Quality and Contribution (Blog)

[Steve Pavlina]

Use this thread to discuss the following entry from Steve Pavlina's blog:

Quality and Contribution

[Shamou]

Beautiful blog Steve...

You were signing my song there... thank you...


For a more comprehensive study of “quality” and its overall effect I would suggest the book, “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” by Robert M. Pirsig…

Here is an excerpt…

"… if he takes whatever dull job he’s stuck with – and they are all, sooner or later, dull – and, just to keep himself amused, starts to look for options of Quality, and secretly pursues these options, just for their own sake, thus making an art out of what he is doing, he’s likely to discover that he becomes a much more interesting person and much less of an object to the people around him because his Quality decisions change him too.

And not only the job and him, but others too because the Quality tends to fan out like waves. The Quality job he didn’t think anyone was going to see is seen, and the person who sees it feels a little better because of it, and is likely to pass that feeling on to others, and in that way the Quality tends to keep on going.

My personal feeling is that this is how any further improvement of the world will be done: by individuals making Quality decisions and that’s all."


.

[Kiba]

I remember a book on the study of millionaires' lives.

They say the average millionaires are frugal. Meaning they mostly live under their mean.

I guess Steve Pavlina also live under his mean too.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Kiba

I remember a book on the study of millionaires' lives.

They say the average millionaires are frugal. Meaning they mostly live under their mean.

I guess Steve Pavlina also live under his mean too.

In todays world, being a millionaire does not mean financial security... in order to feel financially secure, you need around twenty millions... that would be one of the main reasons that "millionaires" do live under their means...

Those millionaire could dig into their capital and get the expensive toys (planes, Ferrari, expensive boats etc...) but, they may opt for security... and live within a state of quality surroundings but not necessarily stretch it to the limit that they could afford...

.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Kiba

I remember a book on the study of millionaires' lives.

They say the average millionaires are frugal. Meaning they mostly live under their mean.

I guess Steve Pavlina also live under his mean too.

Could it have been The Millionaire Next Door?

Note the difference between being intelligently frugal (living below your means but still creating a lifestyle you enjoy) vs. being cheap (living so far below your means that you end up lowering your standards and contributing less than you're capable of).

I don't advocate being lavishly wasteful, but what seems lavish to one person may in fact be very frugal and efficient to another.

I once read a book called How to Survive Without a Salary, which was about a guy who was so cheap, he'd invest extraordinary amounts of time just to save a few extra dollars. While it was an interesting and creative read, the overall strategy didn't seem very intelligent to me. This was long before eBay.

[mslack]

Steve,

Nice thoughtful post. Except there is one aspect that I thought you might address, but seems to be completely left out. That is the distinction between consuming "renewable" vs. "non-renewable" resources. Or maybe more precisely, the scale of non-renewable resource consumption.

For most of the examples you spoke of, such as an expensive dinner, expensive shoes, and expensive car, the consumption of non-renewable resources (including environmental health) is almost certainly a nonlinear function of the cost. In other words, much higher cost does not necessarily mean much higher consumption. On the other hand, a big house may result in significantly higher consumption (lumber, electricity from coal, etc.). Of course, often these potential costs can be offset by spending even more money; for example, by choosing environmentally friendly options such as solar panels on your house.

Given the strain of population growth on valuable non-renewable resources, I think it is prudent to take these considerations into account. To a certain extent, you can justify consumption by providing value, as you mentioned. But this kind of thinking is also what keeps our major corporations moving headlong toward making our environment uninhabitable by externalizing costs wherever possible.

Something to consider, at least.

Peace,
Mike
The Absent Mind

[BHindi]

Well said, mslack.

It can be a difficult balancing act, spending value to generate (hopefully more) value, while being thoughtful about consumption.

No easy answers, but if people are at least thinking about why they spend and not just mindlessly consuming, it's a start.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by mslack

Given the strain of population growth on valuable non-renewable resources, I think it is prudent to take these considerations into account.

Mike... first, since this is your first post... let me extend a warm welcome to this board...

Now, the point that you bring is certainly valid and highly important... but it has very little to do with Steve's blog...

This blog is addressing the "scarcity mentality" in people... and not the scarcity of non renewable resources...

Both topics probably are of equal importance... but this forum is mainly about "Personal Development" which implies a materialistic aspect... if "Personal Development" did not hold the promise of having more... why would people put in the effort to achieve it...???

Personal Development has made it possible for a countless number of people to achieve success... to become more and contribute more to society... The "scarcity mentality" is a big part of the problem that has to be addressed if we want even more people to enjoy the "good" life and contribute more... and I believe that Steve's blog is a major contribution toward that objective...

.

[MariaG]

Good points, mslack. One thing to consider in this post is the true nature of the abundance mindset. If I'm thinking that I need to rush out and consume big cars, big houses, and expensive dinners right now, then I might be fearful that my financial abundance is temporary. If I have a true abundance mindset, I know that all I need will be available to me when I desire it. So there's no need to rush.

It's also been shown that happier people spend money on experiences, not thing. See the Science of Happiness by Stefan Klein and Stephan Lehmann. So Steve's examples of massages and great dinners are a good match for the abundance mindset.

