Am I taking myself seriously by paying attention to who I am becoming?
Do I hold myself accountable when assessing how I am doing?
Do I find my original projects delightful?
Am I committed to identifying what I want most to be true about me?
Have I created friendships with people whom I can trust to speak truth to me?
Am I using my time with an appropriate level of urgency?
Transparency within is extremely difficult to achieve, especially since all of us have inside our minds residual shame schemas discouraging us from looking too deeply into what we are doing with our lives. Self-transparency starts with the idea that I can be a person who can design a unique life for myself. Then it pays attention to the extent to which one is doing that. Often we will need to rehabilitate both our healthy defensive systems and our self-esteem in order to support the level of courage and ego strength required to habituate to this line of inquiry. We will also want to detoxify our relationship with our petulant side.
And a little external structure probably wouldn’t hurt either. Perhaps an existential nightly journal that reminds us to review and ponder this list of questions would be a wise idea. At the very least, it's helpful to get into the habit of tucking ourselves into bed each night with a little think directed by that set of parental voices balanced between challenge and support. “We are our choices,” Sartre chides us. Are we proud of the choices we’re making?
The Third Move: Now we can serve up the meat and potatoes of experimentation – actually designing our research. Most of us learned about scientific methodology in school, but probably not in a way that would suggest it has anything to do with our personal lives. Certainly no one recommended that we ought to use it to drive our uniqueing. Can you imagine that lesson in sixth grade?! But, actually, most of us do use the scientific method when designing our lives, albeit unconsciously, but usually just to correct a situation that has gotten our attention.
The scientific method starts with observation. If, in your observation of how you’re doing, you decide that something needs to be redesigned, you generate an hypothesis about what might work better. Then you design an experiment to test your hypothesis. Let’s say when you review your day, you find more and more frequently that you have been indulging in a sloppy habit. It could be something specific like excessive retail therapy or something more general such as moodiness. You decide that you want the behavior modified, so you design a strategy to do that. If you’re theoretically inclined, you might read a book or two to explore why the sloppiness has increased. If not, you simply try a strategy that has worked for you in the past. To curtail spending you might use the tried-and-true writing of the budget. For moodiness, you might use mindfulness to help support a more optimistic outlook. You put the new strategy to work and watch. What you are doing while watching is data collection. What is the frequency and intensity of your shopping? How often are you moody? Very quickly your brain will move to the next step in the methodology of experimentation, which is analyzing the data. Am I shopping more or less? Are my moods better or worse or just the same? Finally, you have a discussion with yourself about the analysis and draw a conclusion. Hooray! Your concretizing your budget helps limit the type of shopping that brings on dismay. You will likely encourage yourself to continue to write out a monthly financial plan. If it doesn’t work, however, you go back to the drawing board.
It’s interesting, isn’t it, to stop and think about how much scientific design we do put into our lives as we cycle through the steps of research: observation, hypothesis, designing an experiment, gathering and analyzing the data, discussion and conclusion. Makes you feel like you should have one of those nicely starched white lab coats with you name embroidered above the pocket!
The Fourth Move: The final move we mad scientists need to take would be the psychological equivalent of publish or perish. The kind of research that gets published is, ostensibly, that which adds to a body of knowledge that leads somewhere interesting. The same should be said of our personal research, it should be leading our lives somewhere amazing.
Most folks are enterprising when it comes to a self-help rearrangement of their lives, but not too many tap into the deeply vital gift humans have for self-creation. In order to maximize our uniqueing, we will want to move away from blind, chaotic or reactionary research design to intentional and theoretical research design. We will want to start asking ourselves that grandmother of all existential questions: What would I attempt to do if I knew I could not fail?
The fourth move, then, is to fortify the target of your scientific investigation so that it exemplifies your deepest existential dreams. What the theorist in you wants to study is this question: what does it mean to me to be me? You need a fundamental project that can give a distinct shape to your life.
Nietzsche saw humans as “pregnant with a future” but only if they were able to reflect on their first person experience of their existence. What I’m talking about here is the idea of designing a body of research to explore the leading edge of you becoming you. In order to do this, you have to get comfortable with the idea of thinking big. Not necessarily big in terms of fame and fortune, but big in terms of staging your particular talents. This is an epic topic and is the subject of one of the gnarlier articles of this website: Finding Good Teachers: The Existential Whiz Kids.
