Speaking of long distance! We met on FB after many years apart, and live in different states. What about if there is loving romantic communication, and you respond in kind, in addition to calls… However, when it comes to positive communication, we do not talk often enough (for me) so the postive gaps get filled in some times w/email and text and (dare I say) messages on FB (but not on the wall). We also have had a lot of fun s/exting…as our physical relationship is also long distance, and there can be an emotional component to turning each other on via text also. Bottom line, I wish it was more intimate, more calls, more often…I just told him this, and he has been more attentive since the conversation. — Deb from a Distance

And here’s another comment from my college blog Enter to Grow in Wisdom on a post about long distance relationships being a bad idea:

First of all, not everybody who’s in a long-distance relationship through college breaks up. Just because you haven’t personally seen anybody make it doesn’t mean nobody does. That’s a pretty irrational attitude to take: “I haven’t seen this happen; therefore it CANNOT happen.” I’ve met and heard of plenty of people who’ve gotten married after long-distance relationships… — Miriam from Chicago

Sometimes I feel like the climate scientist who’s trying to tell the world about the ravages of global warming and someone gets up and says, “But it was cold in Milwaukee today, so there can’t possibly be global warming.”

So let me put this as clearly as possible, once and for all:

A long-distance relationship is no relationship at all.

I can hear the howls of protest already.  How can you say that, you’re over-generalizing, you don’t know our relationship, you don’t know what you’re talking about, etc etc.

Yeah, yeah.  Heard it all.  So let’s break it down from the top.

1. Human evolution didn’t really accommodate long-distance relationships.

One way to look at who you are today is as a product of 3 million years of evolution.  All of your design features and behaviors are molded by evolution, in the same way that the Grand Canyon’s molded by wind, water and sand.  The goal of all of this is to perpetuate the species — or, in an even more reductionistic take a la Richard Dawkins, to perpetuate your genes.

Back in the days of the savannah, there was no email.  There was also no texting, sexting, Skype or phones.  Come to think of it, there was no mail service to deliver letters.  Or pens.  Or even written language.

In other words, the mere possibility of any kind of long-distance relationship has only existed for about 10,000 years at best.  And maybe for the past 100 years we’ve had reliable means of long-distance communication.  For the remaining 2.99 million years of human evolution, relationship was based on communication in proximity: the smell, sound, look, feel and touch and taste of your mate.  And even though we live in modern times, those ancient systems still rule the courtship process.

Sure, it’s nice to have a pen pal or a confidante even far away.  Or a harbor in some faraway port that would welcome your visit.  However, a real human relationship occurs at distances where your mirror neurons engage and you can establish a psychophysiological circuit with another human being.  Otherwise, you’ve just got a menu, not the food.

2. You never get to really know your partner in a long-distance relationship.

The real substance of intimacy is regular, day-to-day interaction.  That’s when you find out that he squeezes the toothpaste tube from the middle, she leaves the bathroom a mess, he lets the rubbish bin overfill — and you love each other in spite of it all.  If you’re in a long-distance relationship, every time you see each other is like Christmas.  You don’t have a chance to get bored by each other or find out about your incompatible movie preferences because you’re too busy making googly eyes at each other and having hot sex.

So you never really get to know each other.  And when you do end up living in the same town (or apartment), you start finding out some interesting new facts about one another — e.g. he’s married, she’s an escort, etc.  See the excerpt below from The Tao of Dating for Women.

But of course, there’s more: you’ll spend a lot of Friday nights being lonely and frustrated and secretly blame your partner for it; you’ll be turning down a lot of offers from great guys and gals interested in you because you’re ‘taken’; and other stuff that I’ve covered mostly in the excerpt below:

Long-distance relationships: a brief, biased rant

Let’s say you meet a fantastic guy on a vacation trip.  You spend several days together, and generally have a wonderful time.  In fact, you get along so well that you decide to continue seeing each other after the trip.  There’s only one issue: he lives in Austin; you live in Los Angeles.  Should you continue seeing him or not?

Here’s my stance on long-distance relationships: more often than not, they are a setup for disappointment and heartbreak.  A long-distance relationship could work out – ‘working out’ meaning that it brings both partners tons of fulfillment over the long-term and maybe ends up in something like marriage.  However, it’s not likely that it will work out.  Now my job is to help you find long-term fulfillment – not quick fixes, not the entertainment of your whim, or any kind of longshot that’s over 90% likely to bring you more pain than joy.  And the rare long-distance relationship that does work out is the exception that proves the rule.

Here’s why.  Let’s go back to the idea of fulfillment-centered dating.  Fulfillment is a feeling, not a person. And there are many, many persons who could provide that feeling of fulfillment – just as there are several different kinds of food that could fill you without all of them having to be Cherry Garcia ice cream.

Fulfillment is having someone to catch a movie with on a Friday night, someone to dress up with to the opera and snuggle with afterwards, someone to share brunch with on a Sunday morning.  For the most part, someone who lives more than 200 miles away from you cannot provide you with those fulfillment feelings, simply due to geographical constraints.

Before we go any further, let me define what I mean by a long-distance relationship.  You are in a long-distance relationship if the physical distance or scheduling challenges between you and your partner preclude spontaneity and you can see each other less than once a week.  90 miles of distance between you will do that, as well as exceptionally busy schedules.  In fact, you may already be in a long-distance relationship with someone in your own city and not know it.

Now let’s explore what would happen if, say, you started to date seriously (whatever that means to you) a man who lives more than 200 miles away.  First, chances are you would see each other relatively infrequently – two or three times a month.  This means that every time you do see each other, it’s just like Christmas!  You are thrilled to see one another, and it’s a highlight reel of fun times.

As great as this sounds, it does not allow for the natural, everyday dynamic between you to develop – the way you would interact if, say, you were married and saw each other on a daily basis.  So even though you’re having a lot of fun, you effectively know nothing about one another in a domestic arrangement where you see each other regularly.

Second, no man is an island – they all come with their buddies and cronies, as do you.  To assess accurately whether you and a given man get along, you need to see him in his natural habitat (and vice versa).  In the perpetual first date that is most long-distance relationships, you’ll never find out that his friends annoy you to no end and frankly smell funny.  Or that his mother hates you.  These are useful things to know before getting deeply involved with anyone.

Third, an unconscious undercurrent of resentment will develop regardless of how well you get along because of the sheer effort involved in seeing each other.  Why couldn’t he be closer?  If he loves me so much, why can’t he just move here?  If you don’t ask that question yourself, your friends will, and they will also resent the fact that he’s the cause of your being away for long stretches of time.  Moreover, he will probably be having similar thoughts.

That said, there are circumstances under which a long-distance relationship could work out.  In my observation, two criteria need to be fulfilled.  First, there needs to be a definite deadline by which you have both agreed to live in the same town.  Second, you both know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will be together for the long term when you do make the move.  In other words, you’re already engaged or close to it.