[mslack]

Originally Posted by Shamou

Now, the point that you bring is certainly valid and highly important... but it has very little to do with Steve's blog...

This blog is addressing the "scarcity mentality" in people... and not the scarcity of non renewable resources...

Both topics probably are of equal importance... but this forum is mainly about "Personal Development" which implies a materialistic aspect... if "Personal Development" did not hold the promise of having more... why would people put in the effort to achieve it...???

Personal Development has made it possible for a countless number of people to achieve success... to become more and contribute more to society... The "scarcity mentality" is a big part of the problem that has to be addressed if we want even more people to enjoy the "good" life and contribute more... and I believe that Steve's blog is a major contribution toward that objective...
.

Although I do concur with your assertion that most people tend to view "non-renewable" resources through scarcity, perhaps I was unclear. Of course, everything is renewable (that's why I deliberately used quotes), but there is a cost. As long as the post is going to operate within the monetary paradigm, then these resources (such as large rainforests and easy access to drinking water) must also be viewed as having value (for example, to the community at large). Thus we must consider that the cost of consuming something may outweigh the cost of refraining from consumption. To think otherwise is hopelessly naive.

I disagree that the promise of having "more" is what motivates people toward personal development. It may in some cases, but certainly not all. The very desire for "more" implies that what one already has is insufficient. This is what I would call the condition of scarcity.

Peace,
Mike

[Freelancer]

I disagree that the promise of having "more" is what motivates people toward personal development. It may in some cases, but certainly not all. The very desire for "more" implies that what one already has is insufficient. This is what I would call the condition of scarcity.

You can have a desire for more even if you have enough...

It almost feels like you are implying that a desire for more is 'bad or 'evil'...

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by mslack

The very desire for "more" implies that what one already has is insufficient. This is what I would call the condition of scarcity.

For a person who desires to be all that he can be... there is such such thing as "enough" ...there is never enough knowledge... enough power... enough love... enough health... and even enough money...

Life is growth... and the moment that you stop growing... you start withering and dying...

The growth of humanity was not done by the timid souls who sit on a rock and smell the flowers... it was done by people who dared to open new vistas... break down barriers... and open new frontiers...

That is the way that it has been done until now... and I feel confident that it's not about to change..

.

[mslack]

Originally Posted by Freelancer

You can have a desire for more even if you have enough...

It almost feels like you are implying that a desire for more is 'bad or 'evil'...

I'm not implying that at all. There is nothing inherently wrong with desiring, or wanting more of something. In fact, there is nothing bad or evil about a scarcity mindset, either. You are certainly correct -- you can desire more even if you do have enough.

Still, wanting more can in many cases be indicative of a scarcity mindset (for example, if one feels he or she really needs more). In other cases, it can have nothing to do with scarcity. It really depends on the context.

Namaste,
Mike

[Kiba]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Could it have been The Millionaire Next Door?
.

Indeed it is.

[Freelancer]

Originally Posted by mslack

I'm not implying that at all. There is nothing inherently wrong with desiring, or wanting more of something. In fact, there is nothing bad or evil about a scarcity mindset, either. You are certainly correct -- you can desire more even if you do have enough.

Still, wanting more can in many cases be indicative of a scarcity mindset (for example, if one feels he or she really needs more). In other cases, it can have nothing to do with scarcity. It really depends on the context.

Namaste,
Mike

hehe you forgot to mention that last bit.

[mslack]

Originally Posted by Freelancer

hehe you forgot to mention that last bit.

Indeed.

Have a nice day,
Mike

[Dan.Linehan]

I disagree with elements of this post.

I don't think being grateful means what you think it means.

Right now, I live in Marin county, the richest county in the world. I didn't grow up here, I moved here from central Ohio.

The gratitude script is ran a lot here, to justify expensive purchases. My boss (at my non-profit) drives a $141k Porsche. Here are some other examples used in the article:

Isn’t it wonderful that certain people are generating so much value — and so efficiently — that they can easily afford to pay $10,000 for a hotel room, thereby helping to create new jobs and keep money flowing through the hard-working service industry? Isn’t it great that people can afford a $100,000 car in order to fund new innovations that could benefit us all? Isn’t it outstanding that people can buy a $200 dinner, encouraging the best chefs to create new culinary delights and to help the wait staff support their families?

Wow. How patronizing. And simply dishonest.

• That $10,000 could have fed a family for a year.
• That $100,000 could have funded a crisis-intervention shelter. Converted ten houses to solar power. Paid three full-time salaries to advocate environmental change. Restored eyesight to two-thousand people through Seva. Taught a thousand kids about nutrition. Made an informational DVD. Funded several startups. Any number of things really.
• That $200 dinner is a monthly salary in India.

Let's see what we really got instead:

helping to create new jobs and keep money flowing through the hard-working service industry?

Where is that money flowing again? Through the hard-working service industry? Do you mean the $12/hour desk job, or the $6/hour cleaning jobs?

