I have a question about a guy.  I think you stated I get one free consult question?? I was introduced to a great guy who is the best friend of my best friend’s husband so there is a lot of history there that I knew about before I met him.  This made dating him easy since I knew his awesome character! The only problem I see with this maybe not working out is that his speech is not the greatest.  He is from a small town so he says things like, ” I done, I seen and them guys”.  My question is: Can this be a deal breaker? …or does this really matter?  Or…can I get him to learn a little correct english at age 40?  I am not college educated and my english is not the greatest either, but I cringe whenever those words come out of his mouth.  Otherwise, he is the greatest guy I have ever dated. Thanks for your imput!! Diana

Thanks for writing, Diana.  Your story exemplifies the idea of getting in the way of your own fulfillment.

What matters is how he makes you feel — and how you make him feel.  Nobody’s going to be 100% perfect, so if he’s the greatest guy ever except for this one thing that he says, that’s pretty good.

My friend and fellow advisor Evan Marc Katz says “don’t hit on 20″, which is a metaphor from the game of blackjack that’s highly applicable to this situation.  Why try to improve something that’s already pretty good?

Here’s what i suggest: instead of trying to ‘fix’ him, focus on appreciating him for what he has to offer.

After you’ve done that, you can ask him if he’s interested in sounding even more intelligent.  Only AFTER he’s given his consent can you offer some tips after you have his consent and cooperation.

This is what I call leading with love.  To correct him just to relieve your own annoyance is not done out of love — it’s done out of egotism.  But once you change your orientation to genuine concern about he feels about himself, then you have license to give him a grammar tip.

In my own practice, I first ask clients, “Are you open to feedback?”  After they say yes, I ask, “Would you like me to sugarcoat my statements or to be ruthlessly compassionate?”  Once they’ve chosen the hotness of the sauce, then I proceed.

Also, it’s a good idea to focus on getting your own house in order first.  Perhaps it drives him nuts that you say ‘imput’ instead of ‘input’ and he’s been a perfect gentleman about it all along.  And who knows what dozens of other blindspots we have about our own mannerisms that our friends are too gracious to point out.

So once again, lead with love and you can’t go wrong.  Appreciate and reinforce the parts you like about him and worry less about the rest. If you are going to level some kind of criticism or complaint, remember that Prof John Gottman’s research showed that a 5-to-1 ratio keeps a relationship healthy — 5 nice comments for every one negative one.

Hi! Alex,
I have been enjoying your autoresponder updates.  Thank you!  I am grateful that my friend told me about you!

My question is:

When a man uses vulgar language (mainly the “f” word) around me (and we are just getting to know one another), how do I let him know that I would rather not hear that? Sure, I have heard the word a lot in life (I am 56) and even said it myself a few times (usually softly when no one’s around!), but I feel uncomfortable when a guy uses it in front of me…

Thanks and blessings! Maureen from Seattle

Well well.  This is a universal issue, isn’t it.  How do we ask for what we want when it can potentially offend the person we’re asking?  It also comes up when giving unsolicited (but direly needed) advice: for example, how do you tell someone he or she has bad breath?  Or that her boyfriend is a loser and she needs to dump him pronto?

There are a few motives here working at cross-purposes.  One is genuine concern for the friend.  Second (a corollary to the first) is not wanting to hurt the friend’s feelings.  And the third is to get some relief for yourself.

First of all, I’d like to bring to your attention that of the three motives listed above, only one really matters: your genuine concern for your friend.  Number two, namely not wanting to hurt the friend’s feelings, is still part of the fact that you care.

Forget about relief for yourself and instead frame it thus: “If this person continues to have raging halitosis, his friends, including me, will probably be less willing to hang around him, and his life will be less rich for that.”

Now your selfish concern is an unselfish one, which will make you more empowered to speak your mind and tell him about the stinky breath.  Because now, it’s more like you’re shoving him out of the way of a falling piano instead of just nagging him.

Great!  Now that you’re willing to tell him, how do you tell him?

Since I’m in the business of telling people what’s good for them even when they don’t necessarily want to hear it, I’ve thought long and hard about how to package the medicine such that the patient not only takes it but wants to keep on talking to you after taking it.

What I’ve found to work is to ask for consent first: “Would you like to take care of this problem?  Would you like me to help you with that?”  After you get a yes, then you deliver the medicine: “Well then, this is what I suggest you do.”

