Say Something

One more thing about Ferguson:

Please, please, please, to all of my followers, if nothing else, talk about this. It doesn’t matter if you don’t have anything new to add. It doesn’t matter if you can’t add some unique, insightful angle. Just talk about it. Say that it’s unacceptable. Write that it’s unacceptable. That it’s horrendous.

Maybe you can’t join protests, and maybe you can’t afford to donate, and that is okay. But the least any of us can do is to talk about this. The least we can do is to add our voices, however small or large they may be, to the rest of the voices speaking out against this. The least we can do is to say, out loud, that this is happening, that it’s appalling, and that it has to change.

Doing that matters. Every single person doing that matters.

Say something.

By ResearchToBeDone Posted in other

There Will Be No Charges Against Darren Wilson

America doesn’t care about terrorism.

This is terrorism. This is innocent people getting killed for no reason. This is innocent people getting killed and the group that did it lying about the facts of what happened over and over and over and over and over. This is innocent people getting killed and protestors getting tear-gassed and fired upon with rubber bullets when they object to that killing. Innocent people getting killed for no reason and no one going to trial, and the perpetrator making hundreds of thousands of dollars off of the killing.

If the cops in Ferguson really thought they were doing the right thing, they wouldn’t have done everything they could to keep the media from recording what they were doing during the protests, up to and including firing on journalists. They wouldn’t have stopped wearing name tags. They wouldn’t have lied. Repeatedly. About what happened.

We are perfectly fine with terrorism as long as it’s against black people. Perfectly fine with it. So fine with it that if you kill a black kid you don’t even have to go to trial.

All it takes for us to look the other way when terrorism happens is for the terrorists to be wearing badges and uniforms.

Think about that.

Think about that and fucking do something.

By ResearchToBeDone Posted in other

Reconceptualizing the Placebo Effect

Disclaimer: I read about pain research regularly, but I’m not a doctor/medical professional, and there’s always the chance I’m talking out my own ass. So while perhaps it would be advisable to take the following somewhat with a grain of salt, I will endeavor to make it as accurate and interesting a grain of salt as I am able.

I had a conversation with a friend a while ago about pain. I was talking about the idea that your brain can create pain independent of any actual physical damage to your body. You can hook a person up to a device and tell them it will be, say, running a current through them that is proportionate to how far a dial is turned, and they will report a pain experience proportionate to how far the dial is turned, even when the device does not actually do anything.

Her response to this was, “Oh, yeah, the placebo effect!”

This threw me, because she was absolutely right, but I hadn’t thought about that phenomenon in terms of the the placebo effect in quite some time.

When I think about the placebo effect, I think of it the same way that I think about a computer bug. It’s a mistake, a glitch, an error in the way the system was written. It’s as though the system works in a particular way – that is, it is designed to produce pain in response to physical damage – and the placebo effect is the phenomenon where every now and then the system gets fucked up and overwritten by what we think is actually happening.

That way of thinking about the placebo effect is wrong. It took having this conversation for me to realize that. The placebo effect isn’t a bug in the sense that I was thinking about it. For the most part, it’s a feature. The placebo effect happens as a result of the fact that your brain always, without exception, takes context into account when making a decision about whether or not to create an experience of pain. The fact that it sometimes gets this wrong isn’t because of some random glitch in the system, it’s an inescapable byproduct of how the system fundamentally works. In some sense, every physical experience you have is the placebo effect.

What I mean by that is that every physical experience you have is modulated by context that has nothing to do with what is actually happening to you physically, and everything to do with the associations you have with what is happening to you physically, with contextual cues, et cetera. That isn’t a separate phenomenon, it isn’t something that happens sometimes, it is a basic, core part of how every physical sensation happens (or doesn’t).

Fun example fact: if you prick the finger of a dancer and then of a violinist, there’s a pretty good chance the same prick will hurt more for the violinist. Their finger is more important to their wellbeing, and so the context of the prick is that it represents a greater threat to the violinist, and thus there is a greater impulse to avoid it, and thus the brain will create a correspondingly greater experience of pain1.

