Negotiating Leverage, Part 1

                                     Δῶς μοι πᾶ στῶ καὶ τὰν γᾶν κινάσω

                                    -Archimedes

One of the most challenging arenas of intentional fruition, and among the most rewarding, is that of deal-making. In my experience, the enneagram is quite useful in preparing and executing negotiations. A discipline straddling art and science, I believe that negotiation may prove to be the single most vital skill that humanity can acquire at this time, certainly as individuals and especially as a species.

As always, I am delighted to receive questions. The three below came in response to an earlier draft of thematically similar material. Together, they afford me an opportunity both to share my experience and to test my belief.

Here they are:

1) How would you strategize negotiating a price
    on a purchase of real estate?

2) How do you establish true needs, desires and
    fears in negotiation?

3) If a buyer is unable to force concessions or 
    increase the offer, does this negate the process?


In order to explain my answers, if not live them, I will draw upon the enneagram. There is no better map than the enneagram, yet the territory will always be more interesting, if interest can be measured as a specific potential for gain and loss in wordly matters. To actually live them, of course, requires other virtues.

There is more than one approach to negotiation, depending on the relevant circumstances and intentions. All too often, though, the parties involved treat it as an exercise in winning and losing - a purely zero sum game. Ever the contrarian, I prefer not to pretend that deal-making is a metaphor for combat, or vice versa.

I do try to deal exclusively with others of like mind, those who prefer the win-win scenario. Of course, I also know how to deal with combative types (who for their part strike me as predictable and boring) - indeed they can make for good practice, like sparring. More importantly, though, as much as I love human interaction, my ideal position is to retain the freedom to walk away from any deal whatsoever if I choose to do so.

It is not that I am stubborn; rather, it is a forceful reminder of the voluntary nature of any negotiated agreement and the best reason to stand by my word once I have given it.

T H E   E N N E A G R A M

Whether from fear or from shame, many laypersons simply dread negotiation, not unlike public speaking. Me, I love both these arts, for dissimilar yet overlapping reasons. Based on my experience, I advise that the best thing anyone can do to enjoy high-stakes engagements is to prepare.

If you are not enjoying yourself, then you are either failing to do something, or doing something wrong, or both. You might begin by refining your intention since an ability to maintain sang froid is crucial to success - whereas joylessness will undermine even the best strategy. In short, feel the fear - if any - and do it anyway.

I am seldom surprised or bored by the timeless connections between strategy and games, which are curiosity and joy. By finding ways to enjoy myself and fulfill my needs with one and the same gesture, I save energy and attention for those times when such gestures are not available.

Speaking for myself, what I enjoy most about negotiation is the balance of leverage between the parties. I admit this subjective detail in order also to highlight that there are other, equally important, aspects to the discipline - what I enjoy says as much about me as about anything else. Other, no less enjoyable aspects include simply knowing what kind of negotiator you are ... and what kind your counterpart is.

The third part of this essay surveys those idiosyncrasies in greater detail. Before that, though, the second part reconciles force and voluntarism at a delicate point. Meanwhile, this installment takes advantage of the first question to establish the causes of which leverage is the effect.

Q: How would you strategize negotiating a price on a purchase of real estate?

Speaking in general and only for myself, I would strategize any negotiation - be it a purchase, a sale or any other transaction - by maximizing my leverage. This, and not closing the deal, per se, is the focal point of the strategy. Each of the steps I describe, and the nonrandom order of their application, is subject only to this intention even though there are other aspects and approaches to negotiation.

A   P L A C E   T O   S T A N D

The reasoning is that with more leverage, you will need less energy in order to achieve a specific result.

Every deal is bound by an internal logic, its own unique permutation of the Law of Three, the generic terms of which are need, desire and fear. By defintion and in practice, they constitute the specific anchors binding any negotiation to space and time. Whether or not we trouble ourselves to discover them (much less than to name them correctly), they must necessarily be real and not theoretical, which is to say that the specific terms will vary according to the details.

Of the three, the greatest is need, and as such it constitutes what may be called the point of maximum attachment.

By convention, that point is placed at the zenith of the enneagram, position 9. The unique horizontal line connects the other two apexes, desire and fear at postitions 3 and 6, respectively. Because all three are real, they are independent of any strategy, no matter how arbitrary or how reasonable it may be.

A L W A Y S   K N O W   T H E   S T A K E S

As the antonym of ire, desire has its source in rage and lives in tension with it. Many folks ignore this truth about the bulk of their wishful thinking. As the active force in the triad, the heart, if you will, it also tends to be the most obvious - more deals are brokered to satisfy desire than to satisfy need.