In the case above, for example, Maureen would say, “Hey, Mr Occasional Foulmouth.  I was just wondering if you really enjoyed my company and would like to see me more often.”  Why yes, he says.  That’s the part about getting consent.

Then you say, “Well, I just want you to know that I get a little uncomfortable when you use foul language around me, and I enjoy your company a lot more and am much more likely to hang out with you if you used softer language.”

What works best is using a non-judgmental tone that focuses on YOU, not him, and focuses on what you want him to DO, not what you don’t.  Phrase things positively.

Here’s another format that has worked for me: “Would you be interested in some feedback about such-and-such?”  If you get a yes, then you ask, “Would you like me to sugarcoat it, or would you prefer that I be ruthlessly compassionate?”  Then you proceed to tell what’s on your mind, as positively and non-judgmentally as possible, at the level of bluntness that they requested.

Sometimes — most of the time, actually — when you do this, nothing happens.  The behavior does not change.  And that’s when you have to decide which is more important: the company of your friend, or relief from the irritating behavior.

We don’t get line-item vetoes when it comes to friends — you accept or reject the whole package.  And a big part of living a happy life involves accepting the world as it is, versus wishing it to conform to our particular whim.  So if a friend’s habit is truly irritating (e.g. nose-picking in public) or detrimental (e.g. crack addiction), it’s your duty as a friend to speak up.

But, as Krishna says to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, you are entitled to your labors, but not the results of your labors.  So if you will err, err on the side of loving people for who they are instead of trying to fix them.  It makes for a richer and easier life.

For those of you who are not familiar with her work yet, she possesses one of the most lucid voices in contemporary spirituality.  Her 1992 book A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of “A Course in Miracles” is a modern spiritual classic.  There’s a famous quote of hers — often misattributed to Nelson Mandela who read it at his inauguration — that starts, “Our greatest fear isn’t that we are inadequate.  Our greatest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.  It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.”  For all my female readers, A Woman’s Worth (1993) is a must-read which informs much of The Tao of Dating for Women.  In person, she’s a dynamic, engaging speaker.  I encourage you to see her whenever the opportunity arises.

She started the talk by remarking that in medieval times in Europe, towns were built with the church at the center.  Symbolically, that’s putting the sacred at the center of life.  In modern times in the West, the sacred is separate from our relationships, work and finances.  This means that we’re not including the fundamental ground of being in our everyday life.  If we were to start doing that and put the sacred front and center, we’d get a much bigger platform from which to operate.

Much of Marianne’s teachings are informed by A Course in Miracles, which seems to be a remarkable tract judging from her references to it.  In that course, we are a thought in the mind of god (and you can pick god to mean whatever it means to you: creation, nature, The Force).  God can’t create anything other than itself, so we are godlike in that sense, with the only difference being that god created us and not vice versa.  Are you following me?  Good, because this is where things get interesting.

Now in each moment, we can either experience fear — which is the same as being closed, or being in hell — or love, which is the same as openness or heaven.  When you embrace the love, you are in heaven, experiencing peace and joy.  When you deflect the love, you are in hell, experiencing anxiety, fear, and discomfort.  You experience the true Self (with a capital S) when you let the light and love of god in.

This idea of ‘Self’ (vs. the ’self’ and ego) is the Christ-consciousness within.  We all have this notion of pure love inside; the difference is the baggage that comes with it.  At this point Marianne used the example of Michelangelo: when asked how he created his sculptural masterpieces, like Moses, David, and the Pieta, he responded: “The perfect form created by the mind of god already exists in the marble block; I merely remove the excess marble.”  The difference between us and someone like the Buddha or Jesus, Marianne said, was that for them, the loving-kindness, the Self is all they had, without anything extra.

Another one of the principles of the Course in Miracles is that “if it’s not love, it’s not real.” The Course also says that god solves every problem the moment it arises.  I found this to be an interesting premise, so I listened closely to find out how this works. Marianne explained that we all have an internal teacher (which the course calls the Holy Spirit, and we can call our higher self) which gives us an opening, an opportunity in which we tell ourselves “I am willing to see this differently.”  That is the Holy Spirit in action.

She also talked about the ‘crucifixion’ and ’savior’ patterns.  Depending on how we relate to each person we meet, that person can be our crucifier or savior. When we follow the fear-based pattern of thinking without love, that person will be our crucifier (but really, we’re doing it to ourselves).  Do it enough times, and fear-based thought becomes a default setting.  You dismantle that default setting through meditation and prayer.  The more you meditate, the more you will tend towards the loving thoughts, in which case each person you meet becomes your savior — once again, mostly through your own doing.