It’s time again to review Lorimer Moseley’s snake bite story2,3, because it’s such a perfect illustration of this idea:

Lorimer was hiking with some friends one day and felt a mild twinge on his leg, thought nothing of it, and ended up in a hospital having been bitten by an incredibly poisonous snake. One of the effects of snake venom is that it locks nociceptors into an activated position, so the amount of danger signals sent to the brain would have been massive, and yet when those signals got to the brain, the brain had no historical context to indicate such signals were dangerous, and so did not create a correspondingly massive pain experience. In fact, it created almost no sensory experience at all. As a result, Lorimer nearly died. About six months later, however, Lorimer was hiking again and experienced a sudden, massive pain on his leg in the same place as before, and very nearly ended up taking a trip to the hospital until one of his friends took a glance at the leg and discovered that it was only a tiny scratch from a twig.

In both of those cases, the system failed. When the trigger was a snake bite, the brain did not produce a sensory experience that felt anything like a snake bite. Later, when the trigger was only a twig, the brain interpreted it, mistakenly, as incredibly dangerous, presumably because it then had the context of the near-fatal snakebite informing the sensory interpretation.

So why does this matter? It matters because this model makes it possible to better understand what’s going on with the placebo effect and how the phenomenon of pain being modulated by context can be applied to solving pain problems.

In Lorimer’s story, we have an illustration of both sides of the coin: not having an experience of pain when it would have made more sense to have one, and having an experience of pain when it would have made more sense not to.

Here’s one of the ways I apply this model of thinking: what does it mean when someone says acupuncture cured their chronic pain, given that we know acupuncture performs no better than sham acupuncture in studies4?

The interesting thing to note here is that both the pain and the cessation of pain could have nothing to do with damage to the body. I.e. it is possible to experience chronic pain that is not a result of physical damage, and it is also possible to stop experiencing pain regardless of whether or not any physical damage has actually been fixed. All that needs to change is what your brain thinks of what is going on.

So what happens if your brain thought something was wrong when nothing actually was, and then for whatever complex, chaotic, emergent reasons thought that acupuncture had fixed it?

Well, acupuncture would have, quite literally, cured your pain.

I want to be very clear here that this does not mean I’m advocating acupuncture as a treatment. Given the right context, just about any experience you could imagine, if it hits your brain at just the right time and angle, has some chance of convincing your brain everything is fine. The fact that acupuncture may possibly do this does not meaningfully distinguish it from homeopathy, prayer, or exorcism.

But I do think it’s an idea worth thinking about. Anything that changes the context in which your brain processes physical experiences has the potential to change the nature of those experiences, e.g. to make things hurt or not hurt. Anything at all. Because our brains are generally very good at evaluating context effectively, we don’t notice how powerful this influence is, but it’s always there and it has significant implications for thinking about pain and the placebo effect5.

1 Explain Pain (2013)

2 Video of him telling the story

3 Original post where I wrote this summary of the story

4  Though both sham acupuncture and regular acupuncture to slightly outperform nothing at all, which has led to some fascinating hypotheses about why that may be the case.

5 A good example of these implications are some of the studies that have shown that educating pain patients about pain actually reduces their experiences of pain.

By ResearchToBeDone Posted in other


I’ve been contemplating a cross-country move lately, mostly due to finances being tight. It’s a big decision, and I’m not 100% decided on it yet, but over the past week or so I’ve been leaning heavily in the direction of making the move. Today and yesterday, though, I started leaning a bit the other way again.

I’m still not sure what I’m going to decide, but I realized something this morning: thinking about changing my mind again to staying here didn’t feel like that big a deal. Neither does the idea of doing a move.

I mean, it will be a lot of work. But I know I can do it because I’ve done it a few times before and I’m not particularly worried about it.

