Psychology Behind Advertising

Platform is magic

by

I went for a walk this morning and as I was dodging the puddles from last night’s rain, I listened to a podcast, a conversation between James Schramko and Dean Jackson.

In case those names are not familiar to you, both belong to Internet marketers who have been in the business a combined 50+ years.

Both James and Dean have made many millions of dollars for themselves and many more for their clients and customers.

Whatever. The point is simply that, in the little corner of the Internet where I live, these guys are influential and established and respected. I’ve known about each for many years, and I’ve been paying attention to both intensely over the past year.

This morning, while listening to the podcast, James Schramko talked about changes he had made to his business following the advice of his friend, a guy named Kory Basaraba.

That caught my attention and maybe made me step into a puddle.

The fact is, I’ve known Kory for years. A few years ago, back when I was still doing freelance copywriting stuff, I even worked with him.

Through this experience, I know Kory is smart, successful, and established. But on hearing his name being mentioned on a podcast, by two people I follow, I felt some sort of electric jolt.

I don’t know how wide of a reach this Schramko/Dean podcast episode might get. Maybe a few thousand people, maybe tens of thousands? In any case it’s not Joe Rogan.

It doesn’t matter. My opinion of Kory, while it was positive before, suddenly jumped. He got the warm bright glow of a star in my eyes.

Of course, I’m a hardened cynic and a bit of a wizard when it comes to knowing influence spells. So I quickly shook my head to clear my mind from this strange persuasion.

But I wanted to share this story with you, such as it is, for a bit of motivation.

I don’t understand what it is about having a platform. Maybe I’ll figure it out one day.

Right now, my best answer is that having a platform is simply magic.

A few hundred or a few thousand people around the world listen to you. It’s not a tremendous amount of reach or power. But it doesn’t matter.

The very fact of having a platform, of speaking to a group of people, gives you status and authority and charisma, and even the power to transfer that to others, simply by mentioning their name. That’s magic.

The motivating part is that, if you haven’t done so already, you can do this same thing for yourself.

Nobody’s stopping you from starting a podcast, or writing an email newsletter, today.

Like I said, you don’t need a tremendous overall audience to have a tremendous influence on the people who do listen or read to what you have to say. I can vouch for that from personal experience, having been both on top of the platform at certain times, and in the audience, looking up, at other times.

I know nothing about podcasting. But I know something about newsletters. Such as for example, that the more often you send emails, the greater your influence over the people in your audience.

And with that in mind, let me point you to a service that can help make it easier to send something every day, so you can work your magic quickly:

https://bejakovic.com/deh

The dark side of social proof

by

Here’s a story of a lovely refund:

Some time ago, I promoted an affiliate offer. As with all affiliate offers I promote, I made sure it’s a great offer I can fully get behind.

A guy from my list, somebody who regularly replied to my emails but never bought anything, bought this offer via my affiliate link. Then a few days later, he refunded it.

That’s part of the deal. Sometimes people buy, and if you offer a money back guarantee, sometimes they refund.

The following however is not part of the deal:

That refunding customer started writing me emails. First he explained that the course he bought didn’t have that “wow factor” and that’s why he refunded. He also asked what I would have done in the same situation?

In a future email, he complained that the course creator wasn’t replying to emails and inquiries quickly enough.

And finally, once the refunding reader got his refund, he claimed he couldn’t see the money landing in his bank account (even though the money was refunded as per ThriveCart). He kept writing me updates about the supposedly pending refund for a couple months.

Maybe the point of my story is not really clear, so let me spell it out:

The point is social proof.

People take an action or make a decision.

They then have to create the reality for themselves that this was the right thing to do.

And since we are social animals, that means getting others to agree with us and feed that back to us, otherwise it’s not really real.

That’s what I felt was going on here. This refunding customer seemed to have no rancor for me for promoting an offer that he decided to refund. Quite the opposite. He was writing me messages for months, trying to get me in some way to agree that either the course or the course creator were to blame, and that he was right in his decision.

