look at Steve's site -- that is to say, all his ideas -- as a road-map for myself. I look at it as an interesting painting that he's painted. It's very pretty, and inspires me to paint something as well. But in no way am I going to follow him as if he were Bob Ross (anyone remember the happy-little-trees white guy with the afro? )....

Indeed, the whole notion of "personal development" and "personal growth" sounds like a consumer-society-packaging of what used to be called, um, living a life. Pain, suffering, and a bit of joy mixed in for a punchline.

Again, not to detract from Steve's contribution to the world of ideas and all that. But even he's just another guy, and surely he's wrong about something in 400+ articles. Sure, a lot of value there -- but not "priceless."

[DavidDavidDavid]

Hey, Steve-O,



I want to say that the longer I live (I don't mean that melodramatically; I'm the same age as you, it seems), the less sure I am that there are "laws" regarding the human experience. For example, people lived very differently in cavemen times than they do today. I don't mean simply in terms of life's conveniences, of course, but in the very understanding of what living means.

Back then, it was all about hunting and gathering. In such a society, "laws of personal development" would be meaningless, despite all the yearning expressed in cave art.

I mean, look at something like the incest taboo: it's absolutely universal, every society has one -- but not every one defines it the same, and it's actually widely, widely different! I mention this not to be salacious or anything, but to point out the fact that even something so basic as our understanding of life and sex and familial relations is so subject to the warp and weft of human unpredictability...so "laws of personal development" seem somewhat artificial...I think current talk about such "laws" are nothing more than the why-there-is-thunder myth of our times...like how our ancestors gathered around the fire with stories explaining lightning and wind, we today huddle in front of a glowing screen trading "laws" of "personal development"....

[Niki]

Originally Posted by DavidDavidDavid

Back then, it was all about hunting and gathering. In such a society, "laws of personal development" would be meaningless, despite all the yearning expressed in cave art.

What about hunting techniques? That's personal development. Learning to hunt better, and having the right mindset to hunt better, instead of the competition.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by DavidDavidDavid

Bruce: I'm not sure if what you and Steve say applies across-the-board, as you two apparently seem to mean it to be.

What post(s) are you specifically replying to, exactly?

Or are you replying more generally based on the posts I made in the SBI thread where I mentioned Sun Tzu (amoung other things) + Steve's article?

Basically, I'm having a hard time putting your posts in context. Please explain!

And forgive me if I'm missing the obvious here -- I've just competed a marathon session of speech writing and my brain seems to have closed up shop for the night, refusing to work properly anymore.

Originally Posted by DavidDavidDavid

Anyway, to recap: I think I understand the point you and Steve are making, but I'm just not so sure we're having the same exact conversation. It seems more like we're discussing related issues, but not precisely the same thing.

Even thought I still don't really understand, I'll take a brief shot anyway. Let me know if I've hit the mark (or if I didn't, how far off it I was).

What I've been saying in the replies I've made to your posts in the SBI thread is that if you (A) do what only you are uniquely good at (aka your strengths), and (B) you use those strengths to create some unique opportunities, and (C) be creative and fill needs that are not yet fulfilled, you won't need to worry about competition.

To sum up the core of my message:

My theory here is that all self expression should be rooted in what you, and you alone, are uniquely good at -- your talents and your strengths. If you hone those and apply them, nobody will be able to steal your ideas because nobody has your exact same talents and strengths. [...]

"But Bruce, how can I apply this?"

Well, to (roughly) paraphrase one of Steve's podcasts, adding some ideas of my own: don't worry if your strength is not unique -- it's likely it won't be. Instead, focus on how it can give you some unique advantages.

For example, I'd consider myself to be a decent enough writer [...] and I think I could do pretty well financially if I channelled that appropriately. The reason I'd do well is not because my strength -- writing (or to be accurate, expression) -- is unique, but rather, because what I bring to my writing and how I express myself gives me certain advantages such that no one would be able to effectively compete with me once I get some momentum going. I'll be playing to my unique strengths, and unless they do the same, relative to them -- at which point I have nothing to worry about -- they'll forever be drawing on something they don't have instead of capitalising on their unique strengths.

[And by doing writing that only I can do, I'll be fulfilling a need that is not yet filled. Why is it not filled? Because nobody has the exact same strengths/talents that I have, and so long as my writing is aligned with my strengths, my contribution will be unique.]