Here’s what happens in relationships between men and women (or any kind really): if each person is not aligned with god (or the sacred, if that makes more sense to you), then their childhoods and past relationships come into play and collide into one another.  You get a collision of egos, with each person taking himself or herself to hell. This did not sound like a lot of fun — and, come to think of it, perhaps that’s why many relationships aren’t a lot of fun.

Each relationship we have is like an assignment, and each person is a lesson, Marianne explained.  In the first level interaction, ego meets ego.  The physical proximity doesn’t last long, and then the parties part.  In the second level interaction, the physical proximity lasts a bit longer and then ends.  But in Reality with capital R, the relationship continues.  The third level interaction is a lifelong assignment.  It may not even be pleasant, but it’s the homework our soul needs.

This is where Marianne explained the importance of meditation.  She remembered how when she was younger, she’d go see every visiting Indian guru, and would be frustrated as hell when they would answer every question with a shimmy of the head and a single word: “Meditate.” Now, a little older and wiser, she gets it: ‘meditate’ is the answer to every question.  “When you do not meditate, you are a danger to yourself and the world,” were her exact words.  Meditation and prayer is like taking a shower or a bath.  You don’t say, “Well, I took a shower last week, so I should be good for now.”  It’s a daily practice of spiritual cleansing and mental hygiene.

As an aside, she mentioned that women don’t need men, the same way they need food and air.  They desire men, and in any case, that’s much healthier and more attractive (and this audience member wholeheartedly agrees — it’s kinda the basis of this book I wrote). From there, she segued in the notion of ‘male perversity’, apparently something that psychologists have come up with.  This is men’s tendency to resist giving something to a woman if she demands it.  (I thought that was just called being a guy.)  The ramification of that is that you will only get what you want from a man when you come from a place of self-sufficiency.

Self-sufficiency is the opposite of the ’special relationship’, also known as the ‘you complete me’ disease.  The special relationship may start auspiciously and feel really good, but it’s not the same as the divine partnership.  And the same meshing of egos that starts the special relationship often leads to the clashing of egos which spells its end.

The main benefit of the talk for me were the aphorisms Marianne brought up from the Course in Miracles.  You can think of these as useful rules to keep in mind when faced with a relationship question.  In fact, one of them has been on a yellow sticky-note on my desk for quite some time: “Only what we are not giving can be missing in any situation.”  That’s profound.  Whether it’s true or not is unquantifiable and unprovable; but it is undoubtedly powerful and useful.  So use it!  Here are some other ones:

“The Answer (with a capital A) to any question is the state of consciousness in which you simply know the answer.”  This is brilliant.  It’s akin to Einstein’s formulation: you can’t solve a problem from the same logical level it was developed.  You basically have to go to a higher logical level, which can be called a higher state of consciousness.  If you practice this diligently and go to higher states of consciousness every time you hit a challenge — through meditation, prayer, or loving-kindess — not only will all your relationship issues dissolve naturally and effortlessly, all your other challenges will resolve as well.  As Marianne paraphrased from the Course, “The issue isn’t that we don’t know what god is telling us; the issue is that we don’t like what we’re hearing.”

“Every thought you have either takes you straight to heaven or straight to hell.”  We talked about that one already: open vs closed; love vs fear.

“You are 100% responsible for your own experience.  The price you pay for not recognizing that is not to be able to change your experience.”

“Forgiveness is extending your physical senses to see beyond the surface — e.g. ‘You’re a jerk’ — into who someone really is — ‘You’re a child of god’.”

And finally, what may be the central prayer in A Course in Miracles, which could have come straight from the Tao Te Ching: “Let all things be exactly as they are.”

Last night, I was at a business networking mixer here in Los Angeles. As the event winded down, I was talking to these two lovely young ladies — let’s call them Ashley and Sarah — who seemed really preoccupied about a message Ashley was composing on her Blackberry.

They kept on going back and forth, with Sarah editing Ashley — “No, say it this way” — and then Ashley re-editing the edit.

Eagle-eyed professional that I am, I thought, gee, could this possibly be about a boy? They apologized for ignoring me and sheepishly admitted, yes, it was about a boy — specifically, the one Ashley was dating. Sorta.