Maybe you know the famous story of a UFO cult who was expecting a UFO to land in Chicago on Dec 21 1954, and whisk away the believers before a huge tidal wave wiped out the face of the Earth.

December 21 came and went. No UFO came. No tidal wave came either.

The UFO cult was headed by a woman named Dorothy Martin. She was in contact with the aliens via automatic writing (and sometimes over the phone).

In the hours after the supposed UFO arrival failed to materialize, Martin got the message that the aliens had decided to spare the Earth because of the good work of the UFO cult in spreading the word.

But here’s the really curious thing:

The UFO cult, which until then had been very secretive, very hostile to publicity, very closed to outsiders, suddenly went on a PR blitz, announcing to the world the good news. It was no longer enough for the cultists to be in direct contact with powerful aliens who had decided to spare the Earth from destruction — everybody else had to know about it too.

So that’s the dark side of social proof. We don’t just rely on others’ experiences to help guide our beliefs and decisions. We also seek to convince others that our beliefs and past experiences are right.

That’s all I got for you today. I realize it’s a somehow nasty thing to talk about, a bit destabilizing and inhuman. A positive way to spin it is that our reality is co-created with others, and that you have the opportunity to impact and guide that.

Anyways, if you want to see social proof in action, I’ve got about six pages’ worth of it below in the form of testimonials, creating a reality that my Daily Email Habit is a wonderful service, maybe the best service in the world, at least if you have an email list. I believe it, and I really want you to believe it too, so please click through and start reading:

https://bejakovic.com/deh

Top 3%

by

I just finished playing today’s Which Year puzzle. I wrote about Which Year yesterday:

A new puzzle game, currently trending on, or speeding along, the digital superhighway.

Which Year shows you photos, and you try to guess the year the photo was taken. The closer the better.

Yesterday, I made the claim that the main reason Which Year has quickly gained popularity is not the core idea (solid, even if it’s nothing magical), but the tweak, taken from Wordle, that new puzzles are only available once a day, and everybody gets the same.

But there’s another big reason for Which Year’s fast success, and it’s again taken from Wordle:

After you finish puzzling today’s Which Year puzzles (5 separate images), you see your score compared to everyone else in the world.

I placed in the top 3%, and am very proud to tell you so, which is really the point of meh email today. The point goes all the way back to one of the founders of psychotherapy, Alfred Adler.

Adler disagreed with Freud that sex is the basis of man’s struggle in life. Instead, Adler believed that a feeling of inferiority was the core human experience and drive.

You might think I’m really stretching this email, having started out with a trending puzzle game 10 sentences ago and now telling you about psychotherapy and inferiority as the basis of human experience.

But that’s kind of Adler’s point. Wanting to not feel inferior — not wanting to be first necessarily, but definitely not wanting to be last, or close to last — is a key driver of everything we do, all the time. It’s the reason for the clothes we choose, the vacations we take, and the games we play, whether hidden (such as Mine Is Better Than Yours) or overt (Which Year).

Translate that to marketing and business, and you get:

If you wanna motivate people, then appeal to what’s already motivating to them. Bolt a bit of scarcity or inferiority-avoidance onto your core idea — solid, even if nothing magical — and you can create a global hit. Or at least something that’s not in last place, or close to last.

So much for motivation. In other news:

This morning, I’ve shipped off the draft of my new 10 Commandments book to a few friends for feedback. While that’s happening, I would like to remind you of my own daily puzzle game, which integrates some fundamental human motivators that I cribbed from Wordle. You can find out more about it here:

​https://bejakovic.com/deh

P.S. Yesterday, I asked three “Which Year” text puzzles. Here are the answers:

1. The first (and so far only) killer swamp rabbit attack on a U.S. president happened on April 20, 1979. (The president was Jimmy Carter.)

2. Nutella debuted on Italian store shelves on April 20, 1964.

3. Oil prices dropped below zero (if you could buy a lot, and have somewhere to put it), on April 20, 2020.

Which year?

by

I opened up Hacker News today to find a trending website, Which Year, that shows you a photo and then you try to guess what year the photo was taken.

