Making our lives simpler Part One of Two, (Scroll down for part two) by Rabbi shmuel gluck:
Many people, regularly, become overwhelmed because they have to make multiple decisions each day. They’re confused because each “side” offers multiple advantages and disadvantages. They have to decide which advantages are important, and which disadvantages can be tolerated. They’ve also found that making decisions is complex, because some decisions conflict with previous ones. Making contradictory decisions will cause people’s lives to deteriorate further. I’d like to offer an alternative decision making process which will simplify people’s lives by requiring them to make fewer decisions.
People intuitively know whether their decisions are logic, or emotion, based. In other words, people usually know whether their decisions make, or don’t make sense. When their decisions are emotion based, they cause people to feel unsettled. However, many decisions aren’t based on logic, consistent with their values, or consistent with their previous decisions.
For example, people may have to decide whether they should go to a wedding which is an hour away from their home. A significant part of their decision may be based on their present mood, and whose feelings they may hurt by not attending. While these are important factors, the decision is being decided “on the spot”, and is often based more on emotion than logic.
The next day they may have to decide, again, whether they should go to another wedding, and they may decide differently. Their decisions aren’t consistent, and this puts a bad “taste” in many people’s mouths. In addition, inconsistent decisions require people to decide, and agonize, every time the same situation arises, and this decision process may take several hours.
The stress that results from indecision, and the uncertainty that continues long after a decision has been made, can be debilitating. It makes it more difficult for people to have the energy to complete their responsibilities. Having a consistent approach would help people make stress-free decisions.
A consistent approach would be something like, “Weddings that require traveling take time, and I can’t afford it unless it’s a sibling’s wedding”. Or, “People believe that their Simchas are enhanced when their friends attend, and it’s the right thing to do”. While exceptions may present themselves, in most cases, no decision is necessary, because the decision was made before the couple became engaged. The beauty of this approach is that it makes the decision process easier, and removes the need to make decisions each time.
Now, let’s apply this approach on a broader scale. Imagine if people lived their lives with a direction. They knew what was, and wasn’t, important to them. Whenever they’d be faced with a decision, they’d already know what to do, because they already have a rule in mind that leads to the decision.
Here are some of my personal rules. These’ll make it unnecessary for people to constantly make decisions. These decisions are personal. Other people may want to adopt them, or have their own rules. The message of this article is about the need to have rules, and not to decide for the reader what those rules should be.
1) I‘ll jump through twenty hoops to satisfy a family member but, if based on my experience with that member after jumping through those hoops I still can’t satisfy that member, I won’t jump through any hoops. Imagine how easy it becomes to make my decision when such a situation reappears. I don’t feel guilty if I don’t believe I can satisfy him/her, or burdened if I can. I’ve already decided, in advance, what I plan on doing, and by planning in advance, I’ve already emotionally accepted my decision, making it easier to implement it without the usual guilt and flip flop.
2) When several people ask me for help, I’ll choose to help the one who’s closer to my inner circle of responsibility. That means I’ll help my spouse before my children (That’s a tough decision with multiple possible exceptions), my children before my parents (there are fewer exceptions in this situation, but there are still many of them), my parents before other relatives or friends, friends before general Chesed opportunities.
People are often unsure of how to decide the order of priorities of who should take advantage of their free time. Having rules in place means that individual decisions won’t be required each time two people ask for one’s time. S/he’ll consider in which category the people are, and already know which to help, and to whom to apologize.
I instruct my staff to apply this same principle. Mentors, and counselors are often in demand, and they’re forced to decide who’ll get their time, and who’ll have to be “pushed off” for a later time. Their priority is in the following order: Their family, co-workers, clients who have a contractual arrangement with Areivim (those in our residences), families with whom they already have a relationship and, only then, new cases.
People can make decisions in advance by forming rules throughout their lives. They experiences events, observe others, listen to Shiurim, and ask for advice. They see the outcomes which result from listening, or not listening, to these four sources, and create their rules. Then they “store” these rules into their personal databases and, when confronted with situations that are difficult, they can, with ease, extract the rule and know exactly what to do.
However, extracting rules isn’t always as easy as it sounds. Many circumstances won’t be identical to ones that people have experienced. For example, when my son passed away, I was confronted with something that I’d never experienced, and I”YH will never experience. However, I’ve experienced enough similar situations in which I was able to repeat under my breath multiple times, “You know what you’ve told others to do”. One example that I’ve advised fathers to remember is that during stressful times, they should wear the “hat” of family leader, more than the “hat” of an individual. This rule shouldn’t change despite the fact that other stressful situations may be different from what I experienced. Having rules in place “told” me what I needed to do and, thereby, made the difficult time easier for myself and my family.
