Ryan,

I know you’re a fan of Hugh MacLeod and I was wondering if you use his ‘Sex & Cash Theory‘ in your everyday life. I can’t seem to reconcile the theory (which I think has some merit) with a lot of what I read about people I respect and admire who seem to focus all their attention on something they love. Thoughts?

Regards,

Perry

I think Hugh could have done a better job supporting his argument. When I read it the first time, they were what popped into my head.

If you had a stepmother and a real mother, you would pay your respects to your stepmother, yes…but it’s your real mother you’d go home to. The court…and philosophy: Keep returning to it, to rest in its embrace. It’s all that makes the court-and you-endurable. – Marcus Aurelius

“When some state or other offered Alexander a part of its territory or half of all its property he told them that ‘he hadn’t come to Asia with the intention of accepting whatever they cared to give them, but of letting them keep whatever he chose to leave them.’ Philosophy, likewise, tells all other occupations: ‘It’s not my intention to accept whatever time is left over from you; you shall have, instead, what I reject.'” – Seneca

The problem I have is with the certainty of it. Like “Sex & Cash” is the only way to do it. How wonderful that his natural inclination happened to be the way to do it. The funny thing is that most of the people have talked to locked themselves into a deathground strategy and let desperation push them forward. But what does it matter, because you’re not them and you’re not Hugh either.

Figure out what’s important to you and give it every bit of the attention it deserves. Maybe you can manage something else on the side or maybe you can’t. Or maybe you can figure out how one fuels the other. The critical step is to stop pretending it’s some academic exercise and place it fully into the realm of tangible reality. For me, the theory isn’t anything more than confirmation to what I already felt was right for me. And I only learned that by trying it out.

Jay Hayley has an essay called The Art of Being a Failure as a Therapist and in it he does something interesting. He tries to argue for a method of psychiatry (directive) by discussing all the ways it can be done poorly. By showing specifically where it can go wrong, Hayley knows he is proving it to be quantifiable rather than some vague, indescribable notion. In other words, he tested for falsifiability.

Jake Lodwick used the same idea in a thought experiment that is worth running through occasionally. Try to think, he says, of one thing that would finally convince you that Keynesian economics don’t really work.

A better example might be Umair Haque. Is there anything he doesn’t see as confirmation of his theories? His approach makes for a entertaining record of pithy blog posts but it also makes him callous, excessively general, and open to criticism.

If you combine Hayley’s approach with the thought experiment you have a nice way to test yourself. Think about your job. Can you write out, concretely, what you would have to do to be a failure at it? If you can’t then maybe you don’t really do anything. Or, think about something you have faith in or hold in high esteem. Can you articulate, exactly, what would have to happen for it to lose your respect? If you can’t, maybe it’s closer to worshiping than believing.

It’s just a coincidence that they all involve eating:

Putting lime or lemon in a coke – It makes no sense that restaurants assume the customer wants a lemon added to their drink rather than ask. The default should obviously be just the soda. It’s a practical example of Tversky’s conjunction fallacy. It’s much more likely that someone will like just one thing rather than one thing and another.

Adding your own credit card tips – I put the final total amount and leave the tip area blank. Your waiter functions as your cashier and is perfectly capable of doing the math themselves. In fact, that’s partially what you’re tipping them for.

Nachos with beans – The appeal of nachos is based on the interesting contrast between crunchy warm chips and the cool, soft toppings. Beans undermine the purpose of the entire dish. They put an irreversible expiration date on the meal within a matter of minutes and are therefore more appropriate as a request, not a required ingredient.

There are a few others worth observing like turning left on red (in Los Angeles), the carpool lane reverting to the furthermost most left lane in times of no traffic and declining opportunities to “wait” for someone to leave a parking space. Off the top of my head, I don’t think it’s worth struggling to pronounce any foreign word. Just say it how it appears. No one would think it politically correct to criticize the accent of someone from Mexico or France.

What other common practices do we observe that make little sense? There has to be evidence of why dissenting is more logical or convenient, not just that you don’t like it.