In Steve's article, Steve is basically saying that if you (A) know what your strengths are, and (B) put them to use by doing things that other people either can't do (because they don't have the same strengths as you), won't do (because they are unwilling to do the hard work), or don't do (ie. finding something that hasn't been done yet -- a need that hasn't been filled), you won't need to worry about competition, either.

To sum up Steve's core message:

How do you beat the competition?

You do the things that others don’t, won’t, or can’t.

Basically you need to find a way to apply your particular strengths to solve problems that are nearly impossible for most people to solve but which are easier (though still challenging) for you to solve. This requires developing an awareness of your strengths (see Discover Your Strengths for details). The hard problems that you’re best suited to tackle will probably look very different than the ones I’m suited for because we probably have different strengths and experiences.

Essentially, yes, we're saying the same things:

1. Understand and play to your strengths
2. Be creative/original

From what I understand of what you're saying, you have some idea that you're worried about running with, and then having some big company saying, "that's a gook idea... yoink!"

What Steve and I are saying is that if someone can so easily take your idea and run with it, you probably aren't doing the very best you can do, nor are you really using your strengths.

For example, search engines have been around for a while, but Google came out and started dominating. Why? They offered better searching then everyone else. They also offered unique approaches to monetise the traffic they generated. Other search engine companies copied their monetisation methods, since they were simple enough, but the one thing the competitors couldn't copy was the Google search algorithm, which was the tangible expression of Larry Page and Sergey Brin's strengths.

If the idea you have is so easily copied, you're going to have to dig a little deeper and either inject more of your uniqueness into it or come up with an idea that is more aligned with your uniqueness.

Did I hit the mark?

PS. Yes, I know I didn't link to my sources. I'm tired. One of them was me, and as creator of that text, I give myself permission to do that () and the other source was Steve's article (the one associated with this thread).

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by DavidDavidDavid

I want to say that the longer I live (I don't mean that melodramatically; I'm the same age as you, it seems), the less sure I am that there are "laws" regarding the human experience. For example, people lived very differently in cavemen times than they do today. I don't mean simply in terms of life's conveniences, of course, but in the very understanding of what living means.

All 7 principles in the book apply equally well to cavemen just as they do to modern man. If a caveman couldn't use them, they wouldn't be universal.

Even Covey's 7 Habits could be applied by a caveman to improve his results, i.e. be proactive, begin with the end in mind, put first things first, etc. A proactive caveman is in a better position than a strictly reactive one; the former will take steps to prepare for things like potential food shortage, need for first aid, etc.

Many people say that personal growth is different for everyone, and that appears to be true at first glance. The specific details of our lives are in flux, but the underlying principles which give rise to those details don't change from person to person.

Deep down human beings aren't so different as you might think.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Niki

What about hunting techniques? That's personal development. Learning to hunt better, and having the right mindset to hunt better, instead of the competition.

Exactly. Now if you look at hunting and compare it to the modern equivalent of career development or acquiring money, it begins to point you in the direction of an underlying pattern.

That only gets you partway there though, since then you have to step back further and account for people who become homemakers, monks, homeless, drug users, etc. Now the pattern gets a lot harder to see, but there's still a pattern.

[joylangtry]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Deep down human beings aren't so different as you might think.

Ultimately, all our actions are motivated by the desire to feel better. (I think that's an Abraham quote.) Our methods for achieving that end are the challenge... and the FUN.

[eternomi]

Most ideas are as old as our planet, the stars and the universe, but they get rehashed to fit the times... which is good of course. You gotta update them to fit the lifestyles, the languages and the prevalent concepts of the current time.

Universal principles come up in every aspect of existence. Religions (which are very misunderstood) have labeled them as "names of God", "sounds of God", "image of God" etc. Lots of people meditate (which, in most circles, clearly lost its true meaning) on them, but the point is that these attributes are to be recognized. They represent unique properties like growth, harmony, individuality, connectedness etc. and can be found to operate in every scale and dimension of life.

I doubt there is anything brand new in Steve's book. I am even surprised he had so much trouble seeing these patterns since they are spelled out all over the place, but like he said, putting the pieces together takes time sometimes and this is his own unique journey. I am glad he finally succeeded. His unique creation will inspire others, help them overcome their obstacles and create their own unique expressions.