People intuitively know whether their decisions are logic, or emotion, based. In other words, people usually know whether their decisions make, or don’t make sense. When their decisions are emotion based, they cause people to feel unsettled. However, many decisions aren’t based on logic, consistent with their values, or consistent with their previous decisions.
For example, people may have to decide whether they should go to a wedding which is an hour away from their home. A significant part of their decision may be based on their present mood, and whose feelings they may hurt by not attending. While these are important factors, the decision is being decided “on the spot”, and is often based more on emotion than logic.
The next day they may have to decide, again, whether they should go to another wedding, and they may decide differently. Their decisions aren’t consistent, and this puts a bad “taste” in many people’s mouths. In addition, inconsistent decisions require people to decide, and agonize, every time the same situation arises, and this decision process may take several hours.
The stress that results from indecision, and the uncertainty that continues long after a decision has been made, can be debilitating. It makes it more difficult for people to have the energy to complete their responsibilities. Having a consistent approach would help people make stress-free decisions.
A consistent approach would be something like, “Weddings that require traveling take time, and I can’t afford it unless it’s a sibling’s wedding”. Or, “People believe that their Simchas are enhanced when their friends attend, and it’s the right thing to do”. While exceptions may present themselves, in most cases, no decision is necessary, because the decision was made before the couple became engaged. The beauty of this approach is that it makes the decision process easier, and removes the need to make decisions each time.
Now, let’s apply this approach on a broader scale. Imagine if people lived their lives with a direction. They knew what was, and wasn’t, important to them. Whenever they’d be faced with a decision, they’d already know what to do, because they already have a rule in mind that leads to the decision.
Here are some of my personal rules. These’ll make it unnecessary for people to constantly make decisions. These decisions are personal. Other people may want to adopt them, or have their own rules. The message of this article is about the need to have rules, and not to decide for the reader what those rules should be.
1) I‘ll jump through twenty hoops to satisfy a family member but, if based on my experience with that member after jumping through those hoops I still can’t satisfy that member, I won’t jump through any hoops. Imagine how easy it becomes to make my decision when such a situation reappears. I don’t feel guilty if I don’t believe I can satisfy him/her, or burdened if I can. I’ve already decided, in advance, what I plan on doing, and by planning in advance, I’ve already emotionally accepted my decision, making it easier to implement it without the usual guilt and flip flop.
2) When several people ask me for help, I’ll choose to help the one who’s closer to my inner circle of responsibility. That means I’ll help my spouse before my children (That’s a tough decision with multiple possible exceptions), my children before my parents (there are fewer exceptions in this situation, but there are still many of them), my parents before other relatives or friends, friends before general Chesed opportunities.
People are often unsure of how to decide the order of priorities of who should take advantage of their free time. Having rules in place means that individual decisions won’t be required each time two people ask for one’s time. S/he’ll consider in which category the people are, and already know which to help, and to whom to apologize.
I instruct my staff to apply this same principle. Mentors, and counselors are often in demand, and they’re forced to decide who’ll get their time, and who’ll have to be “pushed off” for a later time. Their priority is in the following order: Their family, co-workers, clients who have a contractual arrangement with Areivim (those in our residences), families with whom they already have a relationship and, only then, new cases.
People can make decisions in advance by forming rules throughout their lives. They experiences events, observe others, listen to Shiurim, and ask for advice. They see the outcomes which result from listening, or not listening, to these four sources, and create their rules. Then they “store” these rules into their personal databases and, when confronted with situations that are difficult, they can, with ease, extract the rule and know exactly what to do.
However, extracting rules isn’t always as easy as it sounds. Many circumstances won’t be identical to ones that people have experienced. For example, when my son passed away, I was confronted with something that I’d never experienced, and I”YH will never experience. However, I’ve experienced enough similar situations in which I was able to repeat under my breath multiple times, “You know what you’ve told others to do”. One example that I’ve advised fathers to remember is that during stressful times, they should wear the “hat” of family leader, more than the “hat” of an individual. This rule shouldn’t change despite the fact that other stressful situations may be different from what I experienced. Having rules in place “told” me what I needed to do and, thereby, made the difficult time easier for myself and my family.
MAKING OUR LIVES SIMPLER PART two OF TWO, BY RABBI SHMUEL GLUCK:
People may, sometimes, have new situations that aren’t similar to anything that they’ve ever experienced and, therefore, they won’t be able to make decisions in advance. When that happens they should make decisions that’ll create rules that won’t limit their future decisions, and only solve their immediate problem. They’ll know what to do today and in the future, without having to agonize every time.