For its conspicuousness, desire is placed in the right-hand corner.

The least obvious element is fear, perhaps because negotiators instinctively, if not strategically, attempt to hide it, or at least obfuscate it - some better than others. Note that fear does not result in need, but need often results in fear. Ergo fear is not the passive force, but the neutralizing.

Notice also that need supports desire. The medium, being unknown, tends to inspire fear in one or more parties. So fear, not need, is the check against runaway desire.

S I X   S T R A T E G I C   P O I N T S

Although it is the passive force among the three, need is the point of maximum attachment. This may be because the environment (i.e the medium) is intrinsically abundant with challenges and scarce in resources. Therefore, once you know what is at stake for everyone, there are six steps to accumulating leverage, and the first (1) is this:

1 - discover your counterparts' TRUE need(s)

The easiest way to discover these is to ask questions, but this does not mean that you should believe all the answers that you hear. Even if you know the answer to a question, it may be useful to ask it anyway, in order to gauge your counterpart. The important thing is to learn as much as possible without asking, since relying on the counterpart at the outset does little to build leverage.

I mention this because there are needs and there are TRUE needs.

D R .   M A S L O W ' S   H I E R A R C H Y   O F   N E E D S

The third part of this essay will take a detailed look at the variety of true need(s) using the enneagram as a lens. This is not to reject Dr. Maslow's work on the subject (with which I recommend acquainting yourself, at least cursorily). Rather, my thesis is that individuals experience need subjectively, as individuals, especially nearer the top of the pyramid, which is to say, it varies as a function of an individual's type.

When someone's type is known, and it can be known, then their TRUE need, or what Dr. Maslow might call their individual sense of self-actualization, is also knowable. As we shall see, the variety is smaller than many professional negotiators might suspect. I will also include at that time some anecdotal advice on the most important question - how to discover these needs in real-live people or, in effect, how to determine your counterpart's type.

Meanwhile, you can discover plenty about your counterpart's superficial needs through research. This is true now more than ever, by means of the internet and especially social media (and if you can learn your counterpart's 'type', so much the better). There is no reason to walk into a negotiation uninformed.

Ideally, the more you know about your counterpart, then less s/he should be aware of the fact. Furthermore, your own inner motivation  - why you need whatever it is that you may need - should be as opaque to others as possible, whereas your desire should be more obvious. The same is true of fear, by the way - it should be opaque and desire should be more obvious.

The second step (2) in the strategy depends on the first (1) and has an unpleasant ring to it, which is this:

2 - acquire and display credible power to disable your counterparts

Here it should be remembered that we are considering only how to apply leverage and not how, for example, to establish rapport. This step need not be unpleasant, and indeed it may well be the lack of preparation and practice that often makes it seem so, whether one is sending or one is receiving the message. Nevertheless, skillful deal-makers can do this, or even get their counterpart to do it for them, without insulting anyone.

It may be wise to reread the previous paragraph several times, and then periodically after that.

To continue; two critical steps in the process depend almost exclusively on this second one, as we shall see. Uncouth, uninterested and unskilled individuals, if they think to include this step at all, may do so roughly. This is usually unnecessary, just as surely as a sincere disrespect for one's counterpart tends to squander more information than it accumulates.

Many folks balk at the apparent political incorrectness of the power display. Yet consider two real-world scenarios, one unusual and the other, universal. This is a relevant indulgence and not at all a detour, since there is far more to negotiation than buying and selling. 

The point is to make a case for this otherwise distasteful-sounding maneuver.

For example, suppose that a bank robbery gone wrong has evolved into an unplanned hostage crisis. When the response team arrives, both sides obviously and inevitably resort to this tactic, the power display, and with good reason. There are a great many other complex arenas where a show of power is natural and necessary.

Or else suppose that your child refuses to go to school anymore because - let's face it - school sucks. My aim is not to solve this particular problem just now, although it's a good one (and if you prefer, substitute going to school for eating Brussels sprouts, since the dilemma is the same). Rather, it is to demonstrate that, short of outright force, one must somehow establish enough credibility to compel at least the counterparts' attention, if not cooperation.

To take the initial question as yet another example - i.e when negotiating a price for a plot of land or for anything else - this step becomes difficult if you have an upper limit on what you can spend. In this case, the seller will likely display power before you can. If you are trying to buy in a seller's market, then you must try to concentrate on the non-financial details, if possible, and do so early.

