Nature Of Reality

The sneaky Christmas legend of THE ONE

by

Today being December 25, let me tell you a story that happened on today’s date, supposedly.

The year was some time long ago, or thereabouts.

The place was London, though whether at St. Paul’s or not the French book doesn’t say.

Merlin had told the Archbishop of Canterbury to summon all the barons to London, for a sign would appear, showing who should become king and bring the realm out of lawless jeopardy.

And sure enow, during morning mass, right around the time that I’m writing this, specifically 11:02am, a great stone appeared in the churchyard, and an anvil atop that stone, with a sword, naked to the point, stuck inside the anvil. On the sword was an inscription in gold letters, which read:

“Whoso pulleth out this sword of this stone and anvil, is rightwise king born of all England.”

Maybe you know this story.

Lots of great knights tried to pull out the stone. They all failed.

Then on New Year’s day, a young boy named Arthur pulled out the sword, kind of by accident, and the sign was shown and the prophecy was fulfilled:

HERE WAS KING ARTHUR, NEW RULER OF THE REALM, KING OF ALL ENGLAND.

Good story, right? Right???

I don’t know whether this legend taps into something fundamental in the human psyche, or if it’s just that we’ve all been told it a million times over, in various forms.

One way or another, it’s snuck into our subconscious, where it does its damage. Because it’s not how reality works.

A few weeks ago, a member of my Daily Email House community, DTC copywriter and brand strategist Chavy Helfgott, posted a question in the group:

===

I recently put a new page on my website called “Client Love”, which features screenshots of feedback I’ve gotten from clients.

And I noticed that there was a lot of really, really enthusiastic feedback there. Like multiple “wows”, “I’m amazed,” and “blown away.”

Here’s my problem: despite this great feedback, there’s this niggling little worm in my brain constantly whispering, “You’re not really good enough.”

This is problematic because it’s difficult to sell myself as THE answer to my ideal client’s problem… if I myself doubt that it is true.

I guess my question is – anyone have any ideas how to get past this hump? Why is feedback from my own clients not convincing me? How do I convince myself that my work is valuable, so I can more successfully convince others of this, so that they hire me?

===

Lotsa House members chimed in with great suggestions and ideas.

The one I want to highlight today came from speechwriter and trainer Alexander Westenberg. Alexander wrote:

===

I agree with pretty much everything already said, but here’s an additional two cents: You say it’s difficult to sell yourself as THE answer, but to me I don’t see why you have to?

The way I like to look at it for myself (and pretty much everything else in life) is that you don’t have to be THE answer, just AN answer.

So for me, I’m a speechwriter and trainer. I have my way of doing things, and I honestly believe in it and in the value I bring. But a) there are other speechwriters out there, and b) some people prefer AI.

I provide AN answer to the problem of how to be a powerful and persuasive speaker. I’m even happy saying I’m one of the better answers — but I’m also happy saying that people can answer that problem in other ways.

===

Arthur legend notwithstanding, you don’t need to be THE ONE.

You can be ONE OF and still live a heroic life — a life where you take on great challenges that excite you, and get rewarded handsomely for your effort.

There are lots of ways you can be announce to the world you are ONE OF the better answers to whatever problem you are solving.

I think that having an online personal brand is one of the better ways to do that, though there certainly are other options.

I also think that, for having an online personal brand, an email newsletter is particularly attractive, and much easier to succeed with, though other platforms and formats can certainly work.

And if you do write an email newsletter, then I think a daily, personal-sounding email like what you are reading right now is a great way to go about it, though dailyish or weekly or occasional emails can work, and are certainly better than nothing.

And if you do choose to write daily emails, then one of the better ways to stick with it and be effective is to use daily prompts or topic categories for yourself, which keep your emails fresh and your mind focused, though of course using no structure and relying on inspiration each day is also an option.

You see where I’m going with this?

It’s an old story, one that I’ve told hundreds of times in these emails. But maybe you still don’t know how it ends? For that, take a look here, and see if you are willing to start on the journey that you are being invited upon:

https://bejakovic.com/deh

Disconnect at my first FC Barcelona match

by

Yesterday, for the first time ever, and after three years of living in Barcelona, I, a total non-fan, went to my first football game ever. And it was super exciting.

FC Barcelona, one of the most dominant and richest teams in the world, was playing Girona FC, a total underdog and second-to-last in the league standings.

