Is a schedule enough to transform a habit?

I found that only planning isn’t enough to support a new habit. Somehow any schedule isn’t right somewhere. I forget to incorporate things; I take more time than I anticipated – to name a few irritations. It will need something else too. Why and what?

We have 2 brains (neo cortex), and with planning, we only address one brain. So we forgot our other brain. To instruct the right brain we need to set up guiding principles or rules that guide us towards our goals. And those rules need to be worded in such a way we can make an actual picture of it, we can see us doing it. Only then can the right brain support the left brain. Forgetting the right brain means, it is likely to undermine our striving for results – as I’ve noticed.

My transformation rules
• I must make rules that support myself in developing my new habit of time-awareness and planning + acting on it
• I must plan, and act on it
• I must fight for my sleep as well as for my actions
• I must incorporate leisure time

And these are just the beginning. I’ll add to or replace or redefine them as I work with them.


Transformation – can we always get a task done quicker?

They say that when you allow less time for a task to finish it, that you can finish it quicker. Is that really the case? Are there not personal limits, like: energy, skills, social possibilities, or the nature of the task?

Or is “if we allow less time to work on a project, we often produce better results” true like it says: ‘often’? So is it indeed something that does not work all the time, but most of the time, especially for things we have done before?

“Parkinson’s advice to us is to create our own mini deadlines within the real deadlines in order to ensure we do not make a mountain out of a molehill.” []

I see 2 statements: One is creating smaller deadlines within the big deadlines, meaning: dividing the big deadlines in smaller parts, taking steps to accomplish something.

The other supposedly refers to preventing worrying or second guessing yourself. But there is a difference: if you are scientifically certain about what you know, then you needn’t second guess. Only if you’re not sure about what you know you can second guess. And, maybe sometimes you do need to judge. I therefore don’t agree about always not-second guessing.

The idea of putting a limit to things, by creating urgency, is sound, for life itself is limited – our personal life I mean.

And the idea of creating deadlines within deadlines, as steps towards the finish, that leads to getting it done quicker, since you figured the steps already out.

(26) Wrong direction (fallacy)

(1) All men are mortal.
(2) Socrates is mortal.
(3) ∴ Socrates is a man.

What is wrong here? As we saw under “the simplest logical proof” on this blog (24), there is a certain order to the references. If I substitute the terms for capital letters, then the syllogism looks like this:
(1) A are B
(2) C is B
(3) ∴ C is A

If we compare with the correct syllogism:
(1) All men are mortal.     (A are B)
(2) Socrates is a man.     (C is A)
(3) ∴ Socrates is mortal.  (C is B)

The middle term (mortal) is used as a conclusion; the order of minor premise (2) and conclusion is reversed. And thereby the effect has become the cause.
The wrong direction is a causal fallacy, in which cause (man) and effect (mortal) are reversed.
The 3 key concepts in the correct order are: men ->  mortal -> Socrates.

(24) What is the simplest logical proof?

The idea is to weave a whole of referrals from which we can conclude something irrefutable. We call this deductive reasoning. How do we do that?

Two assumptions, called premises, lead to a conclusion. The premises are simple sentences or statements that consist a subject and a predicate.
The two premises have a common term: the 2nd (minor) premise’s predicate refers back to the 1st (major) premise’s subject.
Also, each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion. The major premise (1) has the same major term (predicate), the conclusion’s predicate; and the minor premise (2) has the minor term (subject), the conclusion’s subject in common. With shared terms, we have constructed a new fact: a conclusion (3).

Example of reasoning at work:

(1) All men are mortal.
(2) Socrates is a man.
(3) ∴  Socrates is mortal.

This is the classic example of a syllogism, a logical argument in which the conclusion is deduced from two (or more) premises. Although I’ve seen it many times, I still love the symmetry of this simple proof.

(23) Miscommunication: contradictory premises

Could we fix it?
We continue with our search to fill in the blanks of the statement: If an object is all black and all white at the same time, then its color is …

Attempt 1: Could we get more information about the object? No, the object is completely black and also completely white, and that’s all we know about the object. So there’s no way to know which of the colors the true one is.

Attempt 2: Or, could we introduce a second object? Then at least the colors on the object would not contradict. But then we have another problem.

Where is it wrong?
Attempt 1: Logic tells us that we need to use only the given data. Through using specific rules, together with these data, we arrive at a logical conclusion. If however two statements – or premises as they are called – say something is true and something is also not true, then we have a problem. Aristotle says: “Contradicting premises cannot both be true at the same time.” So we haven’t got a clue as to which color we can exclude.

Attempt 2: We would make 2 mistakes:
1. Having added new data, we would not have used solely the given data.
2. The rule for a logical proof is that it has a certain form. The premises are part of the form, and they have a subject and a predicate – both called terms – that connect to each other in a certain way. And the terms of the conclusion connect back to the terms of the premises.

So then, instead of having it repaired to avoid the contradiction, we would have created 2 unconnected statements, from which we can’t ever draw a conclusion, because they don’t form a coherent argument. Having only one premise, we can’t prove a thing.

What is the solution?
What’s left? The only thing we can determine is that we can’t conclude anything that is logical, because there’s no logic in this statement to begin with.