If you’re in doubt and still wondering what course of action to take, err on the side of caution.  A man who loves you enough will offer to move to your city.  And when he does, if you truly love him, you will ask him to get his own apartment, since that gives the relationship the best chance of success.

Let’s examine two case studies, one in which a long-distance relationship worked and another in which it did not.  Perhaps you can spot elements in each story that contributed to the success or demise of the relationship.

Case 1: Hillary and Tom.

Hillary and Tom met through Howard, a mutual friend.  Tom was Howard’s best friend in college, and Hillary had worked with Howard for several months.  Howard knew both of them well and thought they would make a good match, both being highly educated, intelligent, level-headed individuals on successful career tracks.  Although both Tom and Hillary had many interests and were lots of fun to be around, neither was the partying type.  Both came from stable family backgrounds where the parents were married for over 30 years.  Tom was 27 and Hillary was 25 when they met.

On their first dates, Tom and Hillary hit it off.  At the time, they both lived in Boston.  After a year of dating, they were engaged to marry.  However, Tom was to leave for the Bay Area in a few months.  They decided to stay together even though Tom was moving to the opposite coast, 2600 miles away.  Hillary knew she would be done with graduate school in a year and a half, at which point she would get a job in the Bay Area.

Tom and Hillary actually got married before Tom’s departure.  And I’m thrilled to say that ten years hence, they are still happily married and just had their first child.

Case 2: Kristina and Jeff.

Kristina was a beautiful 37-year old Hungarian émigré who had lived in Los Angeles for 4 years.  She moved to Los Angeles after her divorce and decided to start over.  Being independent, driven and adventurous, she decided to start her dream business, and after two years of challenges, the business was starting to grow.

At this time, encouraged by a friend, she decided to attend an expensive 5-day motivational seminar in San Francisco to get her life on track and accelerate her success.  At the seminar, she met Jeff, a dashing, independently wealthy American who lived in San Francisco.  The seminar was emotionally and physically intense, and they spent almost all their time there together.

After the seminar, they continued seeing each other, sometimes Jeff coming down to LA, other times Kristina flying up to San Francisco.  Every time, Jeff would suggest that Kristina leave LA behind and move to San Francisco to live with him.  Kristina was wary of abandoning her business, but he told her not to worry – he had plenty of money and was happy to provide for both of them until she found her footing.  It seemed like an ideal arrangement.  After a few months, Kristina, with some reservations but feeling adventurous and optimistic, gave in to Jeff’s blandishments and moved to San Francisco.

It took about two weeks of living together to make both Kristina and Jeff realize that this arrangement was not going to work.  They had never lived together in close quarters, and under the pressure of constant daily contact, the magic in their relationship faded.  Towards the end, Kristina felt as if she did not know Jeff very well at all.  Additionally, independent Kristina did not enjoy being unemployed, dependent and effectively at the mercy of someone else financially.  She moved back to Los Angeles, emotionally exhausted and a little disappointed in herself, but glad that she had extricated herself from a bad situation.  She only wished that she had not gotten in that situation in the first place.

These are two real examples of what can happen in a long-distance relationship, and perhaps two extremes of the spectrum.  All the same, you can recognize the indicators of potential success and failure of a given long-distance relationship from the way the players and stage are set.  Generally speaking, a high-risk scenario is fun in the short term and painful in the long term.  A low-risk scenario may be less fun in the short term but a better setup for long-term fulfillment.

Men: this is the highest expression of the unarticulated longing inside your heart for the divine feminine.  It’s also the solution to all of your dating woes.  If this is how you see women and convey it to them, you will have throngs of goddesses adoring you wherever you go.

Women: this is about you.  Realize that you are the goddess right here, right now.  Ease into it, live it, breathe it, and radiate it outward.  It’s also the solution to all of your dating woes.  If you show up as the goddess and gradually lead him into the inner sanctum of your divine feminine, he cannot resist. This is what the whole Tao of Dating program is about.

That said, here’s the beginning of the article.  Blog protocol requires that I put up an excerpt and direct you to the original source, so go to it:

“A few days ago, after a particularly exquisite evening with my wife Chameli, I put this post up on Facebook before going to bed:

“I have had many, many great teachers in my life. A super abundance. No one and nothing comes close to the woman who is now asleep in the bedroom. My marriage has become the guru, the salvation, the muse, the crack through which the divine shines through.”

When I woke up the next morning, there were the usual offerings of people who liked the post as well as comments. One man had the vulnerability and courage to post this on facebook:

“Thank you Arjuna for this sharing, I feel like [I'm] in front of a choice which is between feeling envious of what you have and I don’t, or instead to decide that ‘I want that too,’ and, as you show, it is possible…”

I was touched.

Over the next days, I got several more messages like this from men: vulnerable men, honest men, rare and courageous men. They came in as private messages on Facebook or through our website, and they all said basically the same thing:

“I read your Facebook post. I want what you have. Show me how to get it.”

So, friends, here it is. The short guide on how to worship a woman, and why it’s the wisest thing that a man can do. First of all, lets pop a few very understandable doubts that you might have. I’m familiar with all of them.

1. “I’m wounded and damaged in my relationships to the feminine.”
So am I, dear brother, so am I. My parents divorced in a messy way when I was four. I grew up alone with my mother. She did her very best to provide for me, but she was unhappy and insecure. By the time I started to have relationships with women myself in my early teens, I discovered that I had a mountain of resentments, fears, and separation in my relation to the feminine. The conscious practice of worship can become a part of healing the wounds.

2. “Arjuna, you’re lucky. You’ve got an incredible partner. I’m together with a woman who’s not like Chameli.”

I really don’t have the ultimate answer to that doubt or question. It certainly could seem to be the case that I’ve been lucky in finding a great woman, but here’s how it happened for me. I’ve had a lot of less lucky connections in my life. I’ve experienced my share of the manipulative side of the feminine: the victim, the rageful, the vengeful. And I have seen the ugly side of the masculine psyche in myself. A few weeks prior to meeting Chameli, my wife, something deep and profound shifted in me, which I believe can shift for anyone in the same way.

3. “I don’t have a partner at all, and I sometimes doubt if I’ll ever meet anybody.”
Being with a partner where worship is not flowing, or not being with a partner at all, are basically two aspects of the same situation: you’ve had an intuition or a glimpse of the possibilities of a deeper love, and you want more of it. The solutions are the same.