“You never get to the point where you think “I am the adult”, but you do get to the point where you think “I’ve dealt with this before.” The older you get, the higher and higher the percentage is of things you’ve already been through. Have you ever changed a tire? Had a flat tire? Someday, you might, and the next time it happens, you’ll know what to do, since you’ve already done it.”

- Tumblr Post

It feels like a personal growth moment.

By ResearchToBeDone Posted in other

Disambiguating Trust

I’ve been having a recurring thought lately about the idea of trusting people.

More specifically, I’ve been thinking about the idea of asking “Do you trust this person?”. It’s a very simple question and the more I think about it an incredibly oversimplistic one.

In my experience, asking whether or not you trust someone is generally about whether or not you trust their intentions. The answer to that question is yes if they want good things for you and generally try to do right by you. The thing is, in an enormous number of situations knowing that isn’t enough.

The set of people whom I trust to have good intentions toward me is much larger than the set of people I would trust with confidential information about me, for example. It’s not just about trusting intentions, it’s about trusting abilities as well.

For example, if a company I’m applying to asks me to fill out a form and email it back to them, and that form includes personally identifying information such as my Social Security number, address, date of birth, etc., I may be able to trust that they don’t intend to give my information to anyone else, but I can’t trust that they have any idea what precautions are important to prevent anyone else from getting it. Asking someone to send that kind of information over email is a dead giveaway that you have no idea which forms of communication are reliably secure and which aren’t. It means I can’t trust you with my personal information even if I can trust your intentions.

I find that in many situations “What can I trust this person about?” is a better question than “Can I trust this person?”. The set of people I know who I am comfortable discussing my gender with, for example, is much smaller than the set of people who I think would be okay with and supportive of it in a general way. Positive intentions are great, but they are not the only thing I need to trust someone with that information. I also need to trust people to judge accurately who I would be comfortable having that information shared with and who I wouldn’t. I need to be able to trust them to understand it well enough that I wouldn’t have to spend long conversations with them dealing with microaggressions.

I made a post last year about a situation that is another good example of this principle (paraphrased somewhat for conciseness):

A friend of mine volunteered to have every-other-weekly get-togethers to offer support. I, however, was apprehensive that by needing that support that often, I was going to be too heavy a friend.

When I expressed that fear, she responded by telling me that this wasn’t something she had decided to do blindly. She had considered, in making the offer, that the worst-case scenario was that it would consist of nothing but giving me support every single time we did it. She had considered that, and decided that doing that every-other-weekly would be handleable for her.

I can’t think of a better example of what it means to be a mature adult than this. To be sufficiently aware of, first, the fact that that kind of worst-case-scenario assessment is important to make when offering this kind of support, and, second, to be sufficiently aware of how many spoons that commitment may cost you to make an accurate assessment of whether or not that worst-case scenario would be a manageable commitment to make.

It’s so much easier to trust someone who says they can offer you something when you feel like you can trust that person to know whether or not they are offering something that they are genuinely capable of following through on.

As mentioned in that post, this also speaks to the importance of being able to self-assess with respect to things like this. It was not, in the above situation, my trust in my friend’s good intentions toward me that made me trust them more after we had that conversation. My trust in their good intentions toward me was pretty much the same after as before. It was the trust I had that they would and could think about and accurately predict not just whether or not they wanted to help, but also whether or not they were capable of offering to help that they wanted to be able to offer.

One last example, because I think it fleshes out the point well: I trust different of my friends to have accurate knowledge about different things, and to be more or less skeptical about what they think they know. If a biologist friend of mine tells me “Did you hear they found the gene responsible for X disease?”, I assume that really happened whereas with another friend of mine, I might think it’s more likely they read some massively oversimplifying article in a magazine somewhere.

Trust is fiddly. Whether or not I trust someone is too simple a question to be very useful in many situations. Some people I trust in certain specific ways, and other people I trust in certain other specific ways. Some people I trust about different things in different degrees. So much of the time, the difference isn’t about trusting intentions, but trusting things like knowledge and capability. It’s not about whether I trust a person, it’s about what I trust them about.

