June 21st, 2022
- turns out there are lots of tweets by me about this, enough to start editing into a post maybe
- this could also make a good ramble for my youtube channel
- convo w George Woodliff-Stanley
- something related to non-coercion & shoulds
- sometimes you need to do a thing, and it is in fact timely and only you can do it, but it's not a very good fit for your state of mind or something like that
- so there's a bit of... not exactly will per se, but friction towards doing it, and the friction isn't per se coercive but it can be less flowy
- sometimes external should doesn't match internal state, and this results in coercion
- but if you in fact do understand why the thing needs to happen, then even tho there's a state mismatch, it can still happen cleanly once you dialogue stuff
- (otherwise you get but I don't wanna)
- eg Jess needing to go move her car, and that being clearly priority in terms of external urgency, but not a good match for her state of mind
- but I also made that more flowy by finding a win-win where I cooked dinner while she was out
- (a win-win in part because it created a context for me to listen to a John Vervaeke convo I wanted to listen to)
- & expectations
- but then what are you actually changing?
- H2 ~ changing who gets punished if they don't do it?
- if someone knows that there's a fallback, they haven't really taken the responsibility
- case study around stickers
- "do the stickers or tell me you're not gonna"
- can "fail" to take responsibility
- pull out snippet from about 1h into recording & post it to my youtube channel
- interesting example of like
- M > most employees are not in fact taking responsibility for an organization thriving/surviving
- are not even allowed to take that responsibility
- even if lip-service is paid towards it
- G > fiduciary