Hack Your Habits | Modern Wisdom Podcast | Spencer Greenburg | Podcast Summary | The Pod Slice
Transcript
In a discussion with podcast host, Chris Williamson, guest Spencer Greenburg of the Modern Wisdom Podcast delves into the effectiveness of personality tests, specifically contrasting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Big Five Personality Traits model. Greenburg reveals an exciting recent study his team conducted, pitting these two popular personality test models against each other in terms of predictive accuracy.
While the Myers-Briggs, a commercially sold and widely appreciated tool measures four personality factors, the Big Five, hailed by academics as the “gold standard,” attaches attributes to five primary personality traits. To put these two models to the test, Greenburg’s team used various elements of an individual’s life, like life satisfaction levels, number of friends, and instances of being arrested among others.
As part of the experiment, the team also involved astrological sun signs for calibration. The astrology predictions showcased 0% predictive accuracy for all 42 tested outcomes. The MBTI-inspired test (dubbed the ‘Yan test’ by Greenburg), on the other hand, managed a correlation of 0.11, while the Big Five outperformed both with double of MBTI’s score, standing at 0.22.
Greenburg humorously observes that the MBTI was essentially “halfway between astrology and the Big Five.” The experimental results suggest that even though the Big Five has one extra factor, which could theoretically give it an advantage, even after eliminating this factor, the Big Five still outperforms the MBTI with a score of 0.14.
An essential point to consider is that MBTI test often presents results as dichotomies: you’re either Reflection-oriented (I) or Directing-oriented (E), or you’re either Imagining (N) or Sensing (S). This “dichotomizing” approach, according to Greenburg, can lead to errors and inaccuracies, as personality traits typically fall on a bell curve, and creating a binary only lumps moderate and extreme traits together.
Despite the relatively lower predictive power, Greenburg defends the MBTI, pointing out it’s useful as a handy communication tool, providing a quick shorthand language about an individual’s personality. Moreover, he extends this discussion into the Big Five framework, explaining how each trait comprises various qualities. However, he is slightly unsure about the need to include a sixth factor (as suggested by the HEXACO model) unless it significantly influences outcomes.
Praising the brevity of the MBTI, Williamson and Greenburg agree on the efficiency-speed tradeoff between the Big Five and the MBTI. Despite the Big Five’s superior predictive power, participants found both models to be equally accurate, further highlighting the appeal of the MBTI.
Further delving into the conversation, Spencer Greenberg discusses how the language of the MBTI is much more appealing than that of the Big Five. The MBTI doesn’t label anyone as “bad”, but rather as either “thinking” or “feeling,” both of which sound far more positive than being labeled “disagreeable” or “neurotic” by the Big Five.
The conversation then shifts to understanding habits. Greenberg shares that his team performed two major studies to understand what works best when setting habits. They tested 22 different habit techniques with approximately 500 people. They found that the majority of these techniques had no effect, underscoring how difficult behavior change really is.
Interestingly, one of the strongest predictors of whether someone can form a habit is simply motivation at the outset. Greenberg advises picking a habit you’re genuinely excited about.
Out of their experiments, they found five techniques that showed promise. The first, called Habit Reflection, involves reflecting on a successful past habit and applying those strategies to a new one. The second, called Home Reminders, involves placing notes around the house as triggers for the habit. Both methods were surprisingly effective.
Greenberg goes on to mention another effective strategy: Mini Habits. This technique involves creating a tiny, achievable version of a larger habit. For example, if one wants to establish a workout routine, they might first set a smaller goal of doing 10 push-ups daily. This, Greenberg suggests, is a simple but practical way to bypass the biggest hindrance to forming a habit – not starting at all.
Finally, Greenberg echoes the concept promoted by James Clear in his book, Atomic Habits – that of identity-based habits. Seeing oneself as “the sort of person who goes to the gym and does 10 push-ups even when they have no time” can have a powerful reinforcing effect. The idea is to avoid labeling oneself as a failure, and instead, celebrate every small victory on the path to bigger behavioral changes.
The podcast dialogue reveals an interesting technique that Greenberg and his team found to be effective in establishing habits: calling in a supportive friend. According to Greenberg, care should be taken in choosing a supportive friend who may be helpful in reinforcing the habit and offering motivation. Different people serve different functions, some may be a workout buddy, while others simply offer a check-in mechanism. The interaction with this supportive friend boosts the habit formation process, providing yet another person to be accountable to.
Greenberg also introduces the final technique in their habit toolkit: Listing Habit Benefits. As simple as it sounds, this technique involves writing down all the potential benefits that can come from forming the intended habit. This is aimed at bolstering the initial motivation, and can also be reviewed periodically to rejuvenate flagging incentive.