By ResearchToBeDone Posted in other

Thoughts on Kissing and Being a Good Listener

I was talking with a friend the other day about kissing.

I wrote a post a while ago about the idea of being a “good kisser” and how it didn’t make sense to me. I commented to my friend that, more recently, I have found myself coming around somewhat on the idea of kissing being a skill. I said I’m not sure if that is because it actually is more of a skill than I had thought when I wrote that post, or if I have just developed a strong bias toward the particular styles of kissing that I prefer, and started interpreting that as “skill”.

They responded by saying that they think a big part of being good at kissing is adapting your style to the style of the other person. This hit upon an idea that I had thought about before but hadn’t actually put into words until this conversation: it all comes down to being a good listener.

You can’t adapt your style to the unique accent of each person you kiss unless you listen to them. You have to listen to the ways that they move, the ways that they move away from you or towards you, press into you, shift around you, increase or decrease intensity, etc. Different people work in different ways — the way one person moves when they want to get a better angle maybe the way another person moves when they want to stop. The noise one person makes when they like something can sound incredibly similar to the noise another person might make when you are biting a little too hard. Often it isn’t too hard to tell the difference if you’re listening. Sometimes it is, though, and at those times, listening skills are still what’s important.

One of the big pieces of advice on being a good listener is to ask questions that help you understand the things the person you’re listening to is saying. You can have trouble understanding a movement, a sigh, or a shudder in the same way you might have trouble understanding a story. When you do, in either case, you ask what is meant by them.

This isn’t just about kissing. It’s about cuddling and it’s about sex and it’s about, hell, playing improvisational music together. In all of these things, a certain degree of adaptation is incredibly important, and getting that adaptation right is impossible without listening to what’s going on on the other end.

I wonder if that is part of what I’m noticing when I think of people as “good at” or “not good at” kissing: the ones who seem to be the best that it are the ones who know how to listen.

By ResearchToBeDone Posted in other

Dr. Gregory House and the Bad Decisions We Make Because Empathy

I was re-watching some old House episodes on Netflix recently, and there was an episode where one of the patients is a woman with heart issues caused by bulimia. I don’t remember the particular details of how her issues go from Super Mysterious Oh My God On What Is Going On to that specific diagnosis, but they’re not really important. What is important as we get almost to the end of the episode, past the point where we’ve developed some familiarity and empathy with this patient, and House ends up faced with the decision of whether or not to recommend that she be moved to the top of the list of those waiting for a heart transplant in spite of the fact that bulimia makes her a higher-risk candidate for it.

In the end, he has a Deep, Heartfelt Talk with her where she agrees to Do Better, and House decides not to tell the transplant board* about her bulimia.

This is the wrong decision. Putting this patient at the top of the list means putting other patients who need transplants just as badly lower down on the list. These other patients are, presumably, better candidates for transplants, meaning they have a better chance of surviving after they are done with the procedure. They are getting fucked over because of House’s decision. They may be just as in need as the woman in the episode, but House decides the best decision is to risk their lives so that this woman can get a transplant first. He makes this decision even though those other people are more likely to benefit from the procedure than she is. It’s the wrong decision, but it’s a narratively compelling one.

We want everything to be okay, we want this woman to be okay, and so it’s easy to feel like she should be moved to the top of the list because we feel for her and want her to be okay.

You never see the episode of House where he figures out that someone needs a transplant and signs them up for it and then that person dies because some other doctor and some other hospital decided that their riskier patient needed a transplant first. That aspect doesn’t help the narrative; it doesn’t allow us to feel good about the fact that this patient is someone we care about and we’ve just got to help her somehow. In real life, though, those other patients are just as real and just as in need as the one that any individual person might identify with any given moment.

Just because we feel for someone doesn’t mean that the people we don’t directly feel for as much aren’t important, or that they don’t thrive or suffer to the same degree. It doesn’t mean they don’t matter. It doesn’t mean we can disregard them in favor of the people close to us no matter what the circumstances are.