The reality of the match:

Barcelona scored early. Girona equalized with a bicycle kick shot. There was lots of attacking and chances on both sides. And then, in the last minute of extra time, Barcelona scored the winning goal.

Honestly, it was the best possible way to see a real live football game for the first time ever.

But what really got me is the feeling of disconnect.

This match happened at the small Barcelona Olympic stadium, where FC Barcelona is playing while their main stadium is being refurbished.

There was almost no advertising anywhere, no flashing jumbotrons, no announcements, no fireworks.

There were lots of empty bleachers because this old Olympic stadium is not really good for watching football, plus apparently some fans are simply boycotting the games since this place is not the real “home” of Barcelona.

As a result, the entire atmosphere felt like watching a local under-17 practice more than some super consequential world-class match… featuring supremely skilled athletes chosen from millions who tried very hard to be worthy of appearing on this same stage… with hundreds of millions of dollars on the line in terms of possible sponsorships, injuries, transfers, etc.

It also felt weird to know that every consequential and inconsequential moment I was witnessing was being streamed all around the world, and that countless photos, reels, writeups, analyses, and stats from this event would appear billions of times on phones and laptops and TVs in the coming days.

I’m not sure what happens when something real, like a bunch of dudes running after a ball on a grassy pitch on Montjuic one afternoon, passes into the symbolic realm, like articles and photos and stories that can live forever.

But something happens.

It’s a very strange and powerful thing, something so strange and powerful that we usually like to shrug it off because the truth of it makes us uncomfortable and forces us to face things about ourselves that we’d rather ignore.

I realize this is all getting a little vague and philosophical.

Rather than waffling on more, I will simply point you to an email I wrote a long time ago.

This old deals with this topic, and in fact talks about a sociological theory that has to do specifically with this. But it’s not just theory. This old email also gives you a practical takeaway for your marketing and writing and branding, if those are the kinds of things you engage in.

By the way, after I wrote this email years ago, I got the following kinds of replies from readers:

“Glorious”

“This is a profound message John. Just a message of appreciation.”

“Daaaamn good!!!”

“The greatest crime you commit is not selling something in your emails. You have the best marketing insights of ANY list I’m on…”

That last comment came from “Australia’s best copywriter,” Daniel Throssell. In case you’re curious what Daniel and my other readers liked so well, and how you can use it in what you do today, here’s the email in question:

https://bejakovic.com/more-real-than-real/

How to get informed (it’s not the news)

by

Perhaps you’ve seen the trending anti-news article that’s gone viralish over the past week.

It deals with news versus reality, specifically, deaths as reported in the news versus the deaths people actually die from.

The article compared data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to news reports of deaths in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the news website of Fox News.

Some of the results:

First, there wasn’t much difference between the three news outlets, in spite of different political leanings.

Second, there was a big gap between which deaths get written about and which deaths actually happen.

On the over-represented side, murders were 43 times more reported than their share of deaths. Terrorism deaths got 18,000 times more coverage than their share of actual deaths.

On the under-represented side, deaths from things like stroke and heart disease were underreported in the news by a factor of 9 and 10, respectively.

I personally don’t watch or read the news, and this kind of stuff allows me to be smug. “You see,” I imagine telling some imaginary debate partner, “I haven’t been missing anything.”

The fact is, the news doesn’t represent reality, meaning stuff that happens out there. The only reality it represents is what biases exist in the human mind, across time and across space and culture:

Our cravings for novelty… for low probability, high-impact events… for negative rather than positive outcomes… for individual dramatic stories rather than statistics encompassing millions of data points.

But though I personally ignore the news and even like to be smug about it, it’s not just cynical and self-serving news outlets that do this to us.

We do the same thing to ourselves, all the time, because of habit but also because of our inborn neurology. We focus on the negative… the low-probability… the high-impact… and we weave stories about such things that often have little to do with the reality of of our existence.

This all sounds kinda depressing, and I don’t want you leaving my email that way.

So let me share a resource I’ve shared multiple times over the past year and a half.

It lays out a simple process that has allowed me to see reality more clearly and to challenge stories my brain likes to tell itself.

This process worked for me when I first read about it and tried it a year and a half ago. It’s working for me still.

Maybe most importantly, following this process opened up some sort of a gateway in my mind that’s allowed related ideas and practices to flow in, which have made me more happy and resilient these days than I have felt my whole adult life.