In practice, one develops skill at the power display tactic over time by learning to neutralize it.

Under no circumstances should you bluff at this point, nor antagonize your counterpart. It is better to have almost no leverage than to risk losing what little you may have, since leverage is more easily regained once lost than is credibilty. You will probably make better, albeit less glamorous, deals in the long run with humility than with subterfuge, and you will definitely become more immune to scams and trickery.

It is never better to fake the power display. Bluffing alters perceptions but does nothing to enhance real leverage. Furthermore, it undermines later steps, such as the next (4), which is to:

4 - reciprocate

By now you should have discovered some or all of your counterparts' needs, ideally by your own efforts and/or research. Again, the third part of this series discusses that at greater length, laying out both a framework and a vocabulary for human motivations that are consistent with the universal laws encoded within the enneagram symbol. That being said, in order to genuinely reciprocate, you will need to put yourself in your counterpart's position - and your counterpart will know the genuine article from the ingenuine one just as surely as you will.

Any discussion of negotiation would be incomplete that fails to mention the existence of regionalisms, or local variations of conduct. These are virtually infinite, however it is your responsibility to learn whichever may apply to your situation. For example - since the given question pertains to sales - in certain traditions it is more customary to haggle than in others, and it is considered an insult not to do so.

This is one side of the coin - to demonstrate that you understand what your counterpart wants and what behaviors are "normal". In short, you want to show that you are a qualified buyer or seller in a manner that your counterpart will accept (which depends on him or her more than on you). The other side is that you should also make sure that your counterpart does likewise, or at least recognize if he or she has not done so and possibly use that to your advantage later (especially at point 7).

For now, let us take another, closer, look at the line connecting point 4 to point 2.

If you have more leverage than your counterpart at the outset, then by allowing him or her to take the second step before you do, you may be able to reciprocate by displaying your power (thereby gaining even more leverage). It is not a good bluffing tactic (see above), but requires experience and - how shall I say it? - good taste. It is not for everyone, and I include it for the sake of completeness.

In any case, reciprocity always depends at least partially on what is received. Similarly, if a counterpart does not display power, you may reciprocate by not displaying any either. Establish a foundation on which to reciprocate before initiating any potentially disruptive display of power - which is to say, see the third step before taking the second (encoded in the line from 1 to 4).

S O W   T H E   C A U S E S

The terms of the enneagram do not comprise an ordinary list. The order is nonrandom and nonlinear. In practice, we see the steps occur clockwise - 124 - yet they are causally connected by the hexad in another order - 142 - which is independent of time. Taken as a triad of its own - 142 - position 4 is the reconciling member relative to positions 1 and 2, or affirming and denying, respectively - inasmuch as positions 1 and 2 unfold in a medium of reciprocity.

These first three steps - 142 - those in the right half, illustrate the hemisphere of cause. The fourth step (5) in the strategy, perhaps the most critical step, has an even more unpleasant ring to it, namely to force concessions. The second part of this essay will examine and discuss this step as the first position in the hemisphere of effects.

Also, I will revisit one of the initial questions above - If a buyer is unable to force concessions or increase the offer, does this negate the process? - with this step in mind.

If any questions from readers should result from this series on negotiation, they will comprise a fourth installment. I hope that this topic, and its application with the enneagram, will prove as useful to you as it has to me. If you can think of another other arena of intentional fruition that you would like to see rendered with the enneagram, I hope that readers will let me know that, too...

U S E   F O R C E   W I S E L Y

The Perils of Personal Growth

Recently a former subscriber remarked, in parting, that my use of the enneagram to answer questions about world events was misleading, that it had nothing to do with personal growth (which was this same subscriber's hope to learn more about, most likely) and that the enneagram was something that I must just be into (whatever that means) but that I ought not to confuse my subscribers by referring to it.

T H E   E N N E A G R A M

I can hardly imagine a better discussion topic. Nevertheless, I would have tried to phrase the same sentiment with a question, since questions lead to discovery more reliably than complaints do. I hope this response will at least clarify for others, if not prevent, some common misconceptions and even suggest other less common, though more fruitful, lines of investigation.

As always, I welcome follow-up questions.

Tradition has it that the enneagram was discovered long ago and preserved in secret. There were defensible, maybe even altruistic reasons. Topping the list was to prevent distortion and misuse. Now that the cat is out of the bag, the first is impossible and the second is a problem of management.