I'd guess about 2% of your $10,000 went anywhere but to the owners, right into their pockets. Of course, there are very few owner operated rooms that cost that much, so that $9,800 goes directly to the Trumps or the Hiltons.

Isn’t it great that people can afford a $100,000 car in order to fund new innovations that could benefit us all?

No. Its decidedly not great. What would make you think buying a $100,000 car "funds innovations that could benefit us all"? If someone wanted to fund innovation they could directly donate to the MDI Aircar or some other truly progressive technology.

Don't you think Porsche could start manufacturing the aircar today if they really wanted to? But they don't. When you give them $100,000, it goes towards the status quo, which, if you haven't noticed, is a pretty poor thing to donate to. By not giving the money to aircar, or solar dye cell research, or any other ecologically sound venture you've actually created a $200,000 swing in the wrong direction if you consider the opportunity cost.

I understand buying a house that is conducive to a peaceful home life, thats pretty crucial. But why buy a laptop that costs three and a half times more than what you needed?


What happened to living consciously?

I think you get the gist. For someone who wrote,

If you want to say yes to what’s really important to you, you can expect to hear yourself saying the word no a lot more often.

I'd expect more.


//Still outraged by people who desperately try to justify being pandered to while others starve.

[Espen]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

I'd expect more.

Me too.

I was about to write a response like that to this post myself, but you beat me to it. I totally agree with your disappointment.

But this way of trying to justify the spending of their new riches isn't something new. And I can see the temptation and need to justify it. Steve is, as I know him through his writings, a conscious person to whom it is very important to live a "congruent" life in harmony with his own chosen values. And thus..

Shamou said:

but this forum is mainly about "Personal Development" which implies a materialistic aspect... if "Personal Development" did not hold the promise of having more... why would people put in the effort to achieve it...???

How does "personal development" imply a material aspect? It implies a development of the person and possibly of the ego, which is fine to me, but I can not see where the necessary material aspect comes into the picture. It just makes me a bit sad to hear this again.

Anyway this might be the sign to move on.

Take care!

Espen

[Max Power]

The only thing I can take from this latest blog post is the importance of helping others through contribution, when you think "How can I be successsful while helping others" that is a great approach to achieving success.

People's perception of wasting money are very extreme across all social levels. Do we really expect Bill Gates to live in a poor suburb and drive a beat up old bomb? Could he? Should he?

It really doesn't matter what other people do, it's what you do that matters.

Max

[openeyes]

To me, the feeling of abundance is one of having all that I need/not needing anything. If wants will always increase, reaching out to satisfy them doesn’t really seem to work. It’s just a growing cancer that need be excised. Some books get into this, such as The Myth of Freedom and the Way of Meditation by Pema Chodron’s Tibetan Buddhist teacher Chogyam Trungpa.

There’s nothing wrong with seeking quality products, particularly as an adjunct to mass consumerism. If one would have to continually buy new $100 dress shoes, while a $300 pair could last a lifetime, materially and financially it’d be better to spring for the $300 pair. There’s often a happy medium between cheap crap and something that is simply meant to be a sign of wealth. No one needs a Rolex, except to present a certain image or feel better about themselves (and wouldn’t personal/spiritual growth demand getting that self-worth from within?). The medium would be something that serves its purpose well and lasts for as long as needed, without undue expense.

One of my uncles lives by the Golden Gate bridge in Marin county, and though he’s likely easily worth 7+ figures, he spends his month off each year working with a friend’s non-profit helping Nepali children receive education, and when he’s home he opts to ride his bike, catch a bus, or paddle his shell to where he’s going rather than drive. Rather than leading a life of wanton consumption he opts for a more holistic lifestyle, adopting rescue animals rather than buying a pedigree, and wearing comfortable clothes that could likely be had for less than $100 rather than Armani. He and his family are among the happiest, most productive people I know, enjoying their work more than what it enables them to buy. From everything I read, people who become rich due it because they love the work itself, with money not serving as sufficient motivation.

I wouldn’t have Bill Gates live in a bad part of town with a clunky car, but why not a well cared for home with a few hundred square feet per inhabitant, maybe 1000 sq ft in total, a bicycle for most trips, and a reliable Toyota Camry if he feels a need for a car on occasion?

I do remember experiencing a great deal of gratitude upon flying first class as a gift, and feeling that all seats should be so nice. The only reservation I would have about that now is increased fuel use per person. Find a way to do it without additional stress on the environment and I may be all for it. The same for big homes. If they can be built with sustainable materials and not require heating or cooling with fossil fuels, fine. In general I prefer things small and simple. To me simplicity is a wonderful luxury in itself.

One more thing: if someone needs a $10,000 night at a hotel to motivate him to do his job, maybe he's in the wrong field.

[Love]

Mslack and Dan.Linehan, I found your points very interesting.

What if the next step up for someone purchasing a car were a huge gas guzzler? Does the money that sends through the system (again, to whom?) benefit the lower ranks of society or merely those who already have the wealth?

And no, I don't think personal development implies materialism at all. I was surprised to hear you suggest that, Shamou. I think it's about being better people.

Steve, you said that a couple of years ago you would have thought differently. What would that Steve have said to the arguments you make now?