In case you want to get informed about reality:

https://bejakovic.com/stillworking

Abe Lincoln’s historic mistake at Gettysburg

by

Today is the last day to get Shaina Keren’s course Get A Raise, at a special Bejako-only $50 discount.

If you work at a 9-5, I believe this course has the clearest and surest ROI of any course I have sold, bought, or even seen.

If you’re interested in taking advantage of this opportunity before it disappears, the full details on how to claim it are at the bottom of this email.

And now, with that important announcement out of the way, let me tell you that I have recently taken to memorizing stuff by heart.

First came a few famous poems by Williams Blake and Shakespeare.

After that, I memorized Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, which I’d never even read before, even though it’s one of the most famous speeches of all time, and certainly the most famous by an American president.

Thing is, I found something frankly wrong inside the Gettysburg Address, which I wanted to share with you. After the famous “Four score and seven years ago” opening, Lincoln says the following:

“The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they [the soldiers who fought and died at Gettysburg] did here.”

I don’t know whether this is just humility or a lack of historical perspective.

But the fact is that the world greatly noted and has long remembered what Lincoln said at Gettysburg.

On the other hand, the world has largely forgotten what the soldiers did at Gettysburg. Was it a big battle? A small battle? Who won? Was it pivotal in the war or just a waste of human life?

And if you don’t agree with me, then think of the dozens of other major Civil War battles that didn’t have their own address by Lincoln. Unless you’re a Civil War buff, odds are you cannot name any of them.

Same goes for the thousands of major battles that have raged throughout history — completely nameless and forgotten, if they didn’t have a Lincoln or a Caesar or a Thucydides to write or speak about them.

My point is that Lincoln, in that statement that “the world can never forget what they did here,” fell into the usual trap of thinking that the act is ultimately what matters, rather than the presentation, the transferable image, the meme of the thing.

What I’m telling you is, if you build it, they will NOT come — not unless you do a good job telling the story of it. That’s true in history. It’s true in business. And it’s true equally in your own personal career.

Which brings me back to Shaina’s course. Because maybe you’re working at your job and you’re thinking, “I shouldn’t have to ask for a raise. They should just give me one based on how hard I work and the value I bring here. And certainly they will figure it out, in time. My boss will little note nor much appreciate my asking directly for more money, but he can never forget what I do at this company.”

If that’s what you’re secretly thinking, I’d like to tell you that history is not on your side. And if you want to take fate into your own hands, and make sure your boss notes and remembers what you do, and pays you accordingly, then here’s my suggestion:

1. Head on over to ​https://bejakovic.com/raise​ and get Shaina’s course. There’s no sales page for this baby, just an order form with a few testimonials (eg, “I still can’t believe I get to keep the job I love and feel well compensated.”)

2. Put in the code BEJAKOVIC50 at checkout. Make sure the price drops from $197 to $147 before you buy.

3. Go through the 1 hour or so of training, then apply it in the next few days or weeks, and profit, hopefully to the tune of tens of thousands of new dollars in salary.

The deadline for this offer is today, Thursday, June 26, at 12 midnight PST. After that, this special discount, of the people, by the people, for the people, shall perish from the earth.

“Amputees needed”

by

“Amputees needed” was the newspaper ad that neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran ran to recruit subjects for his phantom limb research back in the 1990s.

I’ve written about Ramachandran lots in these emails before. I read about him again last night, in a book about neuroplasticity. The story clicked with something I’ve been thinking about a lot, which seems very important to me, and which I wanted to share with you. In case you’re with me:

As you might know, “phantom limb” is a strange condition where people who have had a limb amputated, say, an arm, keep feeling that arm as being there. They can even feel the arm doing stuff like reaching out to pick up the phone.

Kind of weird already, but where it gets uncomfortable is that, for many amputees, these phantom limbs don’t move. Instead, the phantom limbs feel like they are paralyzed, frozen.

What’s worse, phantom limbs often cause agonizing pain, out in space, where there’s nothing, and where nothing can be done. Patients often contemplate suicide because it’s such an painful and maddening condition.

Phantom limb has been known as a phenomenon since the American Civil War, but it probably goes back to the beginnings of time, as long as humans, and their animal ancestors, were losing limbs.

Phantom limbs, weird and uncomfortable as they are, get at the core of being a living, thinking being. They make it very clear that we have no direct experience of what’s happening in our body or in the world outside us, but only mental representations of such.