“Ok,” I thought, “but why so popular?”

For reference, Hacker News is a kind of link-sharing site where thousands of nerds congregate every day and upvote for the links they like best and downvote the rest.

Most links shared on Hacker news get a few dozen summed-up points, some get up to 100. Which Year, which was posted just 9 hours ago, currently has 349 points, which is by far the most of any link posted today.

I clicked through to Which Year out of idle curiosity, and it was immediately obvious to me why this simple concept has proven so popular. Right up top, it says:

“Which Year DAILY CHALLENGE”

In other words, whoever made this site took a page out of Wordle’s playbook.

While the core idea of Which Year — see picture, guess year — is fine but nothing groundbreaking, limiting how often you can play to once a day, and serving up the same puzzle to everyone in the world at the same time, immediately ups the desirability, coolness, and engagement factor of this puzzle game.

(That’s a page I’ve taken out of Wordle’s playbook myself, and applied to my Daily Email Habit service.)

Anyways, there’s clearly a marketing lesson in there, but rather than hit you over the head with that on this Easter Sunday, let’s play a game.

Today being April 20, I thought we could play a game called, Which Year, Email Edition.

Can you guess in which years the following curiosities happened?

Of course, you can get ChatGPT to answer for ya. Or you can simply wait 24 hours, when I will reveal the answers and give you a new round of puzzles. Here are your puzzles:

1. A killer swamp rabbit attacked a U.S. president (won’t say which one) while the man was trying to fish and relax

2. Nutella was first introduced in stores

3. The price of oil turned negative for the first time in history

Again, come up with your best guesses for which years these events happened, and I’ll share the answers tomorrow.

Oh, and if you want to play another daily challenge, one which isn’t just fun but can also make you money, then you can still sign up to get the next Daily Email Habit puzzle. Here’s the link:

https://bejakovic.com/deh

Last call for Ronin bonus offer

by

The past two weeks, I’ve been promoting a free trial of Travis Sago’s Royalty Ronin membership, and I’ve been giving people who took me up on that a bundle of bonuses I’ve created.

I’m ending this promotion tonight at 12 midnight PST.

I will promote Ronin again in the future because…

– I myself am a member or Ronin (paid in full for the next year)

– Considering all the stuff inside (Travis offers $12k worth of real-world bonuses) I think it’s a honestly a great deal, probably the best deal out there right in any direct marketing-adjacent space

– I believe Ronin can be immensely valuable for many people in my audience, whether coaches, copywriters, or course creators, if they were to join and implement just an idea or two that are shared inside

So why stop the promotion?

Well, expose human beings to anything constant — even incontestably good things like compliments, security, or free money — and people soon stop responding. Our strange neurology means we need constant contrast to see, hear, feel, think, and pay attention. Otherwise things become literally invisible.

And so I’m ending my current promotion of Travis’s Royalty Ronin. After tonight, the bonuses I’m offering just for giving it a free trial will disappear, only to be found behind the paywall.

If you have already signed up for a trial of Ronin, forward me your confirmation email from Travis, the one with “Vroom” in the subject line.

And if you have not yet taken Ronin for a week’s free spin, you can do so before tonight at 12 midnight PST and get the following 4 bonuses:

1. My Heart of Hearts training, about how to discover what people in your audience really want, so you can better know what to offer them + how to present it.

2. A short-term fix if your offer has low perceived value right now. Don’t discount. Sell for full price, by using the strategy I’ve described here.

3. Inspiration & Engagement. A recording of my presentation for Brian Kurtz’s $2k/year Titans XL mastermind.

4. A single tip on writing how-to emails in the age of ChatGPT. I’ve been thinking to develop this idea into a Most Valuable Postcard #3, because it’s valuable way beyond just how-to emails. For now, if you’re curious, you can read the core of it in this bonus.