Actually, it’s even worse.
A logical rule states that from a contradiction we can conclude anything. To understand this fully, we need to be trained in propositional logic.

Not only can we not exclude any of the given data in this statement, but the logic also adds to this, that since no exclusions can be made, any conclusion is possible. When the number of ‘solutions’ is limitless, we say nothing (distinguishable).

(22) Miscommunication: contradictory premises

Sun. 3-3-2013
Try to solve this one
If an object is all black and all white at the same time, what color is it?

What does it say exactly?
If an object is all black
and at the same time this object is all white
then its color is …

Asked of us is to conclude something from facts that contradict each other.

What not to do?
When something contradicts, don’t hope or believe or wish it might be possible to somehow make it work; don’t even think about trying it.
Also: don’t panic, or give up.

A belief is subjective; it is based on a person’s perspective or emotions. It is not supported by evidence, or verifiable.
Facts on the other hand, have actually happened; they are provable by experience or experiment.
When facts contradict, they will never work together, neither in our universe, nor in another universe. The only possibility is that either the one color or the other is true (or real). But how are we to know which one?

Tomorrow I’ll elaborate on the solution.

(19) Fallacies

Thu. 28-2-2013
Since the logic in reasoning is usually treated with even less respect than the data, we can expect many mistakes.
What fallacy categories are there? The formal and informal fallacies have several or even many types of mistakes.
• Formal fallacies are mistakes made in the logic, but not in the data.
• Informal linguistic fallacies can e.g. shift the meaning (accent).
• Informal fallacies of relevance are mistakes in logic and data that stem from a faulty (psychological) angle and are frequently used as a means of deliberate manipulation.

The fallacies of relevance have 3 subcategories:
– Omission: e.g. data are omitted (bogus dilemma)
– Presumption: e.g. data are not considered (apriorism) – hoping the listener will not check these.
– Intrusion: e.g. an emotion is evoked, where instead should be reasoned (emotional appeal).
The fallacies of relevance are used as a diversionary tactic, just to put the listener on the wrong track.

Being familiar with these types of fallacies, we can recognize them in arguments.  Understanding fallacies greatly enhances our communication skills, and it can prevent us from making these mistakes ourselves – with unintended negative consequences.

Since we ‘smell the rat’ in intended manipulative reasoning, their influence will be greatly diminished. When we contradict the fallacy – not afraid to ignore the manipulators’ intention – we have completely freed ourselves from this manipulation. As a positive side-effect, the manipulator might ‘flee’ – afraid of repeated exposure.

If we want to reason upright, we need to develop our logical reasoning, and examine the logic that prevents from making formal fallacies.

While I am walking and exercising the dogs, while I limit their annoying behavior, I see them already growing into happier dogs.

(18) How do we prevent miscommunication?

Wed. 27-2-2013
We need to evaluate the interpretation of the communication. This happens in three main steps.

1. We separate the logic from the data in the communication. Does this result in a logical form?
If yes, then we deduce its logical meaning or meanings. These are the logical implications of the communication.

2. Then the question is: How do we check the linguistic statement’s data?  We are looking to prove that the data are not-wrong.

3. Now we can safely conclude that we understand the meaning of the linguistic statement fully – it is proven valid – and we can build on its data with confidence. Such a statement is called sound.

Updates on my goals
The last hour up earlier. I have moved the start of my day up to 9AM.

Summary – How do we prevent miscommunication?

1. What is the logical form and thus what are its implications?
2. We prove the linguistic statement’s data to be not-wrong
3. If the statement can be reduced to a logical form, a meaning, and its data proved to be not-wrong, then we can conclude the linguistic statement is sound.

(17) Updates on my goals

(Tue. 26-2-2013)
Breaking a bad habit
Up another hour earlier. So far I have moved the start of my day up for about 6 hours(!). So my bad habit is gradually turning and is almost turned into a good one!

For the social (‘personal’) part of my contest
The animal shelter approved of me walking dogs for them. Today was my first ‘dogs-encounter’. It’s great to communicate with them and find they, a Shih Tzu and a Yorkshire terrier, have a great time with me. This way both parties win. The dog owner was amazed that the dogs behaved better than usual with me.

I have designed a basic schedule that would support my writing, blogging, study and ‘personal’ goals. I already have some planning (goals) in place, and I need to get up just one hour earlier (today!) so that I have the time I need for my writing goal.

(16) Setting up an accountability system

Mon. 25-2-2013
Make a master list of all the things you’d like to accomplish & keep it close by.

• Which basics (ignition) keep you moving forward?
Setting time, working in advance, having lists in place & working on those

• Consistent action habits that will move you forward (daily/weekly/monthly) to contribute to your success:
so you can check off your milestones – keep tweaking this list

• Where to get ideas e.g. for content:
success leaves clues; model others

• Plan an off-site business development day to plan every month in advance for:
which studies, ideas to market (blog, article, forum, …), products/services; financial -, administrative -, organizational -, systems goal…

• Keep a victory log of your accomplishments:
a highlight sheet of your monthly accomplishments

• Plan 1-3 extreme focus sessions each week:
choose a #1 priority project from your master list

• List your top 4 priorities each day:
and work on those first
(Helen Raptoplous came up with these tips)

Did some time-registration, study and worked on accountability system to get it in place.