For example, many families have one difficult child among their children. When this child lives in the home with the other children, the parents are faced, daily, with questions as to whether they should give this child special privileges, which may make the other children jealous, and increase the risk of their wanting the same privileges. A very common example is, should parents buy the difficult child a smartphone, if it’ll cause the other children to also want one?”
I won’t answer specific questions like the one above. Answering the “problem of the day” without having a rule that also helps them solve the problem of tomorrow, requires multiple independent decisions which are often inconsistent with their previous decisions. When parents are deciding whether or not to offer privileges to the difficult child, they may offer the privileges inconsistently. This may lead them to find that all their children have become upset at them, instead of the happy compromise for which they were looking for.
Instead, I’ll ask them a very tough question. For example, “Will the difficult child remain your primary concern, even at the potential cost of the other children, or will the other children be your primary concern, despite the fact that it may make the difficult child worse?” Once they’ve decided on an answer, they’ve an approach which will create clarity throughout their difficult ordeal.While this may be a very difficult decision, it represents short term discomfort, with the reward of long term clarity.
Frequently, parents may become “frozen”, and be unable to decide between two options. Nevertheless, focusing on an approach, even when they can’t accept either of two options, will allow them to make better decisions than if they didn’t have rules. Which parents would be willing to “sacrifice” any of their children, in advance of an incident that’ll require a decision? In this case, they may choose a third option, and that’s to ask the difficult child to go to a school dormitory, even though the dormitory situation isn’t likely to help in the short term. If they choose the dormitory, they’ll realize that they’ve decided that the other children’s well being, overrides that of the difficult one.
Despite the clear advantages of my decision making approach (see part 1), by deciding in advance what the rule (broader approach) should be, may be difficult for many reasons. Here are a few of them:
1) Forming a consistent approach requires people to have standards, and morals, with which they live their lives, and to be in touch with them. When speaking in a vacuum many people will claim that they’ll spend money to keep their “word”, but may find it most difficult to spend the money when the circumstances arise. Making decisions in advance is easy, but it’s much more difficult to act on them when it inconveniences them.
2) Forming a consistent approach requires people to be disciplined. They can’t act on a whim, or cave in to their emotions. Many people don’t lead disciplined lives, even when they’re not under pressure, and certainly won’t when they’re under pressure to make a tough decision.
3) Decisions made in advance can often be held “hostage”, by the emotions that rise up in “real time”. For example, although deciding in advance which child to sacrifice may make parents feel mean and insensitive, although they didn’t feel that way when they made their decisions, and often can’t bring themselves to act on that decision.
Just as people should make decisions in advance, based on the information in their databases, they should also make decisions in advance based on “who they are”. This requires them to be in touch with who they are, and their strengths, weaknesses, likes, and dislikes.
Here are some examples:
1) If people can’t work more than eight hours a day they should acknowledge it to themselves. Acknowledging, in advance, will make their lives simpler, as they’ll eliminate options that aren’t realistic. This will often leave them with one, or two, options, and the decision process will become painless. Having made advance decisions will allow them to eliminate many of the options that would have otherwise confused them, and will allow them to remain free of any guilt.
2) People should prepare, in advance, a list of other people who frustrate them, when they spend considerable time with them. People often feel guilty when they reject requests for assistance. Nevertheless, if they would say to themselves that, “Whenever I’m with that person I become frustrated for hours, and take it out on my family”, they would reject the request, and be free of any guilt.
If people would adopt my suggestions, they’d learn how to “talk to themselves”. When confronted with a situation that requires a decision they’d pause, and remind themselves of how their decision will “play out”, financially, emotionally, and time-wise. Being in touch with themselves in those three areas, will often make their decisions obvious enough, so that a new decision won’t be necessary.
Interestingly, many of the people to whom I speak resist what I suggest, and it’s not because they consider my approach ineffective. What they resent is having to live a life of thought and structure. It goes against their grain, and particularly those who were, what they like to refer to as “chillers”, when they were teenagers.
My response (which is sometimes accepted, and too often not accepted) is that people shouldn’t limit their happiness by an image they have of themselves, and certainly not a worn out image from years ago. Instead, they should acknowledge their changing goals, needs, responsibilities, and approaches and, therefore, the tools they’ll utilize to achieve those new goals.
For example, many families have one difficult child among their children. When this child lives in the home with the other children, the parents are faced, daily, with questions as to whether they should give this child special privileges, which may make the other children jealous, and increase the risk of their wanting the same privileges. A very common example is, should parents buy the difficult child a smartphone, if it’ll cause the other children to also want one?”