But back to Ramachandran. Back in the 1990s, he managed to cure — eliminate — the phantom limb in a large number of amputees, and he done it in a curious, extremely low-tech way.

Basically, Ramachandran had the amputees view an image of their (still attached) arm, reflected in a mirror, doing stuff.

The crazy thing is, this was good enough to convince the amputees’ brains their amputated arm was somehow back.

The neurology isn’t 100% clear to me, but I guess the feedback these patients were getting, visually via the mirror and neurally from their (real, non-mirrored) arm, was somehow enough to rewire the maps in their brain that represent body image.

In other words, the phantom limb first stopped being paralyzed and in pain. The paralysis and pain gone, the phantom limb was finally free to wave goodbye and move on to Valhalla.

Once again, phantom limb is a condition that’s been around for as long as humans have been around, and probably longer. It’s been ruining the lives of those afflicted by it for thousands of years. The fix was so simple, and yet nobody thought of it until a few decades ago.

But there’s still a deeper point, and one I find myself thinking about a lot lately.

A hundred years ago, a psychologist named Jean Piaget found that children’s thinking is black and white, magical, absolute.

To children, ideas are the same as things, with the same concreteness and reality. An idea, if it pops up in a kid’s head, must be true, has always been true, will always be true, isn’t made false by evidence or by previous ideas that contradict it.

In time, we grow up, and we learn that an idea can be false, or a little bit true, or that there’s nuances and gradations, that we should look for support and proof.

But I’d like to claim, the kind of black-and-white, imagined-is-real thinking of children stays inside us forever. We learn to work with it and cover it up to ourselves, but it remains the baseline of how our brains work, how we perceive the world and ourselves.

If you doubt me, think of Ramachandran’s amputee patients. They weren’t idiots.

The “adult” part of them knew, while watching a mirror reflection of their real arm, that they hadn’t regrown their amputated arm. But it didn’t matter. The “child” part of the brain saw the phantom arm reappear, and could work with it, and stop it from being paralyzed and in pain.

As I write in my new 10 Commandments book, the human brain and the reality it creates for us are far stranger than we admit to ourselves on a daily basis. If you want to read some more ways about how to work with the “child” part of your prospect’s minds, and maybe even your own, for good and for profit, then you might like:

https://bejakovic.com/new10commandments

Breaking the silence after the promo

by

Last night, after the 3rd Conversion training call, I got a note from one of the participants. I’m not sure she wants me to share her name, but she wrote:

===

It was so nice to see you on the call. I just wanted to drop you a quick note to say how much I absolutely loved your live class. It was perfectly timed for me, especially since I’m putting out my own offer for a done-for-you course blueprint. Your presentation was not only engaging but also such a clever demonstration of your course content in action – I was taking mental notes the whole time! (And trying to resist writing everything down lol)

===

I’m telling you this because, well, it says nice things about me, and I need all the ego stroking I can get.

But I’m also telling you this because I’ve noticed lots of people who sell online, myself included at times, are guilty of promoting an offer intensely… and when the promo period ends, it’s on to promoting the next damn thing.

Meanwhile, what happened to the previous training/course/book, which had such large promise about it?

There’s largely silence on that point, until of course it’s time to promote the same thing again.

My theory is that today, people are more than ever craving things that feel real.

It’s not simply because of the recent explosion of AI, but also the ability for automated communication, and simply the inhuman scale of the Internet.

When before in history was it an everyday possibility for most humans to write something that will go out to thousands or even millions of people?

Inevitably, we all become more guarded as a result of this. Things sound good, but they’re not actually good… or they might not even be there at all (Google “these cats do not exist”).

That’s why I think it’s valuable to not only do a good job promoting what you sell… not only do a good job delivering it… but also do good job continuing to communicate, even to people who didn’t buy, even after the fact, that this thing you were selling was for real, and that you in fact are for real.

That’s one way to cope with The Nothing that’s overtaking our world.

Another way is simply longevity, persistence, or maybe track record.

A few hundred words of text, once, can be optimized, faked, generated to suit the moment and to deceive the unguarded.

A few hundred words of text, every day, for years, are hard to fake, particularly if those words are going out to the same group of people.

That’s why there’s power in daily emails.

Writing daily for years might sound intimidating. It doesn’t have to be.

Really, it’s just one day’s effort at a time. And pretty soon, it becomes enjoyable and even addicting (ask me how I know).