Which brings me to veganism.

Which brings me to the fact that if you are uncomfortable eating cats or dogs** but you are comfortable eating pigs and cows, your decision to eat the latter but not the former is irrational. It is the same type of irrational that I have just described in House. If you aren’t comfortable eating animals you might keep as pets but you are comfortable eating ones that you probably wouldn’t, you don’t actually care about how much suffering and/or death your decisions in this regard cause. You only care about it insofar as you, personally, feel empathy for it.

This is totally understandable in the same way that feeling empathy for the woman in the House episode and wanting her to be okay is totally understandable. It’s normal, it’s natural, it’s human, but don’t think for a second that it doesn’t mean a lot of suffering and death is happening purely on the basis of which creatures you think it’s adorable to have around and which ones you don’t.

*Or whatever the group of people who makes the decision is actually called.

**Personally, I would add “or people” to this list, but people seem less able to believe that animals can suffer as much as we*** do than they are able to believe that they suffer as much as “other animals” (in spite of the evidence that they do, in fact, suffer like we do), so I’ll leave that bit in this footnote instead.

***who are, you know, also animals

By ResearchToBeDone Posted in other

Thoughts on Changing Gender Presentation and Conventional Gender Stereotypes

I’ve been talking a fair bit lately about the implications of how my non-binary gender affects how I feel and interact with people. Since coming out, I have been experimenting to figure out what varieties of gender presentation are comfortable for me and which ones aren’t. I find myself gravitating toward more conventionally feminine styles of presentation.

I read a very TERF-y Tumblr post a while ago where the author said the reason she wasn’t okay with a lot of trans people was because she felt that, for example, if someone transitions to female and as such starts behaving in more conventionally feminine ways, that is reinforcing the misogynistic idea that to be a woman implies acting in those particular ways.

I don’t know how to feel about that, because the extent to which my gender floats toward female in a given day correlates with the extent to which I feel like expressing myself in a more conventionally feminine way, and the extent to which it floats closer to male correlates with the reverse. It is, quite certainly, a product of the conceptions of male and female with which I was brought up – conceptions that I am generally all about smashing. I feel compelled to ask and investigate the question of whether or not the way that I express my gender reinforces the idea that femininity and femaleness imply each other and masculinity and maleness imply each other, and what, if anything, that means for me.

I had a conversation with a non-binary AFAB friend of mine who expressed the reverse of my experience – feeling uncomfortable about the fact that their decision to no longer identify as female correlates with presenting and acting more masculine. Asking whether or not that implies that acting more masculine necessarily implies not being female, and what the feminist implications of that might be. It hadn’t occurred to me until we had that conversation that the experience from the other side of the coin might be very similar.

None of this is to say that I think this means either of us is wrong to present or identify in the ways that we do. Nor is it to say that anyone else is. I am grateful that I have known and listened to enough non-binary people to be able to ask these questions and still sit firmly in the “what I am doing is totally okay” camp. I do want to ask the question of what this all actually means about the people and concepts that are at play in all of this, though. All of these feelings and ideas don’t quite seem to mesh with each other, at least in the ways that I usually think about them, and I’m trying to figure out what I think and how I feel about that.

By ResearchToBeDone Posted in gender

Inside of Depression and Out, or: a Question I’ve Been Curious About for a Long Time

“What is it like to be sad when you’re not depressed?”

Have I ever known what it’s like to be just sad? There was a time before I even thought of myself as depressed where I looked back over my life and realized that I couldn’t ever remember a time when I’d been consistently happy. I don’t exactly think I’ve always been depressed, but I think I’ve always been too obsessed with doing exactly, perfectly right by everyone that I didn’t leave room to ever be satisfied with myself, which is a recipe, at the very least, for constant anxiety.

I know a little bit what it’s like, now. Because for a week or three after I started taking Wellbutrin, my brain changed. I had some days where I was anxious about stuff, but the anxiety was different. It was different and it wasn’t. It was exactly the same feeling that I’ve become rather intimately familiar with over the last quarter-century, give or take.