So why was it so hard to compose this message? “Because he’s being a douche-bag,” Ashley said, rolling her eyes. I sensed that ‘douche-bag’ was a term of art, so as a scientist I had to figure out exactly what rendered this fellow a douche-bag.

As it turns out, the boy — ‘DB’ henceforth — was being unclear in his intentions. He said he cared for her but his career came first. When asked point blank whether he cared for her, he’d offer evasive, non-committal answers like “Well, I’ve been with you 8 months now, haven’t I?”

To this, I told Ashley that I’ve heard a guy say “You are amazing and wonderful; it’s a privilege to be with you and I absolutely adore you” before, and it sounded different from “Gee, well I haven’t run away yet.”

We talked for a while, and the summary of it was that Ashley was clearly unfulfilled in the relationship. Yet she kept on making excuses for DB.

Why? She gave two reasons. First: “It sucks to be single — this way at least I’ve got somebody.” And second: “I just feel great around him when he is around.”

Hmmmm.

Let’s parse the first statement for a moment. Somehow Ashley’s thinking that mediocre treatment from a guy is better than no treatment at all.

This is a very, very dangerous assumption. Because it leads you straight down what I call the ladder of compromise. In the study of organizational behavior, it’s called normalization of deviance.

It goes something like this: a guy does something which you don’t like all that much — maybe shows up late. You don’t say anything. So he keeps on showing up late. Pretty soon, you’re regularly waiting a whole hour for him to show up.

Or say a guy puts you down a little and you don’t complain, because he’s so great in all these other departments. Your unconscious is always working to avoid cognitive dissonance, so on some deep level it accepts that this is the level of treatment you deserve.

Now your self-esteem is in the toilet, so you think the next guy who comes along who treats you well is crazy and instead glom on to guys who serially treat you like dirt.

What you’ve done is that, little by little, you’ve allowed poor treatment to be okay. You’ve normalized the deviance.

Ladies (and gentlemen, too) — this is a very pernicious thing. Once you allow the foot in the door for a little mistreatment, you’re effectively allowing a lot more of it to happen down the road. Heck, psychologists even have a name for it — the ‘foot in the door technique.’

That’s why you have to practice zero-tolerance when it comes to matters of fulfillment and being treated well.

This is how my smart, beautiful friend Holly (featured in the introduction to The Tao of Dating for Women) ended with a deadbeat who physically abused her. For 1.5 years.

This is how another very smart, absolutely gorgeous woman ended up with a husband who beat her up routinely — for 12 years. And is still with him.

Repeat after me: “I will only spend time with people who treat me exceptionally well and make me feel like the queen of the universe.”

Why? Because you have a duty to the world to be the best possible version of you — so you can shine your light as far and wide as possible. I’m telling you — the world needs you now more than ever. So when you let a guy get away with doing something — anything — to diminish that light, you’re shirking your duty to the world.

So henceforth, I want you to practice ruthless compassion for yourself. Sure, the guy’s cute, and you feel great when he’s around. But if he’s putting you down instead of lifting you up, it’s time for him to go. Like, now.

Granted, because of the brew of chemicals in your head and the unconscious compromises you’ve already made, this is a tough thing to do.

You also have to admit that you’ve been wrong — totally, completely wrong. Your ego hates that. Get over it, girl — don’t let your ego ruin your life.

Also, notice Ashley’s second reason: “I just feel so good when he is around.” I’m paraphrasing a bit here, but the way she described it to me was exactly the way a junkie describes a hit of crack or heroin. Basically, a drug.

There was no description of mutual enrichment, support, deepening of the spirit. Just a jolt of good feeling, which is the essence of what drugs do — empty euphoria.

Well, guess what ladies — neurophysiologically, guys operate in the exact same way that drugs do. So he’s not just like a drug — he is a drug. And just as bad for you.

And we all know how tough it is to get off drugs.

In the interest of making this article eminently practical, this is how you rid your life of the drug of Toxic Dude (or Dudette):

1) Detox.

This means you stay away from him for at least one week — two’s even better. Going on a trip and having no contact with him is one of the more effective ways. Technically, it allows your brain to downregulate receptors and adapt to normal chemistry. Practically, it gets him off your mind.

2) Get help.

Like Odysseus, canvass your compadres to keep you away from toxic dude, since you know you’re too weak to do it yourself (see my post on the Odysseus Protocol). Listen to them — they often know what’s good for you better than you do.

