Privilege is a Dirty Word

There's a 'life lesson' that was trending a while ago about privilege. In the analogy, a teacher led a simple example about privilege and social mobility. The example involved asking all the students in the class to try and throw a piece of paper into the recycling bin which was placed at the front of the class. As expected, the percentage of people at the front of the class who made the shot, was higher than those at the back. The teacher then concluded that 'your job - as students who are receiving an education - is to be aware of your privileges. And use this particular privilege called 'education' to do your best to achieve great things, all the while advocating for those in rows behind you.' If you're interested, you can watch the full explanation here (Students Learn A Powerful Lesson About Privilege).

I thought this was a great way of explaining how even menial things in life are connected to privilege. However, the analogy of the lesson is not what interests me. More so it's what happens next is the interesting part. Consider these two subsequent events:

Those that now find themselves with privilege (who previously didn't)

Through a combination of will, determination and some natural ability, someone from less privilege can find themselves in a position of privilege. However, because of the way they were forced to overcome an obstacle, there is often nothing graceful about it. As such, given that we are generally a superficial society, those with privilege can be very quick to judge those that they perceive to behave strangely when they come into a little bit of privilege. Even more interesting is that when given the opportunity to learn how to do something a simpler way, the person with new found privilege can be resistant. 

To continue the teacher's analogy, this would consist of someone at the back making 'the shot' and therefore being allowed to sit at the front of the class. For the purpose of this discussion, let's call the person Steve. Let's also assume that to make the shot, Steve had to count how many people were in front of him, determine the periodic timing of the fans as they sway back and forth; let alone estimate the density of the paper ball to determine which person's head the ball would need to bounce off for it to land in the waste basket. Now when Steve is at the front of the class, he no longer has to worry about people being in front of them, nor does he need to worry about the fans. Yet when Steve checks the fans locations, the others at the front will probably laugh at him. Furthermore, when shown that the shot can be made by simply tossing it into the basket, Steve will probably still want to check the density of the ball.

This is an interesting phenomenon, of which no one is exempt. After all, we always treasure an accomplishment more when we figure something out for ourselves - even if it seems retarded to someone else. The most important thing though is to remember that we aren't all created equal and that there has to be a reason, motivation and/or general back story as to why a person behaves in such a way. 

Let's now consider the flip side of the coin.

Those that now find themselves without privilege (who previously had it) 

No matter what level of privilege we are fortunate to have access to, there is always someone with a similar set of attributes that does not receive the same level of privilege. In many cases, the privilege is a financial advantage (i.e. you are able to pay to be closer to the basket). However, all this does is masks a person's deficiencies. As such, whilst a less privileged person will get found out quite quickly, the privileged person will be able to ghost along pretending everything is happiness and rainbows and may never be found out - which is why it makes it all so interesting when they do get found out.

I don't think he's ever going to understand privilege

Once again, let's continue the analogy set out by the teacher. This time our subject is a person of average ability but has the fortunate privilege to sit up the front. We shall call him Tony. Now given the close proximity to the basket, Tony simply scrunched up the piece of paper and basically placed it into the waste basket. As such, Tony feels quite good about himself and probably doesn't consider why the shot was so easy. Hence, if Tony was asked to make the shot again but instead this time he is blindfolded, it may suddenly be extremely difficult for him to make the shot. It is therefore not surprising when Tony completely misses the shot and suddenly finds himself behind the other people at the front.

The key difference between Tony and Steve is that Steve, had to be adaptable to overcome many obstacles; something Tony has never had to consider. I'm not saying that Steve would make the shot. He would however, be more prepared than Tony to make or fail at the shot. Fortunately, for Tony given his position of privilege, it is more than likely that he will have access to resources such that he may be able to make the shot.

As cruel as it is, no matter how much privilege we have, we will all eventually get found out. It's not the end of the world, but it does mean accepting some hard truths about yourself. We must also be understanding of others and their actions so that privilege doesn't become a dirty word. As summarised by the teacher, privilege is something that you should be aware of and ideally you should be doing everything in your power to make the best use of said privilege. Sadly, this often doesn't hold true for many people. However, if we can all be more aware and never forget the privileges we are given, we may just find that that strange person is not that strange.

#Hanbaobao

To stay up to date with all the latest posts follow me on:
Instagram: @the_over_correction

Facebook: facebook.com/theovercorrection

Alternatively, any sharing of a post using the share bar below would be greatly appreciated and would be greeted with multiple imaginary high 5's.

Choosing the Right Gift?

Buying presents can be one of the hardest things to do. As such, we generally descend to the rationale of the more expensive the better. Yes most girls would love the Chanel classic flap bag and most guys would probably love the Rolex Oyster Perpetual. However, a poorly thought out gift is still a poorly thought out gift even if you add a few more zeros to the price tag.