The feeling was just the same, but the difference, for me, was that suddenly it wasn’t attached to a narrative. It was still rather unpleasant, in the sense of, “Oh dear, this is quite unpleasant, I am not very much enjoying this at all!”

But that was it. It was just there, with me, and unpleasant.

On depression it’s different. It’s the same feeling, but is attached to this dark cloud of “This is the only way things have ever been or ever will be, and it will never get better, it’s all futile, and nothing will ever get better, but there is every possible chance it will get much worse.”. On depression, my brain forgets about the time between episodes. Thinking about the experience reminds me of the idea of state dependent memory, except that instead of being able to remember certain things when I’m depressed, I stop being able to remember anything but the other times I have been depressed. All the episodes and bad moments and hopelessness connect to each other and I can’t remember anything that happened in between. I can’t remember that anything has ever happened in between.

The difference between being sad or anxious or exhausted when I’m depressed and when I’m not is this. The feelings are just the same, but the narrative isn’t. Rather, outside of depression, there just isn’t a narrative. It’s just a feeling. Pleasant or unpleasant, it’s just it’s own thing. Inside of depression, it’s all connected in this tapestry of “This is how everything always has been and always will be.”.

So now I know.

As I get an opportunity to return ambient stress levels to within manageable parameters, I’m hoping I’ll get back to that place and have some time to get used to it. Fingers crossed.

Honing HabitRPG and the Practice of Being Generous to Myself

I have been using the online task-management-as-and-RPG-game called HabitRPG for a few months, now. I think it is absolutely fantastic, and I want to talk a little bit about why it is and what I do to help make it that way.

The number one thing that, for me, makes HabitRPG incredibly effective, is remembering to always keep my focus on my objective. My objective is to get me to do the things I want myself to be doing. That’s it. HabitRPG is a tool for getting things done.

It is emphatically NOT my goal to make it as similar to actual RPG’s as possible. I know people who have given up on the game on account of feeling overwhelmed when their tasks pile up, and decided it won’t work for them, and in most cases I think it’s because they are thinking about it the wrong way.

The last couple of months have been incredibly stressful for me. Adding 7 to 10 daily task goals on top of that stress is a recipe for even more stress, so I reduced the number of daily tasks I have to five, two of which overlap with two of the others. They are:

  • Take meds
  • Start work
  • Start work by 10 AM
  • Finish 80% of daily work by 4 PM
  • Finish all daily work

All of my other goals right now are either one time goals or in the habits column for multiple-times-daily tasks that you aren’t necessarily penalized for not doing.

It is usually pretty easy to complete these main five tasks in a day. That said, without the RPG game-ifying aspect, I can virtually guarantee I wouldn’t be getting work done as effectively. Again, the goal isn’t to make this hard; it isn’t to make this as much like an RPG as possible, it’s to get stuff done. The RPG elements are useful only so long as they help me to get stuff done.

When I first started using HabitRPG, I did not have “start work” as a goal. But it turns out that getting work done is pretty easy once I’ve started it; getting started is actually the hardest part. So I added starting as a goal. Later, I realized that having time constraints makes me a lot more likely to not put off that goal until late in the day, so I added the 10 AM requirement. If I start work before 10am, I get credit for both.

When things are less hectic and stressful than they are right now, here are some of my other goals:

  • not getting on my computer until at least half an hour after waking up
  • 30 minutes straight meditation before 5 PM
  • getting off the computer for at least 30 minutes within 30 minutes of finishing work
  • taking vitamins
  • getting to the gym
  • going walking for at least 20 minutes

Even when all of those goals are active every day, I am not actually required to complete all of them to get credit for all of them. Some of them have alternate success cases. For example, if I don’t finish my usual amount of work on a Friday because of either mental exhaustion or repetitive stress concerns, I give myself credit for the work goals anyway, in this case thinking of them as a reward for responsible, healthy decision-making.