So far the greatest distortion is a prevailing assumption that the enneagram is a set of personality types.

It is proudly spread by partially informed, possibly well-meaning authors in the service of misinformed, possibly well-meaning publishers of all-too popular self-help literature. The Internet has done little to dispel the confusion. Thus, the strength of first impressions converges, in time, with the power of association.

It no longer surprises me that some of my readers and subscribers know almost nothing about the enneagram itself. Many can't seem to see beyond the personality types, which has been the principal obstacle in my various attempts to demonstrate creative approaches to ancient questions. This is a problem with two faces, because so few 'typologists' can say with certainty what personality is, at least not exactly.

N I N E   P E R S O N A L I T Y   T Y P E S

I intentionally assign unfamiliar names to these so-called types. I will defer for another discussion (several discussions, actually) my reasons in each case, along with a description of each. For now, I am more interested in a higher level flyby of personality itself, without fragmenting it any more than necessary.

Let me begin by taking -person literally, to see where it leads.

Metaphors are well and good, but they make distrustworthy points of embarkation. A proposition with no literal truth won't pack any higher cognitive punch, either. The word -person means nothing less than -mask, and nothing more, either.

A   P R E V A I L I N G   A S S U M P T I O N

Don't take my word for it; look it up if you don't believe me.

It follows that as one's person grows, it does so at the expense of its host. Beyond a certain point, it becomes a liability. So it is fair and just, even responsible, to ask: How big a mask does one need?

Pruning, sometimes outright weeding, might be more appropriate for many a person than yet more growth. Too big a mask, no matter how pretty it may be, does not inspire trust. Likewise, having the preconception either that the enneagram is a tool for personal growth or that personal growth is necessarily a virtue can lead to a nonrandom collection of predictable perils.

A   T H R E E - F O L D   L O G I C

I reasonably infer that a process may be at work. Process, more than any inventory of masks, is the enneagram's domain. Therefore, as you read of the following perils, consider them first as whole microprocesses and then as steps in a single macroprocess, or in the reverse order - what matters is that you do not rely on any one perspective, but that you zoom your level of focus up and down.

Far beyond enumerating the perils themselves, my aim is to demonstrate the laws of process in dissimilar but reproducible examples since many apply universally. If they may be discerned, the laws may be more essential to realizing human potential than the trial and error methods that we are already sick of, literally. More to the point, though, is the possibility that human potential is a more robust direction for self-help or inner-work than is personal growth, with more useful benefits.

There is a three-fold logic to personal growth that, when recognized, may be countermanded. The cycle, comprising a series of steps, is held together by the triad of DECEIVE, IDENTIFY and FORGET. These underlying terms bear brief explanation because they contain hidden substance beyond the disposable use more often made of them.

DECEIVE is a negation of -receive and derives from the Latin -capabilis, -capax, -capere, etc. - meaning receptive, able to contain and/or undertake, etc. - although the word has non-Latin relatives, too. The root is all about -capacity and/or -capability. By declaring DECEIVE to be the opposite idea of -capacity, I use it synonymously not only with TO LIE and/or TO BE UNTRUTHFUL but also, more emphatically, as meaning TO INCAPACITATE, according to its effect.

Deception of self or others, in essence a reliance on masks, is like junk food to the cycle of personal growth and like solitary confinement in a small, dark room to self-help and inner-work.

IDENTIFY also has a hidden side, connected to its literal meaning and invisble to modern usage. Nowadays, the term is vaguely and incorrectly used as a synonym for sympathize, with an implied good intention that is never defined or specified. For example, if a colleague relates a story of some professional challenge, the listener might IDENTIFY with the speaker or with some element of the story.

As it pertains to personal growth, to IDENTIFY is to become a slave.

The literal meaning is -to regard as the same, indicating the power of association. Freedom, on the other hand, is in the realm of human potential, of self-knowledge and self-expression based on individuation. There is little or none of either to be had in slavery to a role, to a mask, or to one's own identity.

I imagine that slavery is unbearable, and that most folks (even those who benefit from the slavery of others) would choose more freedom for themselves than less - at least until the price of freedom was explained to them. A dose of freedom might change some folks' answer, but that is another story. In any case, the easiest way to endure the loss of freedom, although maybe not the best way, is to FORGET the truth of the situation.

D E C E I V E  -  I D E N T I F Y  -  F O R G E T

The truth is that you are not your personality.