Sea-Dweller 4000

When you ask someone what makes a good gift, you get many generic phrases such as 'get something meaningful' or 'something that you know they will use.' Wow how helpful you are people, I definitely know what to get now. How about you also tell me something else as utterly useless like 'get them a gift card.' 

Classic Flap

Seriously though, you shouldn't hate on someone that is only trying to help. However, the art of choosing a great gift is by and large a psychological analysis. Understanding someone's motives for wanting and using things will go a long way in achieving success. So what should you assess when choosing a suitable gift?

1. Vanity

I bet he feels pretty

Vanity makes it to number 1, as there is no faster way to eliminate options. Vanity unlike overcompensation (which I'll discuss later in number 3), is concerned with how 'pretty' the present is. Some people favour this more so over practical function which is also why it is undeniably linked to overcompensation. As such, correctly gauging a person's vanity level will very quickly help you to eliminate many unsuitable gifts.

So how do you assess how vain someone is? There's many ways to do this so i'll leave that up to you to figure out. However, if you really can't figure it out, I've been told that 'neat handwriting is a sign of vanity.' Have a look at someone's handwriting and tell me if you agree?

2. Self-confidence

You should always be true to yourself

Self-confidence comes in at number 2. This is because the true level of self confidence (the confidence a person projects when they feel safe), is a true measure of what someone actually likes. This differs from the 'confidence' displayed when said person is around strangers or people that make them uncomfortable. This also shouldn't be confused with their ability or confidence to trend set (#5), as this may not reflect who they truly are.

You want to get as close as possible to (or try to imagine) how you think this person would behave in their freest setting (be it on holiday or when they've had to much to drink). Think about the things he/she would talk about or want to do but won't because of the restrictions they feel society imposes upon them. Success at this will open your mind to better gift ideas.

3. Overcompensation

I believe him

Essentially, number 3 assesses how much a person likes to brag. As I mentioned in number 1, pretty items are often easy to brag about. However, overcompensation goes much further than just a pretty gift. You essentially have to ask yourself, 'how much will the person want to tell others about the gift?'

As such, an assessment of their level of modesty will hopefully hold you in good stead as you go about picking a great gift.

4. Practicality

Was it worth it?

Any present you get has still has to have a 'practical' function to the recipient. However, practical doesn't necessarily mean useful in this context. It does mean that it gets lots of use. You wouldn't argue that a painting is particularly useful. However, if the recipient is going to look at it multiple times and a day and draw inspiration or comfort from it, then it is getting 'lots of use.' 

There are many items which you may think do not belong into this category. I encourage you to think beyond the obvious uses of the item and instead assess it in terms of what emotional return the recipient would gain from it. Just don't get crocs -  I don't care how 'practical' they are.

5. Trend Setter

Setting fashion trends for guys with great side boob everywhere

A person's trend setting ability will help you quickly define how 'out there' to go for a present. Someone that has a high 'level of ability or confidence' will appreciate you getting them something that is out of the norm, especially if they always have to 1 Up everyone. The opposite is also true as a 'follower' would prefer you get something that is well researched by society and is now considered cool at the moment.

Essentially, you must ask the question; 'from zero to Kanye, how Kanye are they?'

Ultimately the best gifts have the greatest timeless potential (i.e. will be kept and treasured for the longest amount of time). This is where you will need to assess the type of occasion you are buying for and determine if timeless value is important or not.

With the theory out of the way, stayed tuned for gifts for guys and gifts for girls; coming soon

#Hanbaobao

Follow me to stay up to date:

Instagram: @the_over_correction

Facebook: facebook.com/theovercorrection

Alternatively, any sharing of a post using the share bar below would be greatly appreciated and would be greeted with multiple imaginary high 5's.

What is Happiness Worth?

As I stood enjoying the showmanship of Dave Grohl and the Foo Fighters, a thought kept popping back into my head; if money could buy happiness, this would be it. Sure this moment would pass and it did, but for those 2.5 hours, I was truly happy and I would gladly pay the ticket price again and again.

 In reflection of this amazing concert, two things struck me as interesting:

1. Dave's comments that he believed that Adelaide still had a rock and roll music scene;

2. The subsequent comments from AJ Maddah and random fans.

For those that don't know, AJ Maddah is the lead promoter for the Soundwave music festival. AJ Maddah has indicated that Soundwave may not be returning to Adelaide in 2016 due to poor ticket sales. As such, this essentially leaves Adeladie with two 'music' festivals; Stereosonic and Future Music Festival (Woopty doo *Sarcasm intended*). 