If you’d like to give Ronin a week’s free try, and get four bonuses above, which have your name on them, as my way of saying thanks for taking me up on my recommendation, then here’s where to go:

https://bejakovic.com/ronin

Competition contradiction

by

A paradox? A contradiction?

As part of the research for my new book, I’ve been going through a book by Sam Taggart. Taggart is the founder of D2D Experts, an online education company for door-to-door salesmen.

Taggart has a long but distinguished career selling door-to-door, everything from knives to solar panels to security alarms. His door-to-door selling career started at age 11, and culminated around age 35, when he finished as the #1 salesman in a company of 3,000 reps.

Anyways, grok this, if you can:

On page 44 of his book, Taggart’s top recommendation for motivating yourself is to look at all the other salesmen around you, to start tracking their results, and to start thinking of them as competition you have to beat.

And then on page 64, Taggart says how the best salesmen only view themselves as real competition.

Huh?

It’s easy to dismiss this as just contradiction or fluff inherent in a lot of sales material.

But I don’t think so.

A while back, meaning 3 years ago, I wrote about 6 characteristics of people who manage to do the seemingly impossible.

These 6 characteristics came out of a study of pro athletes who came back from devastating injury to compete at the highest level again… as well as star Wall Street traders who managed to beat not only all other traders, but the randomness inherent in the market as well.

One of the common characteristics of such people was that they simultaneously had a short-term view of the task to be accomplished, as well as a long-term view.

In other words, these folks looked at their situation from both 3 feet away, and from 3,000 feet up in the air. They did so the same time, or at least switching constantly between the two.

And so I think it is with Taggart’s advice — and so it is in many other situations in life.

We all want the “one thing” to cling to.

But quite often, particularly in the most important things in life, you gotta hold two opposing thoughts in your head, and you gotta live by both of them.

Of course you don’t really gotta. You don’t gotta do anything. But if you are currently worried by competition, whether that’s other businesses who target same audience as you, or other solutions or trends that tend to wipe out what you’re doing, or simply people within your own company who try to outperform you, then it might make sense to:

1. Make a list of all these villains, to keep track of their activity, and to start viewing them as competition to be beaten

2. To ignore them and to focus on doing the best you can

Anyways, I’ll have Taggart’s advice — not this, but something less contradictory — in my new book, full title:

10 Commandments of Con Men, Pick Up Artists, Magicians, Door-to-Door Salesmen, Hypnotists, Copywriters, Professional Negotiators, Political Propagandists, Stand Up Comedians, and Oscar-Winning Screenwriters

My goal is to finish and publish this book by March 24. The way things are going, I might have to shave half my head, like Demosthenes, to keep myself from leaving the house until the book is finished.

In any case, I will be writing about this book and how it’s progressing, plus what I’m thinking about doing to make it a success when it comes out.

If you are interested in the topic of this book, and you’re thinking you might wanna get a copy when it comes out, click below. I’m planning some launch bonuses and I will be dripping them out early to people on this pre-launch list:

​​Click here to get on the bonus-dripping pre-launch list for my new 10 Commandments book​​

Zag when you’re zigging

by

A reader writes in reply to a recent email to say:

===

John, if you weren’t so angsty you would be hilarious. I’m quite certain you will get your next 10 Commandments book done in time to meet your self-imposed deadline (the best kind of deadline, btw) and I love seeing behind the curtain as you keyboard warrior your way there.

However, the title is insufferably long! IMHO

===

I’ve had several people write in about the title of the new book, and to more or less suggest I might do better.

I can understand.

The conventional wisdom is that a nonfiction book title should be short, ideally one punchy word:

Blink

Behave

Nudge

Contagious

Sapiens

At 23 words and 206 characters, my title definitely doesn’t roll off the tongue in quite the same way:

10 Commandments of Con Men, Pick Up Artists, Magicians, Door-to-Door Salesmen, Hypnotists, Copywriters, Professional Negotiators, Political Propagandists, Stand Up Comedians, and Oscar-Winning Screenwriters

Will it work? The fact I have readers writing in to complain about it is encouraging, but I will have to see whether this translates into interest in the book from people who are not already in my audience.