4. “I feel my heart is closed down. I live in my head a lot, and I wouldn’t even know what worship was if it broke into my house at 2 o’clock in the morning and held me at gunpoint.”
That’s where the whole thing starts for all of us, when we realize that we don’t yet know how to love. And that’s that the big question that you have to consider: “Is that okay with me?” Never mind how much money you make, or how many friends you have on Facebook, no matter how nice a house you live in, or no matter how big a car you drive, no matter how impressive your partner’s bust size, or how much you meditate and become spiritual… have you loved for real, in a total and undefended way? If not, and here’s where you have to be honest with yourself, is that OK with you? Is it OK to die one day without the heart’s gift having been fully given?

Eight or nine years ago, I came to that question in myself, exactly that, and I discovered that the answer was…” continue reading here

I’m a huge fan of the Tao of Dating, (which I’ve read 2x now), and we’ve spoken a couple of times online. I’m writing to you because I’m in a situation that’s mostly great, though a little tricky to navigate; and I’d love to get your take on the matter.

I started at a new full-time job about 6 weeks ago. I’ve met a woman with whom I really get along. We chat online almost all day while at work. I get along with her two female office friends. We all often go to lunch together. She and I make plans during the day to take coffee breaks together. Today we had an office beach party, and she and I ended up spending a lot of the day together. We get along great and gravitate towards one another.

If we didn’t work together, it would almost be a no-brainer. Thing is, we do, and it’s a new job. We made tentative plans to see a movie together next week. I just don’t want to rush anything or force anything. I’m trying not to invest too much into just her, but I find myself thinking about her often. I’m not afraid of being bold…I just feel like timing might be everything in this situation…(?) Any words of wisdom? It would be most appreciated.

I continue to love your work, and I sincerely hope all is well with you.

All the best,
Gabe

My good man Gabe.  Nice to hear from you.  Appreciate the praise.  No need to stop, really — keep it coming :)

Awright, so this romance at work thing may seem like a sticky situation.  You meet someone you like, and you seem to get along.  But then, there are the observing eyes of your co-workers, not to mention their ever-wagging tongues — the implication, the innuendo, the gossip.

There’s also a problem of hierarchy, since one person tends to be on top of the other one, so to speak.  To compound the complications, there’s always the concern about what happens should you break up.  Then you’re stuck in the same office having to see each other every day — the very definition of awkward.

Now let’s take the flip side of this.  I want you to think about an ideal place to meet a future mate.  In the Tao of Dating books (for men and women), I talk about the three Cs that make for an optimal venue: conversation-friendliness, community and continuity.

Conversation-friendliness is exactly what it sounds like: it means that you can carry on a meaningful conversation relatively free of distraction and interruption.  A bar or club is the antithesis of a conversation-friendly venue; a dinner party the apotheosis.  A workplace, with its myriad occasions for casual conversation — lunch and coffee breaks, for example — gets high scores in this domain.

Community means that there’s a reason for you to be in a venue: you have something in common.  Two people in the same workplace already have scads in common.  Another good start.

But the real clincher is continuity — the opportunity to extend the interaction over time, perhaps over multiple encounters.  This may be the most important of the three, because people tend to make new friends over multiple points of contact, over several casual, nonthreatening interactions.  For example, a dinner party is great for having an initial extended interaction with someone new.  But then it’s over.  A night school class is even better, since you get to get to see one another once or twice a week over several weeks.  This is the structure for building familiarity and affection, and the workplace has plenty of it.

So according to the three Cs, the workplace is an excellent place to get to know a future mate.  Some caveats:

• A relationship between a superior and a subordinate, although as old as the hills, complicates matters somewhat, since at home you’re equals but at work you’re clearly not.
• If you work closely together — say, same department or team — that also complicates matters.  Being together all the time at work and away from work introduces new variables to deal with.  Being in the same company but in different domains tends to be easier.
• If there is a breakup (and there usually is), you’ll still be seeing each other daily and expected to be civil around one another.

So, to get back to Gabe’s question, my advice is simple: stop overthinking it.  If you enjoy her company, hang out with her.  See what happens on a day-to-day basis.  Work is one of the best places to meet people.  where else can you get to know what people are really like, in a casual, non-threatening setting where you see one another regularly?

Don’t worry if it doesn’t work out — chances are very good you’re not going to marry each other anyway, and nothing was meant to last forever.  You’re both respectful adults and can handle whatever comes your way, so focus on the present fun instead of the future end.  If you treat each other well, even if things don’t work out, you’ll still be friends and happy to see one another.
One day at a time
AB

Of course, this means that I came to a complete stop at the stop sign, well behind the limit line, let all pedestrians have right of way, and smiled in the general direction of The Law — just like every other time I’ve come across a cop car.

All of this made me wonder: what would the world look like if you were that policeman driving the squad car?

It would look like the world is populated almost exclusively by law-abiding citizens who are very meticulous about their driving.  Think about it: as soon as people become aware of your presence, they alter their behavior.  You, the cop, are a reality distortion field.  It’s as if you send out these waves of causation, and the world conforms to it around you.

Well, guess what, boys and girls: we’re all reality distortion fields all the time.  Any time you interact with someone, that someone is also interacting with you — that’s what interact means.  So you only see people in relationship to you.

Just as there are different versions of you — employee, boss, child, parent, sibling, relative, lover, pedestrian, driver, friend — there are different versions of the people around you.  And you only get to see that version of that person.

This may even be one of the central operating principles of the universe.  Quantum mechanics says that by observing something, you change it.  At the level of an electron that needs to hit a detector or be bumped by a photon before it’s “seen”, we can grasp that.

But what if that were also true of the macroscopic world of human relations?

Well, I already told you that it is.  It’s also one of the most empowering principles of the Tao of Dating: by controlling your attention and expectation, you can change the behavior of those close to you.

Energy flows where attention goes.  So if you give attention to your partner’s positive qualities, your partner will grow in those areas (heard of an erection? Same idea).  Similarly, if you give attention to the negative qualities — and remember that criticism and nagging are still forms of attention — then those areas will grow.  Take your pick.

Also, people will rise and fall to your level of expectation of them.  If you expect generosity of spirit and openness of heart, that’s what you’re going to get from your partner.  So expect the best, and ascribe positive intent to their actions whenever possible.

This reminds me of the story of Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables.  Right after his release from prison, Valjean is taken in by the kindly Bishop Myriel, since no inn will offer shelter to an ex-convict.  In the middle of the night, Valjean leaves Myriel’s home, stealing the bishop’s silverware.  He is soon caught and brought back to Myriel, who says that he actually gave Valjean the silverware, and how dare he leave in such a hurry so as to forget the silver candleholders that he also meant for him!  Myriel then reminds Valjean of the promise to use the silver to make an honest man of himself.

Valjean had made no such promise.  But Myriel held him to a higher ideal than the one Valjean had for himself.  Subsequently, Valjean goes on to become a wealthy industrialist and then a mayor.