Which brings me to the point of this post; the question of whether you can put a 'price on happiness?' Or more specifically 'At what point do you stop paying for happiness?'

It would be unfair to make this assessment without a few assumptions. As such, one of my main assumptions is that people do not behave rationally - why else would we pay hundreds of dollars to see someone scream and play a guitar (the foo fighters are not exempt from this). However, I am of the belief that there is a tipping point; the point where the irrational becomes rational. That is why no matter what your beliefs, backgrounds, personal tastes and so on are, you may initially be 'irrational' compared to another but at some point everyone reaches the same rational position (as all money is finite).

Personally, I don't get a lot out of metal and punk (the majority of the Soundwave 2015 lineup). To me the majority of metal and punk is not about happiness but is instead about providing an outlet for frustrations and built up emotions. This outlet is definitely required for 'sanity' reasons so this then poses the question; why are people being so rational when it comes to purchasing (or not purchasing) Soundwave tickets?

Let's contrast this with the Soundwaves of 2011 and 2013 where 'mainstream' bands such as Queens of the Stone Age and 30 Seconds to Mars (2011) and Blink 182 and Linkin Park (2013) were in attendance. I would go so far as to say that unlike the recent headlining bands, these guys appeal to a wider range of people chasing 'irrational happiness.' As such, if you have a diminishing 'irrational happy pool' surely the number ticket sales would exponentially decrease when you consider rising ticket prices (economics 101).

This is also why I'm not surprised to hear that the festivals that are no longer providing 'widespread irrational happiness' are failing (see Big Day Out who tried to mash the molly enthusiasts with the hardcore rock n rollas and resulted in sending both groups home unhappy).

Even this guy can be happy

It might be an optimists view (money NOT being able to buy happiness is the pessimist's view) but I think everyone generally wants to be happy (even Voldemort is chasing his own version of 'irrational happiness'). As such, when promoters chase profits they can sometimes be blindsided about what truly sells an event; the provision of irrational happiness.

Let's now take this to a wider audience and consider sports by comparing horse racing and cricket. Two things are obvious here. Attendees of horse racing are not there for the actual races. It is the promise of fun and happiness (with winning money on a race being a side bonus) that ultimately sells the event. On the flip side, unless you are one of the privileged few that is able to hang out in the members area and get trashed off many a beer, chances are you won't be attending the cricket unless you are a fanatic (very much a niche market these days - Australia playing is the exception). It's extremely obvious which one is providing the 'irrational happiness' and which one provides the rational.

Let's also consider two of the best paid sports in the world; European Soccer and American Baseball. The salaries on offer here are astronomical compared to other sports around the world; to the point that people love to critique the wages paid, whenever there is even the slightest slip up from any sportsman. Ultimately, if the fan is paying the wages, its not the sporting ability or professionalism that governs the salary. It is the promise of irrational happiness and whilst this illusion exists, their wages will continue to be justified.

Interestingly, I think you could almost equate any monetary transactions as a trade for happiness (or at least future happiness). Why else would we pay 'overpay' for something if not for the assumption that everyone is chasing their own version of irrational happiness? Penny for you thoughts?

#Hanbaobao

Follow me to stay up to date:
Instagram: @the_over_correction
Facebook: facebook.com/theovercorrection

Alternatively, any sharing of a post using the share bar below would be greatly appreciated and would be greeted with multiple imaginary high 5's.

Is Workplace Discrimination Really Discrimination (Part 3)

We now know that for a company to have sales, there must be trust between the seller and the buyer. We also know what constitutes trust and that intimacy is required (Part 1). We then got to the point where the person that will make us look the best, is the person we want to be the most intimate with and finally we worked out that, by and large, this person takes the form of the 'Ultimate Male Specimen (Part 2).'

With that in mind, lets now discuss whether there is a place for 'appropriate discrimination' in the workplace.

If profits are all dependent on intimacy, you have to put yourself in the decision makers position. Ask yourself this simple question, 'would you send a sheep to negotiate with a pack of wolves?' My guess is many different variations of NO. You would send the biggest bad ass you could find (i.e. The Ultimate Man). However, don't forget that every time you don't send a sheep to the negotiation you are discriminating against all sheep.

Now if we apply this internally to an organisation, many of us are stereotyped by management as a certain kind of worker based on our skills and personalities. As such, just like the sheep, many of us will be 'discriminated' against which is of course wrong.

However, if sales are a function of trust, trust is a function of intimacy, and intimacy is indeed a function of our skills and personality traits, then why shouldn't we be excluded from doing certain things if management does not think we can make the sale. After all, its their butt and not yours on the line if sales targets are not met. As such, in this case, I think there is definitely a place for 'appropriate discrimination.'