3) Do better.

Hang out with people who do elevate you and make you feel wonderful, and notice the contrast. Heck, maybe even go on a date with a nice guy for a change. It gets a lot harder to go back to instant ramen noodles once you’ve had gourmet pasta.

The other thing that the girls were doing which I found interesting was trying to figure out why DB behaved the way he did. They spent a lot of time and energy guessing what this meant and that could mean.

And you know what? It doesn’t matter. At all.

The only thing that matters is how well you’re being treated — whether you’re feeling fulfilled or not. That is your internal compass, and the only criterion that matters.

You have to realize that no man is a complete ogre, so sure — he’s going to have some redeeming qualities. And yeah, you’re not totally nuts, so you hang out with him because it does feel good on some level.

But I urge you to set your standards high, ladies (and guys). And once you’ve set them, do not tolerate any subpar treatment. I’m telling you that you deserve the best because it’s absolutely true. All you have to do is convince yourself that it’s true and live accordingly.

Every man should read this to understand better the inner workings of the female psyche; every woman should read this to better understand herself. Two of the thought-provoking findings: women are aroused by a much broader array of stimuli than men are. And although men’s subjective reports of arousal pretty much match their objective physiological arousal, the women’s subjective reports had massive disjunction from the objective arousal, almost as if it were two different people reporting.

I encourage you to read the whole article. In the meantime, here are two passages which I found particularly thought-provoking:

“Meana spoke about two elements that contribute to her thinking: first, a great deal of data showing that, as measured by the frequency of fantasy, masturbation and sexual activity, women have a lower sex drive than men, and second, research suggesting that within long-term relationships, women are more likely than men to lose interest in sex. Meana posits that it takes a greater jolt, a more significant stimulus, to switch on a woman’s libido than a man’s. “If I don’t love cake as much as you,” she told me, “my cake better be kick-butt to get me excited to eat it.” And within a committed relationship, the crucial stimulus of being desired decreases considerably, not only because the woman’s partner loses a degree of interest but also, more important, because the woman feels that her partner is trapped, that a choice — the choosing of her — is no longer being carried out.”

That’s big. To me, it says that one of the reasons that marriage dampens sexual interest is the lock-down. Where there’s no choice, there’s no mystery. So the desire for commitment actually works at cross purposes with desire itself. For the men out there, this means that the little bit of uncertainty that you maintain — not committing 100%, not being ‘all the way there’ with her — actually contributes to her desire for you, and by extension, keeping your baby around.

This next passage was particularly revelatory:

“Yet while Meana minimized the role of relationships in stoking desire, she didn’t dispense with the sexual relevance, for women, of being cared for and protected. “What women want is a real dilemma,” she said. Earlier, she showed me, as a joke, a photograph of two control panels, one representing the workings of male desire, the second, female, the first with only a simple on-off switch, the second with countless knobs. “Women want to be thrown up against a wall but not truly endangered. Women want a caveman and caring. If I had to pick an actor who embodies all the qualities, all the contradictions, it would be Denzel Washington. He communicates that kind of power and that he is a good man.”

This is precisely the archetype of the Good Guy (as I call him in The Tao of Dating for Women). He is strong, yet trustworthy. Decisive yet calm. Passionate yet mindful of his partner’s needs and comfort. According to this passage, the ultimate turn-on for a woman is for a man to be the human equivalent of a roller coaster. A roller-coaster is exciting, physically arousing, unpredictable with a whiff of danger about it.

Yet when you get on a roller coaster, you know that this ride has been thoroughly tested, and thousands of people have ridden it without incident. So deep down, you feel safe. This allows you to let go and fully enjoy the experience of danger in the context of safety. So guys: if you want to be ultimately seductive, be the roller coaster. Be the Denzel.

That’s because there’s only one measly commandment telling you what to do: ‘honor thy father and thy mother.’ The remaining nine are a relentless barrage of ‘thou shalt nots’, telling you what not to do.

So if you were to follow them to the letter, then every day is Mother’s Day (or Father’s Day), since all you can do is sit in a corner calling mom and telling her how great her tuna casserole is. Unless it’s Saturday, in which case you probably aren’t allowed to do that either. And don’t even think of casually saying hi to a graven image, or worse, coveting your neighbor’s oxen.

So for somebody living in 2009, that Decalogue ain’t all that useful.