FORGET is yet another idea with a hidden side. Beyond having memory loss, the word means -to give away, -to squander. In a weird twist, modern English speakers have forgotten their language and its riches, literally and ironically.

The effect of this three-fold logic upon the whole of what might be called an individual's Real I is to INCAPACITATE, ENSLAVE and ultimately SQUANDER it. The cycle progresses through a series of perils to the Real I, which may be recognized and enumerated, even dissected. As we will see, the enneagram is the perfect tool for such work.

Those who set out on a path of personal growth will see as many as six signs along the way, depending on how hard and how far they push it.

The first, IMPRECISION, is unsurprisingly one of definitions. Personal growth is so vague an intention, so abstract a notion, lacking as it does any solid vision of a goal, that it has negative value compared to intentional fruition. If self-help or inner-work is your aim, then by all means make your first steps count. 

They need not be large, but they should be in the correct direction.

I M P R E C I S I O N

Perhaps because I do not consider personal growth to be a virtue of any kind, rather something to be strictly monitored, this first barrier seems to me more like a graceful warning than an imposing hurdle. It is as though fate were asking - Are you sure that you want to get on board? - before the roller coaster actually gets underway. The problem of IMPRECISION vis-a-vis human potential is known to scientists and project managers as GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out.

The next peril in the series is INSUFFERABILITY. To describe it, I will pursue the roller coaster idea a step further, still likening the process as a whole to a fall of the Real I. That fall is preceded, in fact enabled, by a proportional rise.

During this phase, there is often a noticeable condescension toward others, a higher-than-thou attitude. The deception is at its most vigorous at this point in order to impart the energy needed to overcome later hurdles, just as in other processes. During INSUFFERABILITY there is almost no sensation of hurdles at all, which feel as though automatically overcome, like a roller coaster's initial climb.

You may have also noticed that we somehow see personal growth for what it is more easily in others than in ourselves. The face is the seat of the personality, an entity with its own agenda, one possibly quite different from the rest of its host. I should add that since these perils transpire in a sequence, this second one strikes hardest at society's least defended individuals - the young.

I N S U F F E R A B I L I T Y

Society, such as we know it, markets INSUFFERABILITY to the young as surely as it mistakes pride for a virtue. It does so in numerous ways, ranging from insufferable parents to peer pressure and beyond. While society does not cause anything, per se, it does tend to reward deception and identification.

The perils of personal growth build on one another, not unlike a pyramid whose base expands as its zenith rises. IMPRECISION does not end when INSUFFERABILITY begins, quite the reverse. Together, they foretell of another, less exciting phase in the cycle.

PARALYSIS is the dominant mood of the new melody. Both the growing personality and the Real I each go into a sort of cocoon, one waxing and the other waning. It is still uncertain which will emerge as the master and which the slave.

The name derives from the Greek -paraplessien, -to strike at the side and/or -paraplessesthai, -to be stricken on one side. Here the stricken side is conscience. With personal growth comes a corresponding loss of authenticity, per the logic above.

PARALYSIS is a quiet stage wherein any major changes will be deep and imperceptible to inexperienced ears. The effects of personal growth upon the Real I are not yet permanent - something still is missing. Meanwhile, the first three steps comprise the matrix of cause, in this or any process.

P A R A L Y S I S

It might seem from the foregoing that I regard the person as a disease, possibly a tumor. There is partial truth in that, or at least a healthy respect for potential hazard. The whole truth is that the person is only one part of any individual human being, more of an obvious appendage than an essential element.

Between the third step and the fourth lies a chasm of irreversibilty, after which return by the same path is impossible. An alternate path of return, if any even exist, will demand expert method and guidance to traverse. Also, in the real world, reliable guides are not always available, nor to everyone equally.

Although accident is enough to get you this far, further progress needs more will-power than is generated by PARALYSIS alone.

As the enneagram shows, the fourth peril, ATROPHY, requires a sufficient rise to overcome those hurdles encountered after PARALYSIS. The good news is that it is not so easy to destroy the Real I. For the record, ATROPHY, or malnourishment, derives from the antithesis another Greek verb, -trephein, meaning -to fatten.

ATROPHY constitutes some of the first solid evidence of self-harm. Conscience is not only stricken, but starved - its growth, stunted. Meanwhile, to avoid a similar fate, the person does what any opportunist predator would: feed on those more feeble than itself, which in this case is the Real I.