I won’t answer specific questions like the one above. Answering the “problem of the day” without having a rule that also helps them solve the problem of tomorrow, requires multiple independent decisions which are often inconsistent with their previous decisions. When parents are deciding whether or not to offer privileges to the difficult child, they may offer the privileges inconsistently. This may lead them to find that all their children have become upset at them, instead of the happy compromise for which they were looking for.
Instead, I’ll ask them a very tough question. For example, “Will the difficult child remain your primary concern, even at the potential cost of the other children, or will the other children be your primary concern, despite the fact that it may make the difficult child worse?” Once they’ve decided on an answer, they’ve an approach which will create clarity throughout their difficult ordeal.While this may be a very difficult decision, it represents short term discomfort, with the reward of long term clarity.
Frequently, parents may become “frozen”, and be unable to decide between two options. Nevertheless, focusing on an approach, even when they can’t accept either of two options, will allow them to make better decisions than if they didn’t have rules. Which parents would be willing to “sacrifice” any of their children, in advance of an incident that’ll require a decision? In this case, they may choose a third option, and that’s to ask the difficult child to go to a school dormitory, even though the dormitory situation isn’t likely to help in the short term. If they choose the dormitory, they’ll realize that they’ve decided that the other children’s well being, overrides that of the difficult one.
Despite the clear advantages of my decision making approach (see part 1), by deciding in advance what the rule (broader approach) should be, may be difficult for many reasons. Here are a few of them:
1) Forming a consistent approach requires people to have standards, and morals, with which they live their lives, and to be in touch with them. When speaking in a vacuum many people will claim that they’ll spend money to keep their “word”, but may find it most difficult to spend the money when the circumstances arise. Making decisions in advance is easy, but it’s much more difficult to act on them when it inconveniences them.
2) Forming a consistent approach requires people to be disciplined. They can’t act on a whim, or cave in to their emotions. Many people don’t lead disciplined lives, even when they’re not under pressure, and certainly won’t when they’re under pressure to make a tough decision.
3) Decisions made in advance can often be held “hostage”, by the emotions that rise up in “real time”. For example, although deciding in advance which child to sacrifice may make parents feel mean and insensitive, although they didn’t feel that way when they made their decisions, and often can’t bring themselves to act on that decision.
Just as people should make decisions in advance, based on the information in their databases, they should also make decisions in advance based on “who they are”. This requires them to be in touch with who they are, and their strengths, weaknesses, likes, and dislikes.
Here are some examples:
1) If people can’t work more than eight hours a day they should acknowledge it to themselves. Acknowledging, in advance, will make their lives simpler, as they’ll eliminate options that aren’t realistic. This will often leave them with one, or two, options, and the decision process will become painless. Having made advance decisions will allow them to eliminate many of the options that would have otherwise confused them, and will allow them to remain free of any guilt.
2) People should prepare, in advance, a list of other people who frustrate them, when they spend considerable time with them. People often feel guilty when they reject requests for assistance. Nevertheless, if they would say to themselves that, “Whenever I’m with that person I become frustrated for hours, and take it out on my family”, they would reject the request, and be free of any guilt.
If people would adopt my suggestions, they’d learn how to “talk to themselves”. When confronted with a situation that requires a decision they’d pause, and remind themselves of how their decision will “play out”, financially, emotionally, and time-wise. Being in touch with themselves in those three areas, will often make their decisions obvious enough, so that a new decision won’t be necessary.
Interestingly, many of the people to whom I speak resist what I suggest, and it’s not because they consider my approach ineffective. What they resent is having to live a life of thought and structure. It goes against their grain, and particularly those who were, what they like to refer to as “chillers”, when they were teenagers.
My response (which is sometimes accepted, and too often not accepted) is that people shouldn’t limit their happiness by an image they have of themselves, and certainly not a worn out image from years ago. Instead, they should acknowledge their changing goals, needs, responsibilities, and approaches and, therefore, the tools they’ll utilize to achieve those new goals.
The author can be contacted at shmuelgluck@areivim.com
If you enjoyed this article or benefitted from it please consider making a donation to Areivim.
© AREIVIM ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Reprinting this article for commercial use without the express consent of Areivim is strictly prohibited. To request permission please contact the Areivim office at 845 371 2760 or info@areivim.com.
comments, questions & responses from our readers
The content of these comments are strictly the opinion of our readers & do not necessarily reflect the views of Areivim.
Thanks for the article... we are working hard to try to implement ur advice (specifically in regards to my daughter vs. my struggling son). May Hashem continue to give you the strength and wherewithal to continue to help and inspire people going through difficult times.
M.F
M.F