At the same time, perhaps there is another realm in which a barrage of negative directives would be useful. Some area in which people are hopelessly, repeatedly, incorrigibly screwing up their own chances.

Ah yes — that would be dating.

I’ve been on the receiving end of enough stories from men and women to notice some consistent patterns of self-sabotage in the mating dance. The good news is that once you know about them, these behaviors are entirely avoidable. Call them the Dating Decalogue, the Ten Commandments of Modern Mating or just common sense — here they are:

1) Thou shalt not flake.

If you like your date at all, it’s crucial that you show up — especially to your first appointment. Besides being tremendously deflating to your date when you cancel, there’s an even deeper reason that has nothing to do with your date and everything to do with you.

Psychologists have found that humans have a perverse tendency to align their thoughts with their actions to avoid cognitive dissonance.

So when you cancel a date or stand someone up even accidentally, something in the back of your head says, “Well, I must not have liked him/her all that much anyway.” That makes it that much harder for you to accept a second date. So unless you think you’ve got swine flu, do your best to keep the date.

2) Thou shalt not yammer on thine phone during a date.

I’ll never forget that soft summer night in the Boston Public Gardens when I was about to kiss a girl for the first time and her phone rang. She looked at it, said “It’s Mom,” and proceeded to catch up with her for the next two minutes. I walked away, never to see her again.

You’ve both put in the time and effort to meet each other, so honor that commitment and give each other your undivided attention. ‘Undivided’ means no calls made, no calls received, no texts or emails checked. Just turn the pusher* off.

Additionally, new studies show that fragmenting our attention with email, texts and other distractions lowers our IQ about as much as smoking marijuana does. A dumber you is usually a less attractive you, so stay sharp if you want to make a good impression.

3) Thou shalt not convey emotionally-sensitive content over email or text message.

Email and text lack accurate indicators of tone, making them fertile ground for miscommunication. Additionally, they provide a permanent record of temporary insanity which can be disseminated all too easily. For these three reasons, you should use these media to convey data only — where and when to meet, what to wear, etc.

Mild flirting like “Miss you” or “You’re kinda cute in a sombrero” is fine. “Only a jerk wouldn’t call me after what we did” you’ll regret, especially after it ends up on textsfromlastnight.com.

4) Thou shalt not get sloppy drunk during a date.

This one’s obvious enough not to require an explanation, but I’ll belabor the point anyway. A date is an opportunity to make an accurate assessment of another person’s potential as a companion — and to allow that person to assess you in turn. Getting sloppy drunk ruins your judgment and alters your self-presentation. Which is a nice way of saying is makes you look like a slobbering, unappealing goober.

5) Thou shalt not have a first sexual encounter when of unsound mind.

This follows #4, but I say ‘unsound mind’ so it covers all states of altered judgment: being drunk, high or desperate. At least the first time you get sexually intimate with someone, you want to be of reasonably clear mind. Otherwise the act could lead to regret or, worse, mediocre sex.

6) Thou shalt not argue.

Being right is not the same as being liked. So if you want the other person to like you, avoid argument altogether. An argument is the only game both parties lose. Of course, somebody’s going to argue about this, and — well, it’s still unattractive.

7) Thou shalt not be an open (Face)book.

When you first meet people, you want to control the impression they get about you. Tools like Facebook provide too much information about you too fast to be placed in context accurately (”Why is he wearing a bra in public?”), facilitating misunderstanding. So don’t become instant Facebook friends or otherwise overshare personal information with someone you’ve just started dating.

Being an open book is not transparency; it’s imprudence. So control the information about you so it’s a trickle, not a flood. Not only will you forestall misunderstanding, but when people know less about you, you’ll look more mysterious and interesting to boot.

Thou shalt not be judgmental.

“Only a fool would do such a thing” is a judgment; ditto for “Only an idiot would vote for that guy,” no matter how true it is. So ask questions instead of issuing verdicts. Mind you, “What kind of idiot would vote for that guy?” may look like a question, but it’s still a judgment. “What was important to you about doing that” is a softer request likely to get you a higher-quality answer.

9) Thou shalt not whine.

Complaining is unattractive, no matter how justified you think it is. Yeah, your middle seat in the back of coach was terrible — and your litany of woe is not exactly charming either, so let’s talk about something more fun, shall we? And if you’re going to complain about complaining being unattractive — see #6 above.

And finally…

10) Thou shalt listen.