If you’re wondering why I would choose a title like that in the first place, the answer is simply that I find it amusing. But also, there’s the powerful psychological principle of contrast. If everybody is tripping over themselves to come up with a punchy one-word title, then having a 23-word title makes it more likely my book will stand out.

I’m probably not telling you anything new by saying it pays to zag when everyone else is zigging, to contrast yourself to others in your market.

But there’s another kind of contrast you can do. It’s widespread across the influence disciplines I’m profiling in my new book. As opposed to contrasting yourself to others — what you might call external contrast — this second kind of contrast is an internal contrast — to zag when you YOU are zigging.

Maybe know exactly what I mean. Or maybe you can guess.

In any case, I am devoting an entire chapter, specifically Commandment IV to illustrating and laying out this powerful idea.

And on that note:

My angst-producing goal is to finish and publish this book by March 24.

Until then, I will be writing about this book and how it’s progressing, plus what I’m thinking about doing to make it a success when it comes out.

If you are interested in the topic of this book, and you’re thinking you might wanna get a copy when it comes out, click below. I’m planning some launch bonuses and I will be dripping them out early to people on this pre-launch list:

​​​​Click here to get on the bonus-dripping pre-launch list for my new 10 Commandments book​ ​​

Lies and legends of the left brain

by

A couple years ago, I came across a bizarre and eye-opening story told by neuroscientist V.S Ramachandran.

Ramachandran was working with split-brain patients, who have surgically had the connection between their left and brain hemispheres cut to control seizures.

In an experiment, Ramachandran demonstrated that these patients effectively had two different minds inside one skull. One mind would like chocolate ice cream best, the other vanilla. One believed in God, the other didn’t.

This story was my first exposure to strange and wonderful world of split-brain research.

I had always thought all the “left-brained/right-brained” stuff was just bunk. I didn’t realize it’s based on pretty incontrovertible scientific proof, going back to research on these split-brain people.

I recently came across another split-brain story, this one in a book by neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga.

Gazzaniga did his PhD at Caltech under a guy named Roger Sperry, who went on to win the 1981 Nobel Prize in Medicine for this work.

Sperry and Gazzaniga were pioneers in working with split-brain patients. These patients seemed to be perfectly normal. But thanks to a bunch of clever experiments, Sperry and Gazzaniga managed to tease out some strange things happening in these patients, which reveal real mysteries of the mind.

For example, the scientists would simultaneously show two images to the patient in such a way that each image only went to one hemisphere.

The patient was then asked to point, with his two hands, to cards connected to the image he had just seen.

One time, a patient was shown a picture of a snow scene for the right brain… and a chicken claw for the left brain.

He then pointed to images of a shovel and a chicken (with the left hand being controlled by the right brain, and the right hand being controlled by the left brain — we’re cross-wired like that).

So far so good. The different sides of the brain had seen different images, and could identify those images by pointing with the hands they controlled.

But here’s where it gets really tricky and interesting:

Gazzaniga had the intuition to ask the patient to explain why he had selected the two images, the one of a chicken and the other of a shovel.

One last scientific fact:

Verbal stuff happens mainly on the left hemisphere (again, we know this based on these split-brain experiments).

In other words, when verbalizing stuff, this patient didn’t have access to the information about the snow scene his right brain had seen. The part of his brain that could speak had only seen one image, that of a chicken claw.

The fact this patient had no possible idea why he had pointed to an image of a shovel didn’t stop him. He immediately and confidently replied:

“Oh, that’s simple. The chicken claw goes with the chicken, and you need a shovel to clean out the chicken shed.”

Hm. Do you see what happened?

This split-brain patient, or rather the left mind in his skull, came up with a story, consistent with the facts he knew (the fact was he had pointed to a picture of a shovel).

Of course, in this case, the story was completely fabricated and wrong, and had nothing to do with the actual reason (that the other half of his brain had seen a snow scene and had connected it to the image of a shovel).