Sure, it makes it easier. It also makes me do exactly the things I want to be doing.

Decisions like the alternative success cases sometimes make me feel like I’m cheating, which is why it’s so important to remember the cardinal rule: the goal is to get me to do the things I want myself to be doing. Nothing that accomplishes that is “cheating”. I want myself to be getting work done, but just as much as that I want myself to be making responsible mental and physical health decisions.

Multiple times daily habits consist of things like gaining experience for completing Pomodoro shifts, taking damage for ignoring Pomodoro shift breaks, gaining experience for completing errands, taking damage for working more than my normal hours (it’s a repetitive stress risk), several generic reward categories (minor task, medium task, and major task), and a few categories for things that I will only ever do once in a while, but am interested in encouraging myself to do: asking for support during difficult times, for example.

That last one is what I call a “multiple”, meaning one that I think is important enough that it merits more than one click when I do it successfully. The minimum reward for asking for support is three times the usual reward for a “hard” task. Is it cheating? Again: the goal is to get me to do the things I want myself to be doing. Nothing counts as cheating if it accomplishes that goal.

One of the other decisions I’ve made over the course of honing my HabitRPG goals to be as effective as possible is that I can’t be thinking about them every hour of every day. The cognitive load of keeping track of them takes a certain amount of energy, and thus it’s important for me to be careful how often and how greatly I am spending that energy. As such, all of my goals are disabled on weekends, and I generally do not give myself rewards for completing any tasks of any kind on weekends. Weekends are cognitive-load-free zone.

In addition to the weekend’s role, I have specifically chosen my daily tasks such that all of them can be completed by 5 PM. I had to abandon brushing my teeth in the evening as a daily goal because it meant I was necessarily concentrating on my goal list for the entire day, where my current setup means I am usually only concentrating on it during work hours.

Sometimes I give myself experience without any reason whatsoever. Really. This is my favorite thing about HabitRPG: it gives me a chance to practice being generous with myself. If I’ve accomplished something awesome, or I am enduring something difficult, I try to remember to treat myself to things. The problem with that in everyday life is that treating myself to things usually costs money or time that I may or may not have. In HabitRPG, however, that problem doesn’t exist. I have an infinite resource for rewarding myself for accomplishments and treating myself during difficult times, and I use it.

Is it cheating? Again, I say it’s not, because it helps me. As absurd as the idea that those little points, completely disconnected from any real-world application or tangibleness, have any impact on my day-to-day life, acquiring them makes me feel good. And feeling good is nice, and nice feelings mean less stress, which means less exhaustion, more energy, and as such more ability to get things done. All the while, it’s giving me a chance to practice being generous with myself; it’s giving me a chance to practice being that awesome boss who cuts you some slack when you need it, and is understanding when you need it.

There is one more multiple-times-daily goal I haven’t mentioned, which is the generic “good brain gardening” goal. I get to click this one whenever I practice good mental habits. If I start to beat myself up over something and then remember not to, I get experience. Here’s the kicker for me: sometimes I do feel like I’m cheating in the game. Sometimes it’s easy to get caught up in the idea that I should treat this more like a game with rigid rules, be a stern taskmaster, etc. Then I remember that the goal is to be getting stuff done and that the strict way of doing things isn’t actually nearly as effective as the more lenient, generous, caring, encouraging way of doing things.

Whenever I remember that, I give myself points. Good brain gardening points. And if the sense of “maybe I should be harsher/don’t deserve these points/etc.” persists, I get even more points for giving myself points in the face of that persistent nagging voice.

If you want, you could say that I cheat constantly and furiously at HabitRPG. But it sure as hell gets the job done, and it’s the way I honed this particular getting-stuff-done tool to be one of the most effective weapons I have against not getting stuff done. For me, generosity works better than rigidity.

If you decide to give it a spin, remember to never lose sight of your goal: to get you to do the things you want yourself to be doing. And practice being generous with yourself. At least that’s what works for me. Not to mention I can really use the practice.