To me that's what it is all about. We inspire each other collectively, but create individually which explains why there are many perspectives of "I"s in the first place. However, it seems that somewhere along the way, we lost our need for individuality and we think it is safer to conform to the norm and be like everyone else which creates the whole dilemma of competition.

As someone mentioned earlier, your life is your own unique journey. Others can inspire you, but noone can live your life for you or find your unique expression for you. Feel free to listen to everyone, but at the end of the day, you have to have your own experiences and craft your own unique expression. Your life challenges are also unique to you which can be conquered by you and only you.

[Steve Pavlina]

Identifying universal patterns isn't too difficult. Many have been mentioned already.

My goal for this book was to find the minimum set of root patterns such that all other valid universal principles could effectively be derived from them. That was the really, really hard part.

The principles also had to be independent and non-overlapping -- orthogonal to each other in a certain way.

For example, in 3D space any point can be mapped on the X, Y, and Z axes. No matter how vast the space is, you can define any point with just three coordinates. Two coordinates is too little; four coordinates is redundant.

I sought a way to define conscious human development in similar terms. No matter where you are in your path of growth, your current position in the realm of consciousness can be plotted, so to speak, in terms of your alignment with a handful of principles. The hardest part was figuring out what the axes were and how many there should be. Are we dealing with a 3D space, 4D space, 7D space, etc?

Even an infinite space can be described in terms of a coordinate system (at least if it's linear), so infinity isn't a problem by itself.

When you know your coordinates in a space and you can identify the coordinates of where you want to go, it's easier to reach your destination.

[Dan.Linehan]

I can't wait to read this Steve. I think its going to be a real hit.

Are you sure you weren't reading XKCD when you thought of this?

[Dan.Linehan]

Aren't charts used similarly in personality charts as well?

The axes could be named different things. For instance, an axis could run from apathetic to inquisitive, which would seem to be fairly universal.

[eternomi]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

My goal for this book was to find the minimum set of root patterns such that all other valid universal principles could effectively be derived from them. That was the really, really hard part.

Yup, I understand. And that has been attempted as well and the work is still in progress. It is also called reductionism and the grand unified theory, the mother of all theories to explain it all...

The problem is that even if you may know the most fundamental basic constituents/properties, their interplay still creates an incredibly rich outcome and trying to use these principles to find your way in such a rich environment will still lead to lots of confusion.

Having said that, I am looking forward to seeing what your version of this theory is and how you put it together. I am also glad you included lots of practical examples.

Another's work is always inspirational and paves the way to a better, richer tomorrow, so it is welcome.

[MasterD]

I want to unify the laws of theoretical physics. It underlies everything. This is extremely challenging and chances of success are minimal; but somehow it feels I am born to solve it. But the universe will provide me with some time till it demands from me to tackle the problem.

Great article btw Steve. This is how you truly provide value to the world; solving problems that no-one else can or will solve.

I really recognize the reasons why you are doing those diet trials. It is just a desire to be so crystal clear and sharp minded that no problem seems overwhelming and that your mind is making connections between all kinds of stuff like crazy.

[DavidDavidDavid]

Niki: Well, here we come up against the semanticist's dilemma -- where to draw boundaries when using words, which by definition limit and delineate.

If cavemen improving their hunting is "personal development," then you donating me a few hundred dollars would be "personal development" for both me and you! Two for the price of one!

What I mean is, sure, everything that a human being does can be thought of as "personal development" (or a lack thereof), then.

Joy: My own concept of what could be put under the "personal development" category goes beyond a "desire to feel better"...I'm not trying to one-up you here, please understand: after reading Krishnamurti (and I ain't a New Age guy at all), I have to agree that "desire" itself is "the problem"...if we're still at the level of wanting to feel better about ourselves, then we're not much evolved beyond toddlers -- only we have even bigger egos to feed (with better feelings about itself) and vastly increased intellectual capabilities to effect such conditions! (The French term "l'enfant terrible" comes to mind....)

[DavidDavidDavid]

Bruce: I was responding to your and Steve's posts in this thread. I do understand what you guys are getting at; I just think it's a bit besides the thrust of my question.

It's like if I'm asking you how can I hit the ball farther, and you guys answer, don't worry about it, just eat, rest, practice, and you'll do just fine.

I'm not saying your answers have been wrong or unhelpful: I'm just saying that I'm asking a different sort of question.