This may just be a story out of a novel, but it does describe reality.  You have enough silver in your possession to hold people to the highest vision of themselves at any time.  The silver is your attention, the expectations you have of people, and the example you set with your own behavior.  Use them wisely.

In conclusion, I was thinking about the meaning of the expression to turn the other cheek last week.  From the Sermon on the Mount in the Book of Matthew: “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.”

Is this about wimpiness, militant pacifism, or some very literal thing having to do with the time and place Jesus lived in?  Many different interpretations exist.

Here’s mine: to turn the other cheek means to take the one action that can result in the salvation of the person who slapped you.

If you slap back harder, you’ve got a slapfest on your hands, and neither you nor the slapper* will be ennobled by it.  Just sitting there like a potted plant won’t accomplish much either.  The only thing that’s likely to make the slapper pause and perhaps reconsider is to turn the other cheek: “What the hell was that all about?”, he’ll think.  And therein lies the shadow of a chance for evolution. It may not work every time, but it’s the only thing that can work.

That’s what Bishop Myriel did.  It’s what a Taoist master would do — flow with force and offer no resistance.  It’s what Musashi, the legendary Japanese sword master and author of The Book of Five Rings did when challenged to a duel by some street thug who would certainly get killed at the master’s hand.

Not only is turning the other cheek the furthest thing from wimpiness and passivity, it is also the highest expression of the human spirit: the ability to act deliberately in accordance with principle instead of reacting reflexively.  And it leaves both parties in a better spot than where they started.

* Slapper is a bit of technical term in England, so all you snickering Brits can settle down now.  Works in this context in any case.

Hmm — Dr. Alex, isn’t this just another version of “blame the victim”? How about if instead of warning nice people not to be “too” nice, we point out the true nastiness (and therefore unattractiveness) of people who prey on them, and tell nice people how to spot those predators?
Surely intelligent women would find that approach more appealing. At least, I would. I’m not a victim — I’m just an idiot. In this regard, at least.

Gabriella from Bay Area

Gawrsh, this opens up so many cans of worms.

First off, for the ladies there’s the Bad Boys article on spotting what’s potentially bad for you.

Next, let’s talk about the ‘blame the victim’ thing.  This is not about blame at all.  Blaming is a useless exercise.  Even if you’re justified in being righteously indignant, blame doesn’t accomplish anything. What’s useful is to observe what happened, notice the structure of reality, and use it to live better on an ongoing basis.  That’s responsibility — the ability to respond — not blame.

For example, let’s say you leave your handbag open on the subway.  A few minutes later, you’re in a coffee shop trying to pay for your drink when you notice — oh crap!  My purse is gone!

Now does it really help to stew in your own juices and say, “Omigosh, aren’t people awful?”  Sure, the person who swope (past tense of ’swipe’, of course) your purse was a bastard.  But that doesn’t bring your purse back.  Next time, don’t be a pansy and zip up your handbag.

If they slit the purse open with a switchblade and take the purse anyway, you can at least rest easy that you’ve done your part.  But an open, unattended handbag with wads of $100 bills sticking out from it is an invitation for bad stuff to happen.

And that, my friend, is often what’s happening.  People are unconsciously sticking the ‘kick me’ sign on their butt, and then wondering why so many people gratuitously take shots at their rear like it’s a soccer ball.

I once dated a girl who was super sweet.  She cooked, she came over, she insisted on taking the bus even when I offered a ride, she bought me stuff even when she couldn’t afford it.  She went out of her way to make my life easy and keep from inconveniencing me.

Now, I’m generally a 50-50 kind of guy when it comes to relationships: I do my part and you do yours.  Perhaps I’ve even erred on the side of doing too much at times.  However, this girl awakened an instinct in me that I didn’t know I had: “Y’know, I can totally get away with slacking off in this relationship.  Heck, I could probably even use her.”

The super-niceness also felt really more of a ‘please don’t leave me’ strategy, which most guys don’t find all that attractive.  It smacks of neediness and a little bit of manipulation. (The relationship didn’t last long.)

But there’s also a darker side to all of this.  A lot of people out there unconsciously want someone to take advantage of them — treat them poorly, or even outright abuse them.  Heck, there are even places where people pay for that kind of treatment.  They’re called dungeons, and the PVC- and latex-clad mistresses (a strange choice of outfit, if you really think about it) enact BDSM fantasies for a pretty penny.

And get this — battered wives go back to the abusing husband on average 7 times, even when social services has already intervened and set everything up for her to leave for good.

SEVEN times.  A battered wife.  Does that make any sense?

Here’s a general rubric I have for making sense of seemingly bizarre human behavior.  If you see it pop up over and over again — say, millions of people over the course of decades — chances are that the people doing it aren’t totally nuts or stupid.  There’s some deep biological phenomenon at work here.

In this case, the biological phenomenon is simple: pain and negative emotions activate the reward centers of the brain causing unconscious addiction to those negative emotions.

Let me say that again, because it was really, really important:

Pain and negative emotions activate the reward centers of the brain causing unconscious addiction to those negative emotions.

Ladies and gentlemen — this is a whopper.  People think of the reward centers of the brain as the ‘pleasure centers’, so it makes sense to them when someone gets addicted to cocaine, or crack, or sex.  Because cocaine makes you high, makes your brain light up, and then you want more.  Duh.

That’s the addiction that people know.  But you don’t need cocaine or meth or crack to create a self-reinforcing addictive circuit in the brain.  Anything that activates the beta-endorphin or dopamine pathways will do.

It turns out that pain and negative emotions (e.g. self-pity, anger, guilt) also activate the beta-endorphin and dopamine pathways. Chronic jaw pain or painful thoughts light up those pathways just like the infamous addictive drugs do.

As a result, we can get addicted to those emotions.  Now there aren’t any thuggish-looking dealers, pieces of foil covered in white dust, or telltale tracks on the arm, so people can say, “Look, I’m okay!  Really!”

My friends — the deadliest drug pusher of them all is the one that lives inside your head that no one can see, not even yourself.

The dopamine pathway activates in drive states.  Drive states are necessary for survival: getting away from a threat, moving towards food, mating.  Cortisol, the chief stress hormone, also mediates dopamine release.

So it makes sense that when you’re stressed or in a flight-or-fight situation, your brain releases dopamine.

But why would it release beta-endorphins?  Aren’t those the feelgood chemicals you get when, say, you have a runner’s high?

Turns out that beta-endorphins are also powerful analgesics.  If you’ve ever had that runner’s high, kept running for another five miles and came back home sore as hell, you know what I’m talking about.

So let’s say you’re in a flight-or-fight situation on the savannah, and you get injured.  Then there is real survival value to postpone the distraction from the pain of the injury so you can win the fight or flee to safety.  Now it makes a lot of sense that an analgesic would be released during a flight-or-fight stress response.