The sooner you start, the sooner it will become easier, and the sooner you will reap the rewards.

Even if you don’t know nothing about email, or copywriting, or even writing, you can start writing a daily email today.

But if you must have a guide to help you get started, here’s one I created, based on my own real experience:

https://bejakovic.com/sme

The final bit of Jim Camp gossip

by

This past Tuesday, I wrote a behind-the-curtain email about negotiation coach Jim Camp.

​​Camp is widely respected and cited as a negotiation authority. His ideas are quoted in books and on TV and by dudes like me.

But if you dig a bit, it seems most of Camp’s advice about negotiation was swiped, often verbatim, from sales trainer David Sandler.

Problem:

The claim that Camp swiped Sandler’s ideas is based on textual analysis, by looking at Camp’s book side by side with Sandler’s book. It could be just one hell of a coincidence, or maybe there’s some kind of other explanation than plagiarism.

Solution:

I got a reply to my email on Tuesday from a reader named Ron, with some first-hand experience. ​​I’m reprinting it here in full because it’s juicy, and because there’s an interesting bit of human psychology hiding on the surface of it.

​​Take it away Ron:

===

Thank you John, I’ve tried to tell the same stories to the IM crowd for years and no one seemed to notice.

For a backstory, I took his Camp Negotiation coaching program back in 2009 and it was pretty silly, just a guided text followed by a quiz website (basically rereading the book to you), and my “advisor” was Jim’s oldest son.

At the end of the course, ironically, the module was “no closing” and it was on how closing sales was so 1950’s and you should just ask what do we do next and the prospect should tell you they’re in.

Well after finishing the course, his son called me to show me their new software (which was just a clunky CRM and with little negotiating tips pop-ups to remind you of the techniques) and after the demo, he tried to get me to buy it and I said no thanks.

He goes all weird and tells how I’m going to miss out on all these profitable deals and blah blah blah, and he’s getting pretty aggressive. I chuckled and said “so, no closing right?” He got all butthurt and hung up.

Anyways, I later found out Jim Camp was a franchisee for Sandler (the sales training business was sold city to city as a franchise model) and when his contract was up, Jim just rewrote the book and made up his own terms and sold his programs that way.

===

So there you go. That’s the gossip. I can’t confirm or deny the franchisee part of it. All I can say is it makes sense to me personally. And with that, I’ll leave off this Sandler/Camp drama.

But what about that interesting bit of psychology I promised you? It’s there in Ron’s first sentence:

“I’ve tried to tell the same stories to the IM crowd for years and no one seemed to notice.”

This is a curious human quirk that I’ve noticed a few times before.

For example, back in the 1970s, a man named Uri Geller seemed to be blessed with the supernatural powers of telekineses and telepathy. Geller was making the rounds of TV talk shows, bending spoons and reading the insides of sealed envelopes.

Audiences watched with their mouths agape, certain that Geller was living proof that there’s more to life than we see, and that there are enormous untapped powers latent in all of us.

Then Geller was exposed as a fraud by a magician named James Randi.

Randi replicated Geller’s act completely. He also worked with TV producers of the Tonight Show to devise a scenario where Geller couldn’t do of his supposed telekinesis or telepathy.

Geller came on the show, unaware of what was going on. And for 20 awkward minutes, while Johhny Carson patiently smoked his cigarette and waited, Geller tried and failed to do his usual routine.

And the result?

Nothing. Geller’s fame, and people’s belief in his supernatural powers, remained untarnished.

You can draw your own conclusions from this, in particular about how it relates to marketing and money-making and persuasion.

I’ve drawn my own conclusions. And the most important and valuable one is the one I wrote about in the inaugural issue of my Most Valuable Postcard, two years ago. If you’d like to find out what that is:

https://bejakovic.com/mvp1/

The light at the end of the tunnel

by

“I’ve been doing a lot of thinking, and the thing is, I love you.”

“What?”

“I love you.”

“How do you expect me to respond to this?”

“How about, you love me too?”

“How about: I’m leaving.”

That’s the start of the last scene of the 1989 romantic comedy When Harry Met Sally. In case you haven’t seen it, the movie goes like this:

The first time Harry and Sally meet, they hate each other. The second time they meet, Harry doesn’t even remember who Sally is. The third time they meet, Harry and Sally become friends. Then they sleep together, and things go south and they stop being friends.