Obstacles to potent existential research
Lethargy and Danger. The padded, warm rut that our life wants to settle into is the greatest obstacle to doing good research. Unless we can step out of that safe place to try new things, our lives will only go where the rut leads us. Rereading the articles on procrastination, petulance, willpower and will to power can help heave you out of your comfort zone. Of course stepping off the beaten path is risky and we often succumb to lethargy when facing that danger, but try to both seek out and take influence from cheerleading like this from Nietzsche: "To ‘give style’ to one’s character: a great and rare art! It is practiced by those who survey all the strengths and weaknesses of their nature and then fit them into an artistic plan." Indeed, every article on this website reflects my wish to provide you with motivation to keep stepping toward greater and greater research verve.
Vague hypotheses. To most of us, thinking about our strengths and weaknesses is synonymous with suffering. We just don’t want to have to do it. And generating an hypothesis about how to give style to our lives is the hardest kind of thinking there is. It’s no wonder we avoid this step or rush through it as quickly as possible.
The best hypotheses build on honest observations and provide a supposition about what makes sense to try next. Like therapy, the process starts with an investigation into how things are going. Something’s bothering you or you’re hungry for something or you see something in the world you envy. Take these clues seriously and give them a dedicated think. The best hypotheses are also created in collaboration. Find people with whom you can discuss your current thinking and your best guesses about what to do next.
But, most of all, commit to writing out a clear, explicit and brave hypothesis. Existential hypotheses are always about resource allocation, about how you are spending your existence. So a template for writing hypotheses out might be: I am aware that I’m spending too much (time, money, energy, etc.) on _____________, which isn’t serving me at this time. If I want to my essence to be ___________, how can I shift my (time, money, energy, etc.) to move in that direction? What concrete step should I try next?
Aborting the experiment. Data collection takes time. How much time is going to require some guesswork. It’s been my observation that people tend to give up on their experiments too easily, so I would encourage you to try to visualize the long plateau that often precedes change or insight, and hang in there. Here, too, it’s wise to seek out both cheerleaders and consultants. Everything is easier when it is done within community.
Misinterpreting the data. Data are always friendly! This is a great and wonderful truth. Experiments are designed to generate information, so even research that doesn’t tell us what we want to hear will still tell us something useful. If we are trying to figure out if we are ready to work and go to school at the same time, for instance, we may be dismayed to see our grades slip after we take on a job. Perhaps the results of our experiment are telling us that we have found the upper limit of the hours we can work and still maintain good grades. Perhaps our dropping grades mean we’re not ready to do both. Or perhaps the data are telling us that we can work but we’ll have to be more vigilant than we have been about studying. Whatever it is, the data are telling us something.
What they may not be doing is reinforcing our wishful thinking. If you find yourself massaging the data to support an outcome you crave, sit yourself down and have a think. You don’t have to give up on the outcome you want, but don’t ignore the data. Think, consult and perhaps redesign the experiment to try again, but don’t go beyond your data. They are friends trying to tell you something you may need to know.
The most exciting scientific discovery for each of us ought to involve the exploration of who we are becoming. Using experiments great and small, we research the question: What do I want to be true about me?
A day spent uniqueing is a day well spent!
An example: A recent spat in our neighborhood sent me back into investigating something I thought I knew about myself. I am a polite person. I value politeness, the empathy required to be specifically courteous and the effort it takes to enact civil behaviors. It was shocking to me to be accused of being impolite. I began to investigate my hypothesis that I am a polite person. As the data rolled in, I found many examples of the courteous acts I value, but I also found times when I was brusque or didactic. After a good think, I realized that, while my outward behavior was most often polite, inside my skull kingdom I was very often impatient and dismissive. The data showed me something that generated a new line of inquiry: is it important to me to be polite or to be seen as polite? Not much of a think was required to recognize that I want to be polite whether or not people always see my behavior as such. I decided to experiment with aligning my two worlds to see if increasing my interior civility would affect the percentage of my outward politeness. I’ll let you know what I find out…