In a surprising revelation, Greenberg shares that a technique, called ‘WOOP’ (Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, Plan), well-recognized in the academic literature didn’t yield any results during their study. This was shocking given it had been lauded as a successful habit-formation technique. Greenberg suggests this could have been the result of implementation errors or a mere fluke but advises listeners to consider it with a grain of salt.
Moving into a completely different philosophical discussion, Greenberg introduces the concept of ‘Valuism’. This is a personal philosophy based on the distinction between ‘intrinsic’ and ‘instrumental’ values. Intrinsic values are desired for their own merits, things like happiness or love. Instrumental values, like money, are deemed valuable for what they allow us to achieve. It’s in making this distinction, focusing on intrinsic values, and utilizing methods to attain these values that the philosophy of ‘iValuism’ is based on.
The podcast continues with Greenberg and Williamson deep-diving into the notion of ‘values’ and where they originate from. According to Greenberg, values are a medley of our genetic predispositions, societal teachings, and life experiences. Moreover, he notes that values tend to be relatively stable after mid-20s to 30s, though they can still undergo subtle changes based on significant life events. However, Greenberg warns against actively trying to mold our values, stating that it contradicts the very essence of valuing something because it’s fundamentally important to us.
Following the thread of values, Greenberg highlights the significance of ‘virtues’ and ‘principles’. He distinguishes virtues from values, suggesting virtues are qualities one aspires to embody, while values define what one inherently cares for. One such virtue for Greenberg is honesty, which he sees intertwined with his intrinsic value of truth-telling.
The idea of life principles is further explored, with Greenberg defining them as decision-making heuristics or rules of thumb to augment the decision-making process. He provides an example from his own life: when he makes a mistake, he acknowledges it and learns from it. This principle, he believes, helps him avoid issues of self-doubt and self-control. These principles then form another layer in the stack defining an individual.
Greenberg emphasizes the importance of understanding one’s values to navigate life effectively, highlighting the dangers of confusion between personal values and those imposed by others. This insight is supported by an anecdote about a friend of his, who was dating a person who resonated with her parents’ values rather than her own, which led to her dissatisfaction in the relationship. The conversation underscores the importance of self-understanding and the need to align actions with personal values, rather than external expectations.
In the podcast, Greenberg makes a fundamental point about the complexities of living by one’s values. He concedes that it’s a common occurrence to discover that certain actions don’t align with our intrinsic values. This discrepancy might arise from societal pressures or personal confusions, possibly dragging someone off their true course of action. He further explains this with a simple example about people who love animals yet contribute to practices that harm them, reflecting a conflict between their values and actions.
Surrounding the role of intuition in decision-making, Greenberg offers a nuanced perspective. He recognizes the clash between people who religiously trust their intuition and others who staunchly advocate for rational, analytical thought. To resolve this, he proposes the FIRE (Fast, Irrelevant, Repetitious, Evolutionary) framework which provides a basis on when to trust intuition and when to lean on rational analysis.
With ‘Fast’, he talks about how intuition is beneficial when we need to make quick decisions – the kind we encounter while driving, for instance. ‘Irrelevant’ underscores situations where the impact of the decision is so minor that relying on intuition is efficient, such as deciding whether to include carrots in your salad. ‘Repetitious’ refers to decisions we’ve made multiple times, enabling our intuition to learn and improve with each repetition – somewhat akin to mastering a game of chess. Finally, ‘Evolutionary’ touches on decisions that are ingrained in our DNA, and where intuition has been honed over generations, like reacting to a potential threat.
Greenberg highlights the importance of integrating intuition with rational thought and suggests learning from intuition rather than letting it entirely control the decision-making process. He emphasizes treating intuition as a source of information, considering both what it advises and whether it complies or conflicts with rational analysis. To facilitate this integration, he recommends introspecting on the source of the intuitive feeling, giving it the recognition it deserves without letting it completely sway decision-making.
This intriguing portion of the podcast presents a conversation between host Chris Williamson and guest Spencer Greenberg, where they delve deeply into the complexities of intuition and its relation to cognition.
Greenberg likens our intuition to a neural network carrying out complex operations hidden from our immediate understanding. However, the tricky part is trying to harness this intuitive power effectively. He suggests it’s worth taking the time to analyse when else a particular negative vibe has occurred in order to understand the patterns our intuition is picking up on.
Williamson mentions that some people tend to talk themselves into or out of various feelings or emotions to the point where they start to disassociate from their intuition. They instead develop a relationship with the story they tell themselves about what their intuition is signalling, which takes them away from intuition and into the realm of cognition.