And then one New Year’s Eve, Harry finally realizes he loves Sally, and he runs to meet her, and he declares his love. And she says, “I’m leaving.”

The fact is, screenwriter Nora Ephron and director Rob Reiner both felt that movie should end like this.

​​No way should it end with Harry and Sally winding up together. That’s not how the real world works. People in those kinds of relationships don’t end up together.

That’s how the first two drafts of the movie actually went. The bitter truth.

But in the third draft, Ephron wrote this final scene, and Reiner shot it. After Sally’s “I’m leaving,” Harry delivers a speech about all the little things he loves about her, and they kiss and they wind up together, forever, in love.

And that’s how the movie was released, and it was a big, big hit.

So what’s the point?

Well, maybe it’s obvious, but you can go negative and cynical and sarcastic for the whole movie, but you gotta end on an inspiring, positive note.

​​It’s gotta make sense to people and give them a feeling of hope, at least if you want to create something that has a chance to be a big big hit, something that can appeal to a wide swath of the market.

Or in the words of screenwriter and director David Mamet:

“Children jump around at the end of the day, to expend the last of that day’s energy. The adult equivalent, when the sun goes down, is to create or witness drama — which is to say, to order the universe into a comprehensible form.”

But now I have a problem:

I’ve just pulled back the curtain. And what’s behind the curtain is not so nice. So how can I end this email on an inspiring, positive note?

Well, I can admit to you that the world is a large and complex and often unjust place. But it does have its own structure. And just by reading these emails, you’re finding out bits and pieces of that structure, and that helps you make more sense of the world you live in, and it helps you shape and influence the world for the better.

I can also tell you that the above bit, about Harry and Sally and Nora and Rob, is part of a book I’m working on, the mythical “10 Commandments of Hypnotists, Pick Up Artists, Comedians, Copywriters, Con Men, Door-To-Door Salesmen, Professional Negotiators, Storytellers, Propagandists, and Stage Magicians.”

I’ve been working on this book for a long time. But there’s light at the end of the tunnel.

In the meantime, do you know about my other 10 Commandments book, 10 Commandments of A-List Copywriters?

It also collects bits and pieces of the structure of the world, and it can help you understand and shape that world for the better. In case you’d like to find out more:

https://bejakovic.com/10commandments

The new science of emotion and the old takeaway from it

by

Two nights ago, I started read a new book, How Emotions Are Made. In the first chapter, the author writes:

===

It was in graduate school that I felt my first tug of doubt about the classical view of emotion. At the time, I was researching the roots of low self-esteem and how it leads to anxiety or depression. Numerous experiments showed that people feel depressed when they fail to live up to their own ideals, but when they fall short of a standard set by others, they feel anxious.

===

“Hello,” I said. “I never thought about it that way. This anxiety/depression distinction sounds valuable. Better note that down for the future. Maybe I can apply it in some sales copy.”

I got out my notebook and started to write this idea down. “Numerous experiments showed that…”

But something bothered me. It was that phrase, “first tug of doubt,” higher up in the passage. So I scanned on down the page in the book. And sure enough:

It turns out that in spite of strong belief and “numerous experiments,” this idea about the roots of anxiety and depression is not reproducible.

In fact, 8 subsequent studies designed to reproduce this well-trodden distinction all reproduced the opposite result.

In some people, a failure to live up to one’s own ideals produced neither depression nor anxiety. In others, it produced both depression and anxiety. Never just the one the theory predicted. Same with a failure to live up to standards set by others.

This isn’t just a one-time failure to reproduce a specific result. Rather, it seems to be a new understanding of what emotions are in general.

Apparently, there’s a new science of how emotions are made and what they really are.

It’s not five core emotions like you may have seen in that Inside Out Pixar cartoon. And it’s also not the fixed and familiar smiley/frowny/cry-ey emojis we all know and respond to.

Rather, emotions are something complex, unique, and unpredictable, at least in the way they manifest themselves in our behavior, faces, and bodies. It’s taken us 100+ years of scientific study of emotion to tease out this counterintuitive result.

Whatever. I’m getting too inside baseball. My takeaway for you today is simply this:

Nobody really wants to hear about the complexity, the uniqueness, the unpredictability. Even the scientists, except for a few bad apples.