I made this the only positive commandment since it’s so darn important — almost as important as honoring thy father and thy mother.

Let people speak without interruption, and quit talking about yourself so much. People are dying to be heard, so if you’re the one listening, you’re giving them more life. And who doesn’t want to be around more life?

I live in Los Angeles, which may well be ground zero for spiritual movements in the United States. Many such groups got their start here, and the diversity of faiths and movements is impressive—from old to new, sincere to shady, truly elevating to downright toxic.

People engage in all manner of practice here—singing, chanting, doing yoga, donning exotic clothes, and sometimes even going so far as changing their names or, even more drastic, getting tattoos. For the new seeker, the variety can be bewildering; to the skeptic, proof of frivolity. They can’t all possibly matter, and they can’t all be right at the same time, now can they?

Faced with all these choices, spirituality can be a daunting concept. What does it really mean to be spiritual? A hundred people will respond a hundred different ways, so I won’t pretend to have the universal answer. What I can tell you is what spirituality means to me. It comes down to four simple principles:

1. Be the best possible version of you

From the day you’re born, your days on this planet are numbered. At this rate, I’m guessing I’ve got about 22,000 more to go. The good news is that during this time, there’s nothing holding us back from striving for excellence in every endeavor we undertake. So give your best in your work and your friendships and infuse it all with love.

We have this amazing opportunity to develop talents in all kinds of spheres. Got a knack for cooking? Pick up a cookbook and start experimenting on your friends at dinner parties. Have an ear for music? Noodle on a guitar and learn some chords. Good at languages? Listen to some audio courses and say “get me a beer” in 24 tongues.

Some of these skills will be more fun and others will be more useful. Arguably, the most rewarding skills will be those that end up enriching the lives of those around you as well as your own. Which brings us to the second point.

2. Treat others exceptionally well

The essence of spirituality is realizing that at the very bottom, all humans are far more similar than we are different. Therefore spirituality is not about trappings, conventions, rituals or adherence to doctrine. It’s simply about how well you treat others.

So if you think that those with a different creed or costume are not deserving of your compassion, then you’re not really spiritual, regardless of how much prayer or meditation you put in. But if you’re an atheist who’s a source of elevation and enrichment to all those around you—hate to break it to you, but you’re spiritual.

Spirituality manifests in action, so let go of dogma and ritual. Instead, resolve to treat people exceptionally well. That is the essence of compassion.

3. Practice enlightened self-interest

I’ve observed that when you act at all times with your long-term self-interest in mind, you usually end up taking the most compassionate course of action. I call this the ‘long-now’ mindset; in fact, there’s a whole group of forward thinkers in San Francisco dedicated to this way of thinking, the Long Now Foundation.

Let’s say you want to buy a car. You may think, “Well, I like big cars, so I’m gonna get me one of these bigass SUVs.” That’s super short-term thinking. Then you think, “Hmm, gas prices are only going to rise, so maybe I should get a smaller car.” That’s longer term. Then: “Y’know, if I’m going to have kids some day and don’t want their school to be under water, maybe I should do my part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I’ll get a hybrid.” By thinking about your self-interest a generation or two down the road, you end up doing the ‘compassionate’ thing.

Taoist thought is suspicious about taking actions because they’re good or noble—it’s all about practicality. That’s what I like about long-now thinking: it’s less about being nice than it is about being smart.

4. Think independently of circumstance

There is a skill unique to humans called metacognition, or thinking about thinking. In addition to your ability to have thoughts about thoughts, it’s also your general ability to redirect thought independently of circumstance. If in delicate moments you’ve ever chosen to focus on baseball scores or George Clooney instead of the task at hand, congratulations—you have performed metacognition.

One could say that strengthening your metacognition muscle is the essence of all Eastern spiritual practice. To be the calm in the storm, to transmute hate into love, to choose the best action instead of reacting to circumstance unconsciously—these are all metacognitive skills and the goal of meditative practice.

As an added bonus, metacognitive skills may also be the foundation of lifelong success, as elaborated in this brilliant article by Jonah Lehrer in this week’s New Yorker. Young children who are able to suppress their urges for immediate gratification by redirecting their attention end up being much more successful as adults.

So if you’re running around developing yourself while doing things you enjoy, making people feel great around you while keeping yourself in good stead over the long term, and controlling your thoughts so they create your happiness and success, you’re not just being spiritual—you’re winning at life. And you don’t need any trappings for that. Just you will do.