What’s happening with negative emotions is that they tap into these same ancient survival circuits to get us a little bit of that reward drug.  Make sense?

This is why the battered wife goes back to the abusive husband.  This is why you pick the same abusive girlfriend over and over again.  This is why cutters cut themselves.  This is why people pay to go to BDSM dungeons.  This is why people smoke.  In sum:

People engage in physically or emotionally self-destructive behaviors to get an unconscious drug payoff.

So that’s part of how we are complicit in our own suffering.  We’re actually engineering it.

To snap out of it, here’s the three-step protocol I’ve proposed before:

1) Get help. You can’t do it alone — lord knows you’ve tried.  That’s why the 12-step programs say you need to appeal to a higher power.  As the Course in Miracles say, “Your best thinking got you here.”  So get help — friends, family, professionals.  Reach out — physically, literally.  Say, “I need help.  Will you please help me?”  Sure, it’s humbling.  But would you rather be dead?  Because your addiction can and will kill you.

2) Get away. You need a detox period for your neurology to return to normal.  There are receptors, neurotransmitters, vesicles, and reuptake mechanisms involved — actual physical things that need to be rearranged in your brain.  Takes 7-21 days for this rearrangement to occur.  In the meantime, you must get yourself away completely from the noxious behavior and its triggers.  Two weeks of detox is a good rule of thumb.

3) Continue healing. The goal of this exercise is to get your mind back to a homeostatic state.  Meditation and yoga are good for this.  So is associating with friends who bring out and celebrate the best in you.  So is hypnosis that unravels some of the self-destructive circuitry.  So is hanging out with a partner who values and nurtures you.

I went to a very interesting talk a couple of weeks ago which covered all of this and a whole lot more — I’ll be writing about that soon.  In the meantime, hope this helps.

What they found was fascinating: the inmates showed a strong consensus for the kind of individual they would choose as a victim.  Those chosen as potential victims tended to have poor coordination, with a stride either too short or too long for their height.

Nonvictims, in contrast, displayed a more coordinated walk and a normal stride.  Basically, the muggable victims telegraphed nonverbal cues that indicated ease of victimization — as if wearing a sign on their back saying ‘mug me’.

Another study by two Japanese researchers looked at cues for choosing victims for inappropriate groping in public places (apparently this happens a lot on the super-crowded Japanese subways).  They consulted a group of men from Tokyo University to comment on short video clips of women walking.

Once again, the men showed agreed on which women they would choose to grope.  Body language of prospective victims included walking slowly and having a short stride length.  In their personality inventory, these women also tended to score high on neuroticism, low on extraversion, and high on shyness.

There’s more to these studies than that.  For now, this is what I want you to consider: If you’ve found yourself exploited in relationships before, how much were you responsible for it?  Because apparently there is such a thing as wearing an ‘exploit me’ sign on your back.

David Buss, the author of The Evolution of Desire, wrote a fascinating paper in 2008 with his colleague Joshua Duntley entitled ‘Adaptations for Exploitation’.

One of the points Buss makes in the paper is that there’s a lot of exploitation going on out there in the romantic realm, both by men and women.  And certain people are more exploitable than others.

So if you’ve repeatedly been burned in relationships — honey, buddy, I hate to break it to you, but you were partially responsible for it.  You have been complicit in your suffering.

Let me give you an example from poker.  Contrary to popular belief, I did not start out as a world-class poker player from Day 1.  In fact, I was pretty terrible.  And when I would sit down at a new table, the better players would notice immediately: “That guy is pretty terrible.  We’re going to take all his money.”

You know why I know that?  Because now I’m that guy who takes the money (sometimes anyway), and within minutes of a new player’s sitting at a table, I know whom I’m dealing with,what his weaknesses are and how to exploit them — by cunning, intimidation, trapping, bluffing and outright bullying.  If poker is a zero-sum game, then that’s how you win it.

You must also recognize that people like this exist in the romantic realm.  Even though love is the ultimate nonzero-sum game, a potential win for all involved, some people choose to be jerks in the realm of love.  Although there are both men and women who fit this category, the exploitative men probably outnumber the women, since they have more to gain from a short-term sexual interaction.  Also, more testosterone tends to make people behave more antisocially — go figure.

So how do you stop wearing the ‘use me’ sign?  The first step is recognition.  Straight out of Prof Buss’s article, here are some traits he believes make you more exploitable:

• Cheatable: Gullible, trusting, lack of allies to aid with retaliation
• Free-ridable: Relative anonymity within larger group
• Muggable: Uncoordinated gait, hesitant manner
• Sexually assaultable: Shy, low self-confidence, lack of “bodyguards” in group
• Sexually deceivable: Seems “ditzy” or “airheaded”
• Abusable: Lacking kin in close proximity
• Cuckoldable: Relaxation of mate guarding by partner
• Stalkable: High on agreeableness and extraversion

If you want to stop being used, here are some suggestions, some courtesy of Captain Obvious (that would be me), and some from the article.

For both men and women:

Cultivate a reputation as being nonexploitable. As Buss puts it, “refusing to accept unfair exchanges and seeking vengeance after one has been exploited are two means by which individuals cultivate a reputation as nonexploitable.”  So refuse to accept a raw deal — you always have the option to walk.  And if you do get a raw deal, get mad!  Get righteously indignant!  Out the punk so the world knows that you will not be punked.

Expect and demand some degree of reciprocity. If you’re constantly being the giver in the relationship, the other partner will soon figure out that he or she can be a free rider.  You’re not being nice by giving all the time — you’re being naїve and, frankly, a little stupid.  You’re a human, not a charity.

For women who don’t want to be played by players:

Take your time in getting to know a man. Do not be taken in by early disclosures of affection.  A guy can’t possibly know enough about you to be in love with you within an hour of meeting you — or a week, or even a month.  If it sounds too good to be true, 99.8% of the time it is.  Delay your first sexual encounter with a guy until you trust him enough.  A good thing is worth waiting for, and you’re a good thing, so make him wait some before he gets some.

Date men within your social circle. Successful exploitation hinges upon getting away with it.  If a man is embedded within your social circle, he can’t get away with doing stupid things without damaging his reputation and trustworthiness, so he’s less likely to exploit.  So, as mentioned in The Tao of Dating for Women, date only men who are networked in.  Men you meet off the internet or in a bar can and will do exploitative things with much higher frequency.

Utilize your yang energy. In public places, walk briskly, with purpose, looking straight ahead.  Speak your mind.  Learn how to say ‘No’ emphatically.  Quit being pointlessly nice and polite to people who harass you, since they clearly don’t deserve it.

Go out with friends and have each other’s backs. Most women already know this (much to the chagrin of men in nightclubs), but it’s extra-important that the women (and men) in the group keep tabs on the girls, making sure no one is left behind.