Fortunately, unlike the sheep, you can do something about this. Let's have a look at a scenario.

Your Company Has Many Foreign Clients

Communication is a large part of intimacy. As such, if your company has many foreign clients and you can't speak said 'foreign' language, you may feel yourself unfairly discriminated against. To this person, I say that you may be missing what is truly important to the 'sale.'

Yes, just because someone can speak Chinese, they might be able to speak directly to the client and therefore have a perceived advantage at gaining their trust. However, if they can't generate intimacy whilst discussing high risk fund investment, they're still just as useless to your manager as the person that can't speak Chinese.

Instead of worrying that your career progression is being blocked, try focusing your efforts to identify what is the key defining factor to the 'sale.' It could be the best returns on the clients assets. It could be the piece of mind that their funds will be safe with your bank. It could be the access to the lowest interest rates. Whatever it is, you should be looking to undercover it. If you manage this, it may not matter what language you speak as this was not the key factor to gaining someone's trust.

On the flip side, if it is something that is non negotiable (i.e. the monthly management meeting is conducted in a foreign language), then you may be forced to accept that your career pathway is probably quite limited. However, you should not let this stop you from succeeding. Companies are so big and diverse these days that there is more than likely an available career path for you that you will be attracted to.

This may not be immediately clear to you; which is why communication is once again, very important. You need to be having regular career discussions (note: every week may be too often - try every 3 or 6 months) with your manager or mentor to ensure you can map out a career path that both of you are happy with. As I alluded to in 'Getting the Most Out of a Career Discussion,' management can only act upon the information you give them. They are not mind readers and you will definitely get more out of it if you do your homework before going to a meeting.

Remember management respond best when you present them with a problem and also include a possible solution. This is where intimacy is developed and trust is gained. Do this often enough and hopefully you will find that you are no longer subjected to 'appropriate discrimination.'

#Hanbaobao

To stay up to date with all the latest posts follow me on:
Instagram: @the_over_correction
Facebook: facebook.com/theovercorrection

Alternatively, any sharing of a post using the share bar below would be greatly appreciated and would be greeted with multiple imaginary high 5's.

Is Workplace Discrimination Really Discrimination (Part 2)

In the discussion of whether the idea of 'appropriate discrimination' is acceptable in the workplace, I wanted to introduce two concepts that would form the basis of my argument. I first presented the idea that every company or business is selling something. I then discussed the defining component of a sale, which i quantified as being dependent on trust. Part 2 of this series will introduce the second idea, I alluded to in Part 1.

Let's begin.

2. Who is the Most Trustworthy?

In Part 1 we learnt that intimacy was required in order to develop trust. By this rational, the person that is most intimate is the most trustworthy.

So then, maybe the question really is not 'who is the most trustworthy,' but instead is, 'who do we want to be the most intimate with?'

I would say that the person 'we want to be the most intimate with', is the person that is going to make us look the best in front of other people. 

So if we superficially look at society (yes, that's all society is), we can by and large agree that the ones who have, look better than the ones who have not. As such, we therefore desire to be more intimate with the one who have. 

When we look at this upper echelon of society (the haves), we also see that it is very male dominated. Now, if we equate that to a company, this means that management (upper echelons) in companies will invariable be male. So when we think about who males generally want to look better in front of, I would say it is other guys. This 'Wanting to be the King' mentality means that men only want to be intimate with someone that will make them look better in the eyes of other men. 

Keeping with the company analogy, the decision makers of a company (who are predominately men) will only want to be intimate with people (predominately coworkers) who in the decision makers' eyes, have the skills to help further the decision makers' careers. 

To summarise, by this rationale, the person that makes you look the best, is the person you want to be the most intimate with and therefore this is the most trustworthy person. So who is person? This person is a male who is the most desirable of all; i.e. the who has the best combination of brains, looks, height, charisma and power - 'The Ultimate Man.'

Society has obviously come a long way since these days where the aforementioned conclusion was accepted as fact. However, this old fashioned thinking still exists in the workplace; especially in the upper echelons of society and businesses. This doesn't mean you can't succeed if you don't fit the required stereotype. There are plenty of cases where it has happened. It does however, mean that you have to be smarter than the average competitor.

This concludes Part 2. I will use the ideas presented in Parts 1 and 2 to make my case for whether 'appropriate discrimination' should be allowed in the workplace and how you can overcome it. Stay tuned for Part 3 - The Conclusion.

#Hanbaobao

To stay up to date with all the latest posts follow me on:
Instagram: @the_over_correction

Facebook: facebook.com/theovercorrection

Alternatively, any sharing of a post using the share bar below would be greatly appreciated and would be greeted with multiple imaginary high 5's.