Posts Tagged ‘Paying Attention’

Understanding the Law of Scarcity

April 13th, 2010



Sales trainers and speakers reference the law of scarcity as one of the fundamental laws of persuasion. The law of scarcity is simply that when someone perceives something that they desire to be in limited quantity, the perceived value of that thing or person becomes much greater than if were widely available. The law of scarcity applies to both salesmanship and in relationships and courtship.

Sales Example

You turn on the television and see a commercial for some new overly-hyped kitchen gadget. The commercial voice reminds you that “…supplies are limited” and that “…this offer will not last.” This commercial is employing the use of the law of scarcity to increase the perceived value of that item. Believe it or not, it works for them.

Relationship Example

Jack and Jill have been boyfriend and girlfriend for about two years now and the relationship is getting boring. The couple both attend a party one night. Jack notices that Jill is paying attention to some other guys at the party, rather than with him. The value that Jack has placed on Jill now has increased dramatically because he fears that she might leave him for another guy.

Practical Applications

1. Sometimes people make themselves overly available to someone they are attracted to by showing them with affection, but this over availability sometimes causes the opposite reaction to occur–the person actually places a lower value on the person because it is in abundance. If the other person believes that you are highly desired by others, hence, you’re demand outweighs your supply, then your value will go up.

2. Increasing the price or decreasing the availability of a product or service will increase the perceived value of that product or service in the eyes of others.

3. If you want to persuade someone to commit to an appointment, then try to increase the perceived value on your own time. Instead of saying that you have the entire day free, which creates a state of abundance, instead say you are busy and have only such-and-such time free. This increases the perceived value of your own time and makes the other person take scheduling an appointment with you more seriously.

By: Tristan Loo

A Brief History of DWI Law

April 6th, 2010



The first law against drunk driving was passed in New York in 1910. Before long, every state in the US had banned driving a car while intoxicated, which is presumably more dangerous that riding a horse in the same state. These early laws did not specify a maximum BAC (blood alcohol concentration) or describe tests to be administered to the person accused of drunk driving. They merely stated that one should not drive drunk and left it to police officers and judges to enforce this how they saw fit.

The first maximum BAC for driver was set in 1938: that year, it became illegal to drive with a BAC over .15, or 15%. This number was based on studies conducted by the American Medical Association and the National Safety council, who both agreed that research showed a person with a BAC under .15 could still drive reasonably well.

This remained the law throughout most of the US until the 1970′s. At that time activist groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) began campaigning for stricter DWI laws and more vigilant enforcement. Prior to this time, DWI was not considered an overly serious offense, and police officers would not always enforce it very strictly. MADD (and its student group, SADD) felt that too many preventable deaths were resulting from this relaxed attitude towards driving while intoxicated. They successfully pressured most states into lowering their maximum BAC to .10. Now, due to the influence of the federal government, all states have a maximum BAC of .08.

Other important changes to the law followed. MADD’s involvement was one of the factors contributing to congress’s decision to raise the drinking age back to 21. Of course, MADD was not the only group paying attention to this issue. From the 1970′s until now, people have become more concerned and less tolerant of DWI offenses. Sobriety checkpoints have become acceptable, when at one point they were widely considered unfair or even unconstitutional. For drivers under the age of 21, the BAC has been lowered to .01, because legally they should not be drinking at all (even though in some states, such as Texas, minors are allowed to drink in the presence of a legal guardian.)

One current controversy in DWI law is the question of the role law enforcement is meant to play in addressing this problem. If a person is convicted of driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, should they be punished or rehabilitated? Is the punishment approach failing to effectively address the problem, or is the rehabilitation approach merely letting people off too easy?

By: Joseph Devine

Fair Access Constitutional Amendment

February 6th, 2010

Our Politicians Are Not Paying Attention

It is our responsibility to light a fire under the rear ends of our politicians and if we don’t step up to the plate now, we will live to regret our inaction. This is why we are proposing the Fair Access Amendment.

No politician who does not support it should get another vote. We ask for the support of our like minded friends who care about what is happening to our nation. If our politicians fail to support and pass the Fair Access Amendment then the people will have no choice but to secede one State at a time and form a nation of Free States.

Fair Access Constitutional Amendment

Section One: All members of the Senate shall serve from an office within the State they were elected to. The number of Senators will change from 2 per State to 9 per State as follows. There will be tree slates of three Senators. Each slate of Senators will serve for the Constitutionally authorized 6 years as they do now. Each slate shall be comprised of the 3 highest vote getters, regardless of political party affiliation or lack thereof. Each voter can choose their 3 favorite candidates so that voters can impact the Senate every two years.

There shall not be term limits as the voters have the right to decide who comes and who goes. It will be easy for voters to meet at the State level with their Senators. It will be difficult for Lobbyists to cover the 150 Senate Slates in all 50 States so the balance of influence will transfer from the lobbyists to the people. » Read more: Fair Access Constitutional Amendment