For men who don’t want to be waylaid by gold-diggers, flakes and other party hazards:

Quit paying for everything. Let her pull her own weight every once in a while.  Is she into your company or the perks of your company?  See section on ‘reciprocity’ above.

Ask how she’s spending her time. If a romantic interest or current girlfriend suddenly starts to become a lot more scarce, start wondering if there’s another guy.  Ask point-blank: How many other men are you dating right now? That should get you useful information.

I really wish that the Tao were all about openness, beauty, love, gods and goddesses meeting on a moonlit shore with violins in the background, with no nitty-gritty in it at all.  But even in that scenario, you’ll get sand in your shoes which you’ll have to shake out later.

And that’s what I love about the Tao: it’s about life here, on this earth.  It’s real, it’s pragmatic, and it has your best interest in mind.  In the case of exploitative partners or suitors, it is in your enlightened self-interest to be strong and vigilant, using both yin and yang energy to protect yourself.  You use the directive and discriminating aspect of yang energy to identify and push away what’s harmful; you use the yielding aspect of yin energy to let go of what you no longer need.

Then you can use the yang again to find what’s good for you and the yin to let it into your life joyfully — it’s a constant, dynamic process.  Sometimes the tide ebbs; sometimes it flows.  But it never stops moving.

Hi Dr. Alex,
Boy, was this a timely article! I was pondering sending a scintillating email to a wuss of a guy who’s gone “poof” on me after 6 dates…but I won’t.
What’s your take on these “fadeaways”? I thought it was going fine, a girl goes away for 3 weeks…then comes back, and he’s changed. Whatever the reason, JUST TELL ME STRAIGHT i.e. “it’s not working out”…instead of disappearing off planet earth for 2 weeks and leaving me wondering… And this is a 46-year old man!
I realise you’re very busy. Maybe you’ll address this in a future article as it seems to be a common occurrence here in New York at least
So I’m not saying anything about it at all. Clearly he doesn’t care enough to send a one line email, or call. That says it all. It’s just common courtesy, respect…
Thanks for the advice you’re sending on, it’s very helpful.
Sincerely,
Samantha

Samantha–

Thanks for the note!  Yes, it is tremendously frustrating both to the men and the women who are on the receiving end of The Disappearance.  I mean, what happened?  Did you get severe tendinitis in both hands so you can’t write or call?  Were you deported back to Sweden for your obvious abuse of our fabulous health care system?  Did you die, without even having the courtesy to invite me to your funeral or give me dibs on your book collection?

So the first thing you can do about this is: DON’T DO IT TO OTHERS.  I know you’re frustrated, Samantha, and I’m also pretty sure you’ve blown off a guy at some point in your single career.  Y’all will reap as you sow, so sow good stuff, not so-so stuff.  The Buddhists say that all of your karma eventually evens out, so if you do something mean, it’ll hit you back the head someday when you least expect it.

Second, set up a rule that you will give someone X chances to respond to your communication.  I mean, maybe his ship really get stuck in an ice floe in Tierra del Fuego — you just don’t know.  Once, a girl’s cell phone really did fall into a bucket of water.  But I assumed she had good intentions and still wanted to see me, so I kept trying to reach her until I got through and the date was saved.

So assume good intentions, give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and make 2 or 3 cheery attempts at communication, give it a deadline and see if they turn around.

The uncertainty is what gnaws at people’s minds — did he stop liking me?  Did her grandma die?  Did she get back together with her ex?  So put in a clause like this:

“Hey, if you’re no longer interested in hanging out, no problem.  And if you still do want to hang out, I’d love to hear back from you.  Either way, I’d really appreciate the courtesy of a response by XYZ date so I can tie up the loose ends.”

So I would say if you like the person who went poof and are willing to put in some effort towards seeing the bloke or bird again, follow this model:

1. Have a set number of attempts you’re willing to make to wake this person up from sher* stupor.  Two is the minimum; max is 3.
2. Be upbeat and lighthearted in your attempts.  Vindictiveness, judgment or neediness are not attractive.
3. Be clear about what you want.  If you want a response, ask for it.
4. Stick a deadline in there.  That way, it’s not something you have to fret about forever.  When the deadline passes, you’re free to move on.

With this policy, you give yourself peace of mind if the person’s truly gone, while giving both of you another chance to get together, get married, have 2.3 kids and a mortgage and traipse into the sunset laden with crippling debt happily ever after.

Carry on

AB

*What, you thought I meant sheer here?  Nope.  That is totally not a typo.  That is sher, my contribution to the English language, which stands in for his, her, or him.  If you don’t like it, you’re welcome to continue using the ultra-clunky him/her kludge (“I gave it to him/her“), or the abominable them or their for singular (“If you love someone, set them free” — whatever, Sting), which just makes the terrorists win every time you use it and also makes you sound like a goober.

Regret-generating ambiguous email #1056: So, I’m sorry to see that we are not on the same page when it comes to the unwritten rules of engagement with the opposite sex, and apparently not even reading the same book in terms of our relationship.  I did have fun though. :)

Regret-generating ambiguous text #343: Ur a self-centered bastard.  Fine, maybe I was PMSing, but ur still a jerk.

This article is going to be short.  It will contain one main message.  It’s an important one.  The message is this:

No emotional communication via email, text, or voicemail (aka asynchronous media).  Ever.

You should use email, text and even voicemail to transmit straight data only.  ‘What time are we meeting’, ‘what’s he address’, that kind of thing.  The occasional compliment or flirty message is okay, but even those can be subject to misunderstanding.

Now let me explain why emotional communication via text or email is such a bad idea.

1) Error rate in message generation is high.

Communication has three phases:

Message generation: Did you compose it accurately?

Message transmission: Did it fly through the air and safely get there?

Message interpretation: Did the recipient understand it the way you meant it?

When you talk to someone face-t0-face, all three things happen in real time more-or-less simultaneously.  You say “I like your shirt”; it flies through the space between the two of you at 33o meters per second; she hears it and processes it.  Generation, transmission and reception complete in 0.25s, with high fidelity.

Disrupt any of those three phases, and you’ll have miscommunication.

Now what would happen if you were eating a muffin while attempting to generate the message?  It just might come out garbled enough to sound like “You look like dirt”, and that’s what she’ll hear.

But that’s not such a big deal in person, because you’ll see her frown, you’ll finish swallowing your muffin, restate your compliment, and all’s well with a chuckle.  If you were doing the same thing over the phone, you wouldn’t have the benefit of body language feedback.

Typos are rampant over text because of clumsy fingers, predictive text software and over-abbreviation.  “I like your shirt” can become “I lick your shorts”, a somewhat different animal.

2) Message transmission is unreliable.