Greenberg supports this by stating that after traumatic events, people find it increasingly difficult to trust their intuition as fear and other emotions cloud their logic. It’s critical, he explains, to know how to balance use of intuition and analytical power and to master both techniques rather than abandoning one for the other.
Williamson and Greenberg both agree on the importance of wisdom and discuss the nuances of defining it. Wisdom, according to Greenberg, is achieving consistency between core aspects of oneself: values, beliefs, and actions. He presents wisdom as causal control, i.e., considering the complexity of one’s situation and using the understanding of oneself and the world to achieve beneficial outcomes on average.
They further delve into the concept that wisdom is the product of knowledge and goodness. A purely knowledgeable or purely good person may not be wise, but if knowledge and goodness come together, the result — wisdom — is more profound and impactful. This discussion reinforces the concept that wisdom is not static and may evolve according to the perspective of every individual.
In the podcast, the discussion pivots towards the nature of evil and its relationship with values. Greenberg posits that evil can arise in different ways. One type of evil he labels as “philosophical disorder”, wherein someone’s deeply-held, false belief prompts harmful actions. For instance, a kind person who joins a cult and believes they should cause harm might think they’re saving the world, hence committing an evil act driven by a false belief.
Greenberg distinguishes this from evil committed by those indifferent to anyone’s interests but their own, a decidedly rare occurrence. Often, evil deeds stem from perceiving the value in a harmful action rather than aiming to create deliberate harm. Discussing their studies, Greenberg observes a lack of intrinsic value in harming others amongst people, emphasizing that evil actions often stem from a lack of values to help others, rather than a desire to harm.
They further explore the ongoing discussion in movies and cartoons, where villains often have a physical representation of their malice, making the identification of evil straightforward. However, the majority of real-life evil stems from individuals following what they view as righteous paths, often leading to suffering due to unintended consequences.
The podcast then examines wisdom as a virtue, characterized by behaviors like courage, honesty, and kindness. Williamson describes this as a tribute to traditional wisdom, where courage and other virtues facilitate choosing right actions. They regard wisdom as a process rather than an action, focusing on searching for essential truths about life and applying these insights in theoretical and real-life situations.
Lastly, the concept of ‘wisdom as perspective’ is introduced, suggesting that wisdom is about viewing the world from different vantage points. This encompasses the idea of Spiral Dynamics, of observing the world through multiple lenses and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of different perspectives. This balance of various perspectives fosters a more profound wisdom that acknowledges the complexities of the world.
In their conversation, Williamson and Greenberg explore the challenges of wisdom and the pitfalls of being trapped in a single perspective. Wisdom doesn’t necessarily come from a singular viewpoint, but rather the synthesis of multiple perspectives. This allows for a robust understanding of problems by recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of different viewpoints and decisively choosing the best aspects of each one.
Greenberg’s study of wisdom underlines it as a continuous learning process rather than a fixed state of being. He emphasizes that it can be frustrating due to the high hurdles set for wisdom’s attainment, referring to it as a “gauntlet of hell”. However, despite its challenges, he indicates that elements of wisdom such as knowledge, self-consistency, and causal control are intrinsically rewarding.
Williamson shares his personal experiences echoing the sentiment that when these elements are absent from life, one tends to feel worse about themselves. For instance, he felt low when he was not able to influence outcomes, indicating a lack of causal control. Similarly, inconsistency between his actions, intentions, beliefs, values, and outcomes disrupted his sense of self. He felt stagnant when he stopped seeking knowledge or even when he misused it, like using neuro-linguistic programming for seduction or manipulation.
Despite the hurdles, he finds wisdom gratifying and reflective of a progressive accumulation over time. His belief is that wisdom is not just beneficial for personal growth, but it enhances the world around us, making it a universal panacea for most problems.
Rather than seeing the pursuit of wisdom as grueling, Greenberg views it as gratifying. He acknowledges that completely achieving any of the definitions of wisdom is difficult, but believes in the virtue of striving for these ideals. If one consistently works towards any one of these definitions, he considers them to be doing great.
Finally, Greenberg encourages people to check out the resources available on his website, focusing on clear thinking and healthy habits. The tools are offered as a public service and aimed at providing free assistance on a range of topics from measuring one’s intrinsic values to developing healthy habits. His ongoing podcast, The Clear Thinking Podcast, is another resource for those interested in diving deeper into these discussions.
Check out the full podcast by clicking the link in the description below. Make sure to like, comment, and subscribe for more content like this. Thank you for listening to this podcast summary episode of The Pod Slice.