To me, this is really fascinating. Because it’s not just about these rare few people who don’t have a connection between the left and right brain hemispheres.

This same thing is happening in all of us, all the time, even right now as you read this. It’s just not so neatly visible and trackable in connected-brain humans as it is in split-brain humans (hence why this research won the Nobel Prize).

This is cool knowledge on its own. But it also practical consequences, and gives you specific technique to practice in case you want to influence others.

This technique is nothing new. But it is immensely powerful. (And no, it’s not “Tell a stawrry.”)

You probably know the technique I have in mind. But if not, you can find it in my upcoming book, full title:

10 Commandments of Con Men, Pick Up Artists, Magicians, Door-to-Door Salesmen, Hypnotists, Copywriters, Professional Negotiators, Political Propagandists, Stand Up Comedians, and Oscar-Winning Screenwriters

My goal is to finish and publish this book by March 24.

Until then, I will be writing about this book and how it’s progressing, plus what I’m thinking about doing to make it a success when it comes out.

If you are interested in the topic of this book, and you’re thinking you might wanna get a copy when it comes out, click below. I’m planning some launch bonuses and I will be dripping them out early to people on this pre-launch list:

​​Click here to get on the bonus-dripping pre-launch list for my new 10 Commandments book​ ​

Do you subscribe to the New Yorker?

by

You probably don’t. But I do.

I subscribe to the New Yorker because the New Yorker’s feature articles are well-written fluff, which exposes me to new ideas.

But if I’m being 100% honest, that’s not the only reason.

There’s also the New Yorker cartoons, which I find funny. In fact, the zeroth issue of my Daily Email Habit service, which I have on the sales page as an illustration of what customers get every day, features a cartoon from New Yorker.

A few years ago, the New Yorker started running a cartoon caption contest.

In each issue, there’s a new cartoon without a caption, inviting completely new caption submissions.

There’s also last week’s cartoon with the top 3 captions, inviting readers to vote among them online.

And then there’s the cartoon from two weeks ago with the winning caption, the caption that got the most “funny” votes in the past week.

(This week’s winner is for a cartoon that shows a psychiatrist’s office with two clocks sitting on the psychiatrist’s couch. The clocks have eyes, arms, and legs, and one seems to be exasperated. The winning caption reads, “I was born in New York. I grew up in New York. Then we move to California and she expects me to change.”)

Here’s a curious thing I found out in a recent New Yorker article about humor:

Even the top-rated New Yorker cartoon caption entries receive mostly unfunny ratings. (The options when voting are “funny,” “somewhat funny,” and “unfunny.”)

In other words, even when it comes to the funniest captions, most people will think it’s not funny at all. Not just not less funny than really he-he ha-ha. But totally unfunny and flat and stupid, with not even a smile resulting.

Very very interesting.

From what I have read and seen inside my own head, the sense of what’s funny, like shoe size, is highly individual.

In general, the only joke we will consider laughing at is a joke we can identify with in some way, much like the only shoe we will consider wearing is one that actually fits on our foot, however tightly.

Maybe you are not funny. Maybe you’re not trying to be funny.

But maybe you’d like to make money and have influence and have stability in your life.

I keep promoting the idea of writing daily emails as a means to all three of those outcomes.

But I know that a good number of people out there are hobbled by the thought that they aren’t writers… that they have nothing to say… or that they have no right or authority to say anything, even if they might have something to say.

Writing for sales and influence works in the same way as humor.

It’s identification first… authority and expertise second, or maybe 3rd.

On the one hand, this means that, regardless of how much of an expert you are and how much authority you have, most people will simply never be moved by what you write. Again, even the top-rated New Yorker cartoon caption entries receive mostly unfunny ratings.

On the other hand, it also means that even if you have little expertise and less authority, there will be people who read and are influenced by what you write, simply because they identify with you as a person, however tangentially. If you’ve ever been in a relationship, and felt pressured to change as a result, you’ll even find two clocks on a shrink’s couch funny if they share the same frustration as you.