Let’s say you live in 15th century Morocco.  You’re upset about something and you want to convey that to your significant other.  The only way to do that is to write a note and give it to a messenger.  Except that the messenger is a notorious and disorganized drunk who’s liable to lose the message en route.  Will you still hand him the message?

Emails get lost, stuck in spam filters or accidentally deleted.  Text messages sometimes never get sent.  They can also get to their destination fine but sit ignored in the inbox while someone’s busy.  If you don’t get a response, can you tell the difference between technical failure or being ignored?  You can’t — but you’ll be stewing in your own juices in the meantime.

Email and text are like disorganized drunk messengers.  If the message has time-sensitive emotional content in it, wait till you can deliver it in person, or at least in real time over phone.

3) Message interpretation is super-unreliable.

A vast portion of our communication happens nonverbally.  Facial gesture, body language, tone of voice all encode essential information that are missing in text-based communication.  Without the nonverbal contextual cues, how would you interpret a statement like “That was just brilliant”?  Is it genuine praise or sarcasm?  You simply can’t tell.

This is fertile ground for misunderstanding and disaster. So resolve to do all emotional communication in real time.

4) Asynchronous communication catalyzes cruelty.

Ever wonder why there’s so much nastiness on the web?  People seem to have no problem eviscerating one another on a website or via email.  And yet, we don’t experience nearly as much of that in person.

Why?  Because it’s much harder to be an asshole in person, that’s why.  When confronted with a real person, your mirror neurons are active, which allow you to empathize with others and feel what they feel.  When you’re cruel to them and see them wince, you feel it too.  This is a natural internal brake to otherwise gratuitous cruelty.  Thus your neurology builds empathy, cooperation and civility into society.

Additionally, all animals have submission signals which tell an assailant to stop attacking: “You win!  I lose!  Please don’t kill me!”  You’ve probably seen dogs roll over and expose their belly, or other animals expose their necks.  Humans do it, too.  Submission signals are an essential survival feature of any species.  Otherwise they’d annihilate their own race.

This is why modern warfare has massacred so many people.  If you’re miles away from your victims and can’t see their faces or their kids’ faces, it’s pretty trivial to press a button and launch some missiles.  We just couldn’t kill 100,000 people in a flash when people engaged in hand-to-hand combat.

A nasty email or text message can be the modern communication equivalent of that missile.  You don’t see the recipient.  Your mirror neurons are not engaged and you don’t have to bear their reaction, so you can afford to be cruel.  You launch it, and boom, it can destroy without your having to be around to watch and feel.  Except that once you’ve done that, you’ve compromised your humanity and the real damage is done to you: you lose a little bit of your soul, you heartless bastard.

I may be being a little dramatic here, but you’re usually the one who regrets sending the message after the air clears and you sober up.  This is the principle of enlightened self-interest, straight out of The Tao of Dating: always choose the action that keeps you in good stead for the long term.  It ends up being better for you and for everyone around you.

So if you like pointless soul-eroding drama, go ahead and conduct your arguments over email and text.  But if you value your peace of mind, never communicate emotionally via email, text or other asynchronous media.  In the long run, the sanity you’ll save is your own.

It’s 5.30pm on Friday night, and you have a date for 8pm. You’re really eager to spend time with this new guy you’ve met. He says he’s made a reservation at the hottest new restaurant in town, and you’ve been anticipating this since Monday when you agreed to go out with him. It’s the highlight of your long week.

You arrive home, put down your handbag and take off your jacket, wondering whether you’re going to wear that red off-the-shoulder number or the more subdued black dress. And shoes – which shoes… when the ringing of your phone interrupts your train of thought. It’s him. He says his boss called him in to help prepare for tomorrow’s client presentation. He cancels on you.

What’s the Right Thing to Do?

If you’ve ever dated, something like this has happened whether you’re male or female. People cancel at the last minute, change their minds, break promises, don’t show up, behave strangely, antagonize you capriciously, get moody, and ruin an otherwise perfectly nice evening.

If that were all they did, your course of action would be clear: move on, and move into a monastery. Unfortunately, those same people who behave strangely have also been known to make you happy by showing interest, showing up, and showing you a great time.

This complexity is what renders dating such a challenge. For example, in the scenario above, here are two of your potential responses to the cancellation:

Get righteously indignant. He’s cancelled at the last minute, leaving you high and dry, so you’d be fully justified. However, if you like him, he may not ask you out again if you chew him out.

Let it slide. Well, these things come up, so hey – no problem! You totally understand. But if you do that, would you be setting a precedent for allowing him to cancel again with impunity? You do want to give him a second chance without being a complete doormat. And your best friend introduced him to you, so just being nasty to him won’t do.

Which option is better? This is not a trivial question, and researchers like David Buss claim that the human brain evolved to its current gargantuan size mostly to figure out complex social questions like this.

A Solution Provided by Game Theory

I like elegant, simple solutions to complex problems, which is why I’ve based The Tao of Dating for Women (and Men) on peer-reviewed science and Eastern wisdom. That way, you have reliable strategies that you can use over and over again, knowing that they give you consistently good results.

One such strategy applicable to our scenario (and actually all human interaction) comes from game theory. A game is any situation in which you make decisions that affect other players. So in dating, even when you think you’re not playing games, by definition you are. In fact, any extended social interaction is a combination of many games over time.

A particular kind of game called the iterated prisoner’s dilemma bears particular relevance to dating. Without getting into the intricacies of this game, I just want you to know that each player in the game has a choice to either cooperate or defect – basically, to be nice or nasty. Not so surprisingly, cooperation (aka being nice) is the more effective long-term strategy (with a caveat that we’ll discuss).

In his 1984 book The Evolution of Cooperation, political scientist Robert Axelrod reported on the success of various long-term strategies when pitted against one another. He came up with some interesting findings on the nature of cooperation, one set of which I’ll summarize as the four Axelrod Criteria. They should hold you in good stead in dating, business, friendship, family dynamics and the odd international treaty negotiation:

1. Be nice.
Start by cooperating, not defecting. This generally means saying ‘yes’ instead of ‘no’. You continue to cooperate until the other person defects, at which point you need to…

2. Be provocable.
Once the other person defects, you defect, too. Your strategy is basically to do whatever the other person did in the last round. This means if the other person starts being nice again, you need to…

3. Be forgiving.
That’s right. If the other person switches back to cooperating, you start cooperating, too, and continue to do so unless provoked.

4. Be straightforward.
You’re already playing a game, so let’s not needlessly complicate matters by playing games within the game. Don’t get greedy, selfish, vindictive, or tricky just to get ahead a little. Play straight.

Life isn’t as cut-and-dried as a computer simulation, so here are some suggestions for applying this to your love life:

• If you think you’re too nice, then you should be more provocable. In the example above, this does not mean that you should set up another date and then cancel on the last minute – that just increases the total storehouse of pain in the world. It means you should get provoked now while expressing yourself clearly and elegantly.