I think there's a Yiddish saying to the effect that all the Talmud really says is, love God, love Man, the rest is commentary....

Now if a Jew goes to his rabbi about some problem, he needs an answer to the specifics of the problem. Ultimately, the answer will be in keeping with the "love God, love Man" goal, but for the rabbi to simply respond with love God, love Man would be kind of besides the point.

It's important to be reminded, of course, that yes, creativity, serving a need, and playing to one's unique strengths in the creation of value is the best hedge against competition, such that there can be no competition.

Yes, yes, Sun Tzu observed that to win without fighting is a sign of the true fighter, okay...but the question remains, how do I use this sword to parry??

In business, one way (besides innovating -- I mean, look at Microsoft versus anyone else besides Google/Yahoo!) to fight the competition is through advertising.

I was just wondering what other way there was besides advertising.

[DavidDavidDavid]

Steve: a caveman, by definition, can't implement abstract concepts like "7 Highly Effective Habits"...the brain volume wasn't there, the frontal lobe was much, much less developed.

What I was getting at is that human beings by definition are highly undefinable. I'm not under the romantic impression that we're all so unique as to constitute our own individual laws of physics, so to speak (I'd noted in another thread that recognition with my quip that we're *only* as unique as snowflakes), but surely you understand that the whole point of sex, as an evolutionary development, is to create great indefinable diversity?

It is that diversity which will refuses to be captured by a law or a virus. In claiming to have deduced laws whose application will make for a better developed species (not your words, I know), I have to wonder what you know that Christ or the Buddha didn't!

I hope you're not taking offense at my incredulity, nor at the playful way I'm teasing you. I'll take a look at your book when it comes out, of course (is there a 30-day money-back guarantee?), but I do have to marvel right now at you asserting the existence of such laws when we all know that different people learn differently, work differently, even love differently. (Unless you're going to do put forth concepts at such a high level of abstraction ["abstraction" in the sense of an abstract, and not in the sense of something obscure] that it would be almost tautologous and inevitably applicable!)

And with this, I'll respectfully refrain from any further comments until seeing your book.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by DavidDavidDavid

I have to wonder what you know that Christ or the Buddha didn't!

"What Jesus and Buddha Didn't Know" would have been a great subtitle for the book.

Actually based on the way they lived, they did know these principles. I don't think they articulated them too clearly though.

Even so... I don't agree wtih all of their teachings anyway.

In the end we have to think for ourselves.

[DavidDavidDavid]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

"What Jesus and Buddha Didn't Know" would have been a great subtitle for the book.

Hot dog! That's the right sass for this stuff, if I don't say so myself. Congratulations on everything, Steve. You've got real personality!

[Keith]

Originally Posted by DavidDavidDavid

Steve: a caveman, by definition, can't implement abstract concepts like "7 Highly Effective Habits"...the brain volume wasn't there, the frontal lobe was much, much less developed.

This really depends on how you define "Caveman". Homo sapiens identical to modern humans have been around for well over 100,000 years and for most of that time they lived a primitive 'caveman' life.

[Dive Bomb]

Steve, great post, I can't wait for the book. Once it's released I'm sure I'm going to see you on The Daily Show or Colbert Report.

[DavidDavidDavid]

Keith: Archeologists guesstimate that the wheel was invented only ~8-10K B.C., though the oldest wheel ever discovered dates to ~3.5K B.C.

I think it's pretty safe to say that for such a primitive level of social development, personal development would have been incomprehensible. Remember, Steve deals in p.d. for *smart* people! ;-)

[MasterD]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Even so... I don't agree wtih all of their teachings anyway.

In the end we have to think for ourselves.

That's what they are teaching.

[Niki]

Originally Posted by DavidDavidDavid

Niki: Well, here we come up against the semanticist's dilemma -- where to draw boundaries when using words, which by definition limit and delineate.

If cavemen improving their hunting is "personal development," then you donating me a few hundred dollars would be "personal development" for both me and you! Two for the price of one!

What I mean is, sure, everything that a human being does can be thought of as "personal development" (or a lack thereof), then.

