Snake oil sales is a good business to be in, it seems.
If you can live with yourself, I suppose it is.
Even with morals and scruples, you may still be able to do it if you are a true believer.
Yesterday, I was listening to four Jungian analysts discuss a dream that someone had provided them.
These folks seemed to fall into the true believer category.
I was shocked at how certain they all were of their conclusions about what the person who provided the dream was thinking and feeling in life.
Their assumptions and judgments were stark and one-sided.
And the person whose dream it was wasn’t present to agree or disagree.
This points at one of my own issues, probably.
An issue with authority and joining groups.
Regardless, this morning I was listening to another potential snake oil salesperson.
He is a coach who charges $100,000 per year to work with someone.
Is he a good coach?
Probably.
Does it matter?
Probably not if you have 2–10 clients per year.
All that as a prelude to the real topic, though.
Regardless of my faults, I do think I am able to discern a good idea when I hear one.
And this coach had one that I hadn’t heard before.
He said that the people he works with fall into three categories when it comes to getting what they want:
Goal setters
Problem solvers
Opportunity seekers
Here are some differences between the three.
A goal setter invents a future destination, sets one path to get there, and puts blinders on as they work toward it.
They leverage long-term planning, focus, and grit.
A problem solver is more interested in optimizing the present.
They want to move away from a current negative aspect in their life.
They leverage diagnosis, stabilization (think plate spinning), and consistent execution.
An opportunity seeker will always be scanning the horizon for a better path.
They are always interested in exploring what is possible.
They leverage pattern recognition, agility, and innovative ways of achieving a desired outcome.
A goal setter might get tunnel vision and miss a better way to do something.
I can relate.
I am so tied to producing and posting a blog article each day for one year that I am probably missing out on an easier or better way to do this.
A problem solver is likely to experience burnout because they are always putting out fires.
I can also relate to this, because I think this is my primary way of figuring out what I want and what I focus on changing.
And I am a recovering corporate burnout, no doubt.
An opportunity seeker is the classic shiny-object person.
“Look, a squirrel!”
And they drop what they are doing, leave it unfinished.
They end up with many failed attempts at getting what they want.
I can also relate to this. As a creative person, I do get bored easily and seek novelty.
This got me thinking about the place questions I have been kicking around in the last couple of articles.
What would it look like if I applied each of these three approaches to those questions?
How would Each type approach the decision to go nomad for a year?
If I acted as a goal setter, I would view the decision as a project with a deadline.
I would also define some clear objectives that I want to accomplish by pursuing either route.
If I chose the nomadic year, I would establish a rigid, chronological itinerary.
I would break the year into four quarters and likely spend 90 days in four regions to ensure maximum coverage.
I would lock in a measurable spending budget and track my milestones in a spreadsheet.
If I acted as a problem solver, I would be asking what is currently broken in my life, what going nomadic for a year would solve, and how it would eliminate friction.
I would design the year-long trip defensively.
I would want to avoid bad weather, poor internet connections, and costly complications.
I would make sure I had backup supplies and equipment, and develop some automated routines that could keep me from draining my energy.
If I acted like an opportunity seeker, I would be asking: How do I keep the most doors open and introduce the highest amount of positive randomness into my life?
I would avoid a rigid itinerary like the plague.
I would be completely fluid.
I would go somewhere for a week or two, and if I loved it, I would stay longer.
No need to worry about maximum coverage or the number of places visited.
I would basically just follow my interests.
This was a fascinating little exercise.
It showed me that I have been thinking about my lifestyle design as a problem to be solved.
My approach to developing the freedom to live your truth, as exemplified in the Zeroscaping game, is all about removing unnecessary friction.
It also showed me that I tend to approach my lifestyle design problem-solving as a goal setter.
I track results. I set future targets to aim toward. I apply grit to get ’er done.
It showed me that I am way less comfortable with the opportunity seeker approach to getting what I want.
And that is what I am trying to practice more of this year.
Go with the flow, let rigidity go, roll the dice, and see how it goes.
I think I will apply this to my other key place decision.
If I were a goal setter, problem solver, or opportunity seeker, how would I go about deciding between the 12 cities on my list of contenders for a second-apartment test?
That will be a future article.
How about you?
Which type do you leverage when going after what you want?