For example, in the scenario above, you sould say something like this:
“I understand that something came up – these things happen.” You’re being compassionate and understanding. Nice, even.

“However, I had set aside this time for us and I’m really disappointed that you cancelled without enough time for me to make alternate plans for a Friday night.” Now you’re demonstrating that you’ve been provoked.

“So, if you’re interested in seeing me again, you should let me know how you’d like to make this up to me, and I’d be happy to spend time with you again.” You’re being forgiving and straightforward.

• If you tend to err on the side of meanness, practice being more forgiving. Don’t dock people forever – be provoked only in response to provocation. You don’t want to shut the door on a potentially great relationship because of just one slip-up. Give people the benefit of the doubt.

• If you tend towards passive-aggressive game playing, stop that immediately. Love is plenty complicated as it is – why make it harder for yourselves? Avoid petty drama and communicate your feelings and wishes clearly. Be straightforward.

As much as some of us would like to think it’s true, it’s not possible to reduce all of life and love to a solvable mathematical game. However, the four Axelrod Criteria of being nice, provocable, forgiving and straightforward will hold you in good stead in many difficult decisions.

Looking for more brilliant advice like this? Can’t blame ya. Get the books The Tao of Dating for Women and The Tao of Dating for Men, the dating bibles for smart folks
Got a burning question? Write me with ‘Question’ in the subject line and I’ll do my best to get back to you
For more excellent brain fodder, visit the Awaken Your Genius blog

7H323DBJRE7R

In other words, Bart has made a lot of great decisions in his life, and continues to do so every day.

Except that some time ago, he got engaged. And none of his friends thought it was a good idea. We all predicted disaster, of the Hindenberg up-in-flames variety.

Bart did get separated a few years later, and you probably know someone who was plenty smart who made a similarly disastrous decision. Whether it was taking the wrong job, buying a Hummer, selling off Microsoft stock in 1989 or launching into a destructive affair, this kind of thing happens all the time. Perhaps it’s even happened to you.

It’s easy to see all of this in hindsight. But what if you could see the faulty decision-making while it was happening? Then, instead of an “I told you so” story which helps little and irritates much, we may actually accomplish something useful — like helping avoid the error in the first place.

Psychologists who’ve studied our decision-making processes have observed cognitive biases that tend to get us in trouble.

Remember that these biases don’t make you a bad person — they just make you human. As far as we can tell, they’re deeply-ingrained features of our brain function. The more you’re aware of them, the better chance you have of avoiding them. There’s a slew of them, so I’ll highlight some of the big ones:

1) The fundamental attribution error.
This bias makes us attribute the failure of others to character and our own failures to circumstance. “Jenkins lost his job because he was incompetent; I lost mine because of the recession.” It also attributes our own successes to our competence, discounting luck, while seeing others’ successes as products of mere luck.

This lands you in hot water when you assume that bad stuff only happens to other people: you’re not going to be part of the 50 percent of people who get divorced, and the price of your house will go up even though 90 percent of them have dropped in price. I’m going to marry Charlie Sheen and make it work because I’m different; those 4,000 other women were just stupid. They did something wrong, but I know what I’m doing. The fundamental attribution error’s a pernicious one, and it nails all of us at some point.

2) The confirmation bias.
This one has two parts. First, we tend to gather and rely upon information that confirms our existing views. Second, we avoid or downplay information that goes against our pre-existing hypothesis.

Say you suspect that your computer has been hacked. Then every time it stalls or has a little glitch, you blame it on the hackers. Or you think that your boss has it in for you. Then everything she says or does you interpret as part of her plan to undermine you. It’s a bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you identify with a political party, you probably do this all the time. If you’re a scientist, you do this inadvertently as part of the scientific method. And if you’re a trial lawyer, it’s your job to do this.

If you’re interested in moving an agenda forward, then the confirmation bias works in your favor. If you’re subject to this agenda and don’t like it, recognize the confirmation bias for its fallacy. And if you’re interested in the truth, start without preconceptions. Outwitting the confirmation bias means exploring both sides of an argument with equal diligence.

3) The overconfidence bias.
I call this the ‘my guess is better than yours’ bias. People’s confidence in their own decisions tends to outstrip the accuracy of those decisions. Your friend will say he’s “100 percent positive” about something — e.g. his choice of wife – and only be right 50 percent of the time. A disastrous form of this happened in the doomed 1996 Mt Everest expedition described in Jon Krakauer’s Into Thin Air, resulting in the death of many climbers.

4) The availability bias.
We tend to estimate what’s more likely by how easily we can come up with an example from memory. The availability of our memories is biased toward vivid, unusual, or emotionally charged examples. So we tend to make those more salient, then come up with weird decisions based on them.

As a result, you may cancel your trip to the Canary Islands because mom tells you the biggest plane crash in history happened there. Or you stop going to hockey games because you heard someone in the stands got thwacked on the head with a puck last week. Or avoid investing in stocks because those crashed last year.

To bypass the availability bias, be sure to look at all the evidence around a particular decision, not the stuff that jumps to mind first. If only 1 out of 100,000 plane landings resulted in a crash, it’s safe to fly to the Canary Islands. If one out of ten million hockey fans gets nailed by a puck, you can watch a hockey game.

5) The sunk cost fallacy.
I call this the slot-machine effect. You put a quarter in a one-armed bandit, and pull the lever. You win nothing. No big deal – you put in another quarter. And another. This goes on for a while, and you start thinking, “Well, I’m invested in this machine now. It’s going to belch an avalanche of quarters any second!”

The truth is that every pull of the lever has the same winning probability of nearly zero, regardless of how much money you’ve put in. The money is effectively gone forever – it’s a sunk cost. There’s no quantifiable expectation of future return, so it’s not an investment.

This is a big one in jobs and relationships. You can be stuck in a crappy situation for a while, and then think, “But I’ve invested three years in this! I can’t just throw that away!” The fact is that those three years are never coming back – you’ve already thrown them away, so don’t worry about it! The sooner you cut bait and go for a better situation, the better off you are.

So next time you have smart friends who are about to make an unbelievably dumb decision, follow this five-step plan:

a) Look through this list, or an even more comprehensive one
b) Empathize with them for being human, coming up with an example of a time when you made a similarly boneheaded choice – “Boy, was I a goober!”
c) Instead of saying “What the hell are you thinking,” say “I have a lot of faith in your judgment, so help me understand how you came up with this decision.”
d) If you’re still convinced they’re smoking something funny, only then offer gently some insight on cognitive biases, and see what happens.
e) If they still don’t get it, take the frying pan from behind your back and give them a compassionate but bracing thwack upside the head. It probably won’t change their mind, but it’ll feel pretty satisfying.