Joy: My own concept of what could be put under the "personal development" category goes beyond a "desire to feel better"...I'm not trying to one-up you here, please understand: after reading Krishnamurti (and I ain't a New Age guy at all), I have to agree that "desire" itself is "the problem"...if we're still at the level of wanting to feel better about ourselves, then we're not much evolved beyond toddlers -- only we have even bigger egos to feed (with better feelings about itself) and vastly increased intellectual capabilities to effect such conditions! (The French term "l'enfant terrible" comes to mind....)

So what is your concept of the 'personal development' category then?

Personal development is IMO the development of the self. If the self is a hunter, and you become a better hunter then that is personal development.

[qed]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

I don't think they articulated them too clearly though.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Even so... I don't agree wtih all of their teachings anyway.

That's because you see things through your own beliefs, experiences and understanding.

Plus, even though the content is timeless, it is still expressed using language and examples and metaphors that are tailored to a specific time and place. As time passes, the timeless content gets re-expressed in terms applicable to the new times.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

In the end we have to think for ourselves.

That's the idea, but it doesn't sell any books or seminar tickets, does it?! Most teachers want to create dependent pupils rather than promote independent individuals.

"Experts" prepackage information and sell it to you so that you don't have to go through the pain of learning them for yourself, but unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Intellectual understanding and going through the motions are not enough.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by qed

Most teachers want to create dependent pupils rather than promote independent individuals.

It may look that way sometimes, but from what I've seen in interacting with other teachers in this field, it's just not accurate. I'd be more inclined to say the exact opposite is true.

I agree that some people in this field focus a great deal on building a sales funnel to maximize their earnings and create dependencies by attracting naive customers. Those are the marketer types that genereate more hype than substance. They're really in the minority though.

Most of the teachers I know find it very rewarding when people apply their advice and benefit from it, even if it doesn't earn them a dime. When such people do well financially, they reinvest much of their earnings to help even more people. Money just isn't their primary motivator. They mainly want to share their stories and lessons to help people.

A good example is a local friend of Erin's and mine named Aimmee Riley. She grew up in Lebanon and lost her brother when a bomb flew into her home and exploded. Things only went downhill for her after that. She lost a dozen other family members, endured lots of abuse, and became a mother at 15 and a grandmother at 32. She wrote a book about her experiences called Tears of Hope and is building her career as a speaker. She's also a member of my Toastmasters club. I remember the very first speech she gave in our club -- it was incredibly moving. There are many good people like Aimmee in this field with inspiring messages, but they don't promote themselves like the hype-driven marketer types.

[tekomino]

There is nothing new under the sun. We rehash and express thousand years old ideas using different words and we think we discovered them.

If you start reading anything from the old gurus written thousands of years before you will see this. Take writings of Lao Tzu, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad or any others...

They searched for meaning just like we do. Different times, same dream.

Our life is tiny drop in galactic ocean. We waste it when we forget to live it in present moment. There is nothing, but that...

[DavidDavidDavid]

Nikki: As I alluded to previously, I think the term "personal development" is illusory to begin with -- like when advertisers say there's a "free" toy in each Cracker Jack or something (nothing's "free" there; it's included in the price of the product already).

"Personal development" is often taken to mean "bettering oneself"...but that "self" is illusory...how can you better something that's illusory? It's just switching one color of curtain for another within the prison of one's own mind.

Most people really don't know themselves...what they know is their own egos, their brain's self-projected reflections...the brain is a pattern-generating machine, you see...all the brain does is generate patterns, like how all the heart does is contract, contract, contract...that's why we naturally see familiar shapes in random cloud formations, etc. -- our brains are always looking to connect the dots...evolutionarily, this was a great thing in terms of survival, of course, but now that many of us are out of such literal fight-or-flight environments, the ego, like the body's innate propensity to store fat, has become a huge problem threatening the destruction of the species....

Just some thoughts to consider -- read some Krishnamurti, Erich Fromm, Viktor Frankl, and Marcus Aurelius for the "philosophical context" to my remarks...it would be way out of the scope of this thread to expound on them, sorry...one more tantalizing morsel: which comes first, the thinker or the thinking process?

Your answer to that question will demonstrate your beliefs about a "self" that exists...that question points to the very crux of the matter concerning so-called "personal development"...remember that scene from "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" where the Jack Nicholson character says to all his fellow inmates something along the lines of, what's the matter with you?? You've got no problems, you're all okay! So one is shy, another talks to himself, etc. -- that's normal! Perfectly normal!

(Don't recall the scene exactly but that's the gist of it.)