Always Start by Understanding What the Other Person Wants
There is a lesson I learned years ago that has stayed with me through business, leadership, and now—very clearly—through health and longevity.
It comes from the documentary
The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara, which examines the career of Robert S. McNamara.
The very first lesson is simple but profound:
Lesson #1: Empathize with your enemy.
Why Empathy Is a Strategic Tool
This lesson was most famously applied during the
Cuban Missile Crisis.
By empathizing with Nikita Khrushchev—by genuinely trying to understand his political pressures, incentives, and risks—U.S. leadership was able to interpret actions more accurately and avoid catastrophic miscalculation.
Empathy wasn’t emotional softness.
It was strategic clarity.
Understanding what the other party wanted allowed both sides to de-escalate.
That same principle governs every serious negotiation.
The Rule I Use in Business
I apply this rule universally:
In order to get what you want, you must help the other person get what they want.
If that alignment is impossible, then there is no deal.
This means I never start with what someone says.
I start with what they are incentivized to do.
Before any business discussion, I research:
- What the other party wants
- What they are rewarded for
- What success looks like for them
Only then does anything else make sense.
Why This Matters in Health Advice
I use the exact same filter for health information.
Credentials still matter—but they are no longer sufficient.
In today’s online environment:
- Credentials are easy to inflate
- Authority is often replaced by aesthetics
- Popularity masquerades as credibility
On social media, expertise is often inferred from:
- How someone looks
- How confident they sound
- How many followers they have
None of these are reliable indicators of truth.
“Before trusting advice, understand what the messenger is rewarded for.”
The Problem With Online Authority
In the modern attention economy:
- Followers are currency
- Certainty drives engagement
- Sensational claims spread faster than nuance
That creates a structural problem.
Scientists and researchers are not rewarded for certainty.
They are rewarded for:
- Rigor
- Accuracy
- Transparency
- Admitting uncertainty
Influencers, on the other hand, are often rewarded for:
- Absolutes
- Urgency
- Clear villains and heroes
- Strong identity-based positions (keto, carnivore, vegan, etc.)
That doesn’t automatically make them wrong.
But it changes the risk profile of their advice.
Why I Filter Through Incentives First
Whenever someone approaches me—business or otherwise—the first question I ask myself is:
What do they want?
Why are they contacting me?
What outcome benefits them?
This isn’t cynical.
It’s clarifying.
In health decisions, this filter becomes even more important—because the downside risk can be permanent and life-altering.
Scientists vs Influencers: A Structural Difference
People who spend their careers as:
- Scientists
- Clinical researchers
- Epidemiologists
are incentivized very differently.
They are paid to:
- Search for truth
- Follow evidence
- Update conclusions as data evolves
- Be cautious in interpretation
They are not paid to:
- Build a following
- Sell certainty
- Defend a brand position
That incentive structure matters.
The Risk of Popularity-Based Advice
People whose income depends on:
- Exposure
- Engagement
- Product sales
- Books, supplements, or programs
may sincerely believe what they are saying.
But belief does not eliminate bias.
My thinking is simple:
Why take that risk when alternatives exist?
When life-long outcomes are at stake, I prefer advice from people not incentivized to be popular.
“Truth evolves slowly. Marketing moves fast.”
A Necessary Nuance
There is one important exception.
Scientists and researchers are rarely active online.
They don’t post daily.
They don’t simplify findings for mass consumption.
So I do rely on interpreters—people who translate research into usable insights.
But again, I apply the same filter:
- What are their incentives?
- Are they rewarded for balance or certainty?
- Do they benefit from extreme positions?
Interpretation always introduces bias.
Incentives determine how large that bias becomes.
Why Incentives Beat Credentials Today
Credentials have become increasingly opaque.
Titles are easier to claim.
Authority is easier to manufacture.
Incentives, however, are much harder to hide.
They quietly shape:
- Tone
- Certainty
- Urgency
- Absolutism
That’s why incentives are now my first filter—not credentials.
Bringing It Back to the Core Idea
We rely heavily on the internet for information.
That isn’t going to change.
But how we filter that information can—and must.
Before asking:
“Is this person qualified?”
I ask:
“What are they incentivized to say?”
That single question eliminates most bad advice immediately.
Want a Rational Way to Take Control of Your Health?
Discipline Monster is built around a simple idea:
Long-term health decisions should be made with the same rigor as serious business decisions.
No hype.
No absolutes.
No incentives misaligned with your outcomes.
Just structure, reflection, and consistent accountability.
Build Discipline Without Motivation
Two free tools to help you build real discipline through structure, clarity, and accountability — without relying on willpower.
Free downloads • No motivation required