All that’s to say, if you want to influence and make sales to an audience that I personally have no hope of ever influencing or selling to, you can do so, starting today, simply by virtue of being a unique person with unique interests, experiences, life conditions, and attitudes.

Which brings me back to Daily Email Habit.

Daily emails a great way to influence and sell, because they are a constant drip of you, and your unique interests, experiences, life conditions, and attitudes.

I can help you get started and stick with daily emails, even if you worry that you have nothing to say, or no right to say it. For more info:

https://bejakovic.com/deh

The maple syrup theory of influence

by

Fascinating fact about me:

I studied math in college.

Like I said, fascinating. And it gets even more so, because I was never good at math.

Not in elementary school. Not in high school.

Somehow though, when college came, and I could choose to study what I wanted, and I never again had to take any math classes, I wound up taking math classes, and lots of them.

I think I was trying to prove something to myself. I managed it, too, because it turns out you can get a lot done with just curiosity and internal motivation, even in the absence of talent.

Anyways, one time I was taking a math class about “complex analysis” — about how to work with complex numbers, which have both a real and an “imaginary” component (ie, involving the square root of -1).

Whatever. Don’t worry about the math.

The important thing is simply that complex numbers have their own bizarre rules for how they are multiplied and divided, how you take a derivative, how you do integrals.

I never understood complex numbers, not really. But I diligently worked through the course.

I remember a specific homework problem, and the epiphany that came with it.

I was struggling to apply the rules in the textbook. But with some derring-do and with a few leaps of logic, I managed to finally solve the problem and reach the answer.

The answer was simple and elegant.

I remember a feeling of understanding washing over me. I got it, whatever this particular section was about. It made sense to me now. All the struggle and confusion and work had paid off.

Then, as a proper diligent student, I double-checked my answer in the back of the textbook.

It turned out I was 100% wrong. Not just that I’d made some screwup in the calculation, but that I was completely off track. I had misapplied and misunderstood the rules. My feeling of understanding, which had washed over me and given me such relief, corresponded to nothing in reality.

When I was a kid, like 9 years old, I had a feeling I understood myself and the world perfectly.

It was pretty late in life, in my late teens or maybe my early 20s, when I started to notice cracks in my confident understanding of the world.

Gradually, I started to develop a theory that emotions like certainty, understanding, and insight are like maple syrup.

Maple syrup can be poured over whatever you want — pancakes, French toast, waffles.

Likewise, emotions can be poured over ideas that are true, ideas are not true, or even ideas that are complete waffles, meaning some kind of undefined nonsense, like my understanding of complex analysis rules.

On the one hand, it doesn’t get more unsettling than this. I realized my most basic, certain feelings of rightness are not actually reliable.

On the other hand, it was a powerful realization.

For one thing, it was liberating.

It meant that, even if I’m sure — if it cannot, will not, won’t work, if it’s black and not white, if I am right and not wrong — I don’t really know for a fact. It pays to go get some real-world data — the equivalent of checking the right answer in the back of the textbook.

For another, I’m not the only person whose emotions work like this. I find it’s pretty universal.

And it turns out there are ways to get other people to pour their own emotional syrups — whether of desire, or of insight, or of trust — over pancakes, French toast, waffles, donuts, rice, hot dogs, sponge cake, and pretty much any basic foodstuff you may have to offer them.

You can make hot dogs sweet and sponge cake delicious, even irresistible, if you pour enough maple syrup on them.

And you can make honest, dry, uninspiring information exciting and eye-opening and urgent, much in the same way.

Perhaps you’d like some specific techniques of influence, which you can apply to get your audience to pour out their own emotional maple syrups over your offers?

You can find such techniques, delivered daily to your inbox, inside my Daily Email Habit service.

You even double-check your own answers against my answers, which like today, tend to be based on the day’s Daily Email Habit prompt.

In case you’d like to prove something to yourself:

https://bejakovic.com/deh