A T R O P H Y

From the point of view of authentic self-knowledge and self-expression, ATROPHY is a willful act of auto-vampirism. For its maturation, the underlying conscience needs a diet of impressions that is steady, varied and fresh - or a specific blend of light in order to grow, if you prefer. The person alternately absorbs or deflects said nourishment according to its own appetite or discomfort.

If discovering human potential first-hand is your aim, then an intentionally translucent person will be an asset and an unintentionally opaque one, a liability. When it comes to conscience, the familiar admonition applies: Use it or lose it. By now, of course, the choice has been made.

Thus, the next step in the process is DISTORTION, during which the person mutates into a new creature - it emerges from its cocoon, for better or for worse. This level of the pyramid and the next demand as complete an oblivion to the Real I as possible in favor of the new normal. Mutation is completely natural, predictable and not necessarily a maleficent force - everything depends upon intention.

D I S T O R T I O N

Whereas DISTORTION takes various forms, they may not be as random as we are sometimes tempted to suppose. Now, is the point when the study of types becomes appropriate and relevant, not before. In fact, premature study is itself a growing cause of DISTORTION.

An arresting, possibly even effective, comparison may be made between personal growth and cancer - surely neither will check its own growth. Personality is a DISTORTION of the Real I and, more importantly, a process that is all-too often mistaken for a product. In reality, it is more of an event than it is an object.

The final peril is even less surprising than the first - quite simply, it is SUCCESS - and it does not happen all by itself, for free. The main difference between DISTORTION and SUCCESS is sustainability. The emergent creature needs a supportive environment, one that would be insufferable, even hostile, to any Real I bold enough to unmask itself.

The relation between ATROPHY and SUCCESS is no less arresting. If the former is a vampire, the latter is a zombie. Sustained ATROPHY results in the death of the affected mass, which in this case must be one or more of the three psychic centers of gravity - gestation, emotion and/or mentation.

S U C C E S S

This is what partial death of the human spirit looks like. If you watch for them, you may begin to notice 
the undead walking among us, making friends, making laws, even making children. SUCCESS paints so shocking a picture that most folks prefer not to see it, which is wholly voluntary on their part.

The admonition to be careful what you wish for is well remembered when it comes to SUCCESS. If you work to bury yourself in lies, even though you may succeed, human potential will only elude you all the more. That I do not recommend such a course apparently makes me unpopular, at least superficially.

The foregoing may be placed around the enneagram for ease of reference and further study.

P E R I L S   O F   P E R S O N A L   G R O W T H


The risk of ultimate SUCCESS is only one of the several reasons why my work with the enneagram does not pursue personal growth as its aim. A private distaste for insufferability is another - lack of mystery is another still. Rather than languish among the undead, though, I prefer to conclude these impressions on more hopeful, if no less critical, a note.

I will be brief.

Disclosing my lack of psychological credentials and admitting my distrust of Academia in the same sentence, let me also humbly offer my recommendations toward an antidote to excessive personal growth. Just as there is a three-fold logic to the perils, so too are there countermeasures to these urges - to DECEIVE, IDENTIFY and FORGET. Unsurprisingly, they are oppositely oriented and punctuated first by a personal discomfort and then by an authentic reawakenening of the Real I.

T O W A R D   A N   A N T I D O T E

This new triad comprises the terms REMEMBER, DISCRIMINATE and VERIFY. As before, the terms have familiar and unfamiliar meanings. As always, the order is nonrandom.

REMEMBER is necessarily the first. Beyond the opposite of FORGET, it must also be the opposite of SQUANDER. This I take loosely as -reassemble, a reconstitution of the members, so to speak.

It can be a long and tedious road with no shortcuts, lasting for a duration proportional to the degree of personal growth heretofore.

DISCRIMINATE is necessarily the second, and can neither be rushed nor begun early. The common acceptable use of the term is to mean distinguish, otherwise it is considered rude if not sociopathic. Why the language has been seeded with political correctness is a thrilling story for another day - for now, ask yourself if you ever hear or use the word discriminate followed by against, as in discriminate against someone on the basis of age or gender, ethnicity or culture, location or religious affiliation, political orientation or economic condition, etc.

R E M E M B E R - D I S C R I M I N A T E - V E R I F Y

The tendency to consider discrimination as an unjust act is merely evidence of personal growth within culture itself, since its true meaning is to do the opposite of incriminate.

Finally, VERIFY hints at something more than -ascertain. Beyond simply double-checking or making sure, VERIFY has the sense of -make true or -make real. There is more to verity than the absence of doubt.

Again, everything depends upon intention - what do you aim to realize?

.

.