Instead, we all want the immense, pretty much unfathomably complex nature of the universe reduced to a few rules of thumb, certainties, slogans. And whenever we come across a new one of those, we say,

“Hello. Never thought about it that way. Sounds valuable. Better note that down for the future. And maybe let’s see what else this guy is selling…”

That’s my free advice for you for today.

For more human psychology, gleaned from actual scientific experiments performed over millions of people, you might like my Copy Riddles course.

Copy Riddles shows you what appeals people respond to in in great detail. And more importantly, it trains you to apply this knowledge so you can make more sales. To find out more about Copy Riddles:

https://bejakovic.com/cr

Incurable bachelor discovers a reality-bending mistake in human computational neurology

by

I read today about a bride-to-be in the UK who took an eerie “spirit photograph” of herself trying on a wedding gown.

The woman was standing with her back to the camera. Facing her were two mirrors, one in front of her, one to her side.

The spirit photo, as captured by an iPhone, showed the following:

The woman in reality (ie, not reflected by a mirror) stood with one arm hanging by her side and other across her chest.

But the mirror in front of her showed a slightly different figure. In that front mirror, both the woman’s arms were clasped together in front of her chest.

And the mirror to her side showed a still different figure. In this mirror, neither of the woman’s arms was across her chest. Instead, both arms were down by her sides.

It’s like three slightly different different versions of the woman were all there in one room, looking at each other.

Maybe the iPhone captured a living human being and two spirits, who somehow looked exactly like each other?

Maybe it was the woman’s great-grandmother in the front mirror, and that great-grandmother’s grandmother in the side mirror, all coming together to convene with the bride-to-be at this crucial moment in her life?

T​​hat would be a good spectacle and a demonstration of the occult.

But the trick behind this bizarre photo is more modern and more technical.

As you might know, your phone camera, particularly if you got yerself a fancy iPhone, is not simply capturing “reality” as it exists out there in the world.

Instead, your camera is actually doing quite a bit of processing, selecting, and splicing to produce a final photo that looks good, and that makes the most satisfying visual presentation to you as the viewer.

That’s what happened with the bride-to-be.

​​Her poor iPhone got tricked into thinking it was seeing three different persons in one frame.

So the phone stitched together three slightly different visual moments to represent each of those three persons in the final shot.

​​If these were three different people, this would probably be undetectable. But since these were mirrored versions of one person, the iPhone’s mistake was glaring and unsettling.

“Haha stupid iPhone,” you might say. Except the reason why I clicked to read this article in the first place was the intriguing headline:

“A bride to be discovers a reality bending mistake in Apple’s computational photography”

This headline got my interest because I, an incurable bachelor, have learned, both by direct experience and by reading up on the matter, that what we see in our mind’s eye is not “reality” as it exists out there in the world.

The fact is, our brains work in a similar way to a modern iPhone camera.

Sure, the underlying “stuff” of our minds is different to what an iPhone is made of, as are the algorithms we use to create the final results.

But like an iPhone, our minds are also sampling from different points in the data stream… filling in the gaps… and stitching together and even inventing stuff to create a final, coherent result.

That final result is not 100% “true,” or even close to it. Instead, it’s what makes the most satisfying image, story, or interpretation to us as viewers.

You might find that hard to accept. I know I did when I first read about it.

But if you start paying attention, you can catch yourself in the act of conjuring up reality.

Anyways, if you want a storytelling tip for how to take mundane events and turn them into something more fun or interesting… then keep in mind the image of the bride-to-be in front of her imperfect doppelgangers across two mirrors.

​​Remember the three slightly different women in wedding gowns facing each other, remember the explanation for it, and then do something similar when you are writing your story.

In entirely related news:

I’ve decided once again offer my Influential Emails training. ​I only offered this once before, live, two years ago.

​​In this training, I shared several advanced email copywriting techniques I used then, and continue to use, to make my own emails stand out in people’s minds.

I’ve noticed that two years later, some of my long-time readers and customers still feed back ideas and names to me that I only shared during that training. That’s to say, maybe these folks really did find the training impactful, useful, and even insightful.

I’ll offer the recordings of this training next week, between Thursday December 6th and Sunday December 10th. But I will do something different than usual.

Rather than making this training available to everyone, I will only make it available to people who get on a waitlist first.

​​If you’re curious why, I’ll explain that in my email tomorrow.

​​Meanwhile, if you want to get on the waitlist, you’ll first have to get onto my email list. Click here to do so.