I love the grocery store. Sending me to do the shopping, though, is not good for our budget, because I always come home with something that was not on the list. Crumpets? Crenshaw melon? Organic sweet potato soup from the sale bin? I've bought them all. Why? Because I am a sucker for something new. It keeps things exciting in the kitchen, at least.
How about you? When was the last time you picked up something new at the grocery store? Or the library? Try something new and let me how it works out. Good luck!
PS - Crumpets are good, but no better than English muffins, Crenshaw melon is like cantelope, only better, and sweet potato soup is only worth buying from the sale bin.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Relationship budgets
Seth Godin recently posted about Dunbar's Number, which is the number of productive relationships most people can generally maintain at any given time, essentially a relationship budget. The number is about 150, despite social networking's attempts to convince us that we have 400, 1000, 2500 "friends."
This got me thinking about organizational design and how a relationship budget could be applied to leaders in a large organization.
Take an executive and give him a budget of 150 relationships. 10 go to his family (spouse, kids, parents, siblings, etc.). Another 10 go to personal friends. If he has been around for a while, he has networking contacts to maintain as well, maybe 50 throughout his industry. That leaves 80 for his job, of which another 30 are devoted to peers and bosses, leaving 50 for subordinates...his span of control. (Note that all numbers here are arbitrary, but the central concept of a limited number of relationships is independently valid.)
The span of control will not only consider direct reports, but also those reporting to them. This means that if you lead an organization larger than this, you will not have a relationship with everyone. Additionally, they will not have a relationship with you.
What are the implications of all this rambling?
This got me thinking about organizational design and how a relationship budget could be applied to leaders in a large organization.
Take an executive and give him a budget of 150 relationships. 10 go to his family (spouse, kids, parents, siblings, etc.). Another 10 go to personal friends. If he has been around for a while, he has networking contacts to maintain as well, maybe 50 throughout his industry. That leaves 80 for his job, of which another 30 are devoted to peers and bosses, leaving 50 for subordinates...his span of control. (Note that all numbers here are arbitrary, but the central concept of a limited number of relationships is independently valid.)
The span of control will not only consider direct reports, but also those reporting to them. This means that if you lead an organization larger than this, you will not have a relationship with everyone. Additionally, they will not have a relationship with you.
What are the implications of all this rambling?
- Consider spans of control in light of productive relationships during organizational design.
- If leading an organization larger than you can directly relate to, deliberately and continuosly monitor the transfer of information and the transfer of relationships down the line.
- If you use up your relationship budget at work, there will be nothing left outside. Beware the curse of the workaholic.
- Do not over-reach. Trying to expand too far past your relationship budget will cause everything to collapse.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
What will you be when you grow up?
We are in the midst of a giant reorganization at work, with one of the results being a reposting of nearly every job in the company. A favorite recreation in the office, therefore, is browsing the postings for jobs you may want now or later or never. The biggest thing I realize in doing this? I'm not qualified for any job I really want.
So, what now? My first reaction is to be frustrated. Why do they put the stupid experience requirements in there? I could run that business, I'm sure I could! Why should I need relevant skills? I read a lot!
This, of course, is not helpful. What is more helpful is to think back a few years to who I was and project forward a few years to who I will be. They are not the same people. I change over time, hopefully growing, but not necessarily. So what I need to remember is simple.
So, what now? My first reaction is to be frustrated. Why do they put the stupid experience requirements in there? I could run that business, I'm sure I could! Why should I need relevant skills? I read a lot!
This, of course, is not helpful. What is more helpful is to think back a few years to who I was and project forward a few years to who I will be. They are not the same people. I change over time, hopefully growing, but not necessarily. So what I need to remember is simple.
- Be patient. I may not qualify for what I want to do right now, but chances are someday I will. Probably sooner than I think, too. So just chill.
- Grow now. Who I am tomorrow is who I am today plus growth. How am I growing today? What am I reading, experiencing, doing? I do not need to get 15 years of experience today, but how will I take the first step?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
First impressions
First impressions are powerful.
I have two sons, spaced 363 days apart. The older was not a "good sleeper" as a newborn. That is, I did not get good sleep for the first eight months of his life. I got good reading, game playing, and movie watching between 10 PM and 4 AM, but not good sleep.
The younger was a different story. He (and his twin sister) liked to sleep from the beginning. We got more sleep from day one with two newborns than we did with the one older one.
So to this day, in my mind, the elder is a "bad" sleeper and the younger a "good" sleeper. Yet when I stop and actually think about the reality of the last week, I realized that I was up three or four nights to comfort the younger one, and never for the older. My first impressions dominate my current reality.
Sleep characterization is a small thing. What are the chances that the same phenomenon applies to other things, too? Will I judge one as fast, the other slow, based on their crawling speed? Is one smart and the other not because of how they interact with Boynton books? I must be careful to treat my kids the way they are, not the way I have prejudged them to be.
How about you? How do you characterize your kids? Or colleagues? First impressions are powerful, and possibly dangerous.
I have two sons, spaced 363 days apart. The older was not a "good sleeper" as a newborn. That is, I did not get good sleep for the first eight months of his life. I got good reading, game playing, and movie watching between 10 PM and 4 AM, but not good sleep.
The younger was a different story. He (and his twin sister) liked to sleep from the beginning. We got more sleep from day one with two newborns than we did with the one older one.
So to this day, in my mind, the elder is a "bad" sleeper and the younger a "good" sleeper. Yet when I stop and actually think about the reality of the last week, I realized that I was up three or four nights to comfort the younger one, and never for the older. My first impressions dominate my current reality.
Sleep characterization is a small thing. What are the chances that the same phenomenon applies to other things, too? Will I judge one as fast, the other slow, based on their crawling speed? Is one smart and the other not because of how they interact with Boynton books? I must be careful to treat my kids the way they are, not the way I have prejudged them to be.
How about you? How do you characterize your kids? Or colleagues? First impressions are powerful, and possibly dangerous.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
What's your system?
If you interact with other people and have responsibilities, you need a system. Your brain counts, but if you tell me that is all you are using, I will nod politely and never trust you with anything. Whatever the system, it needs to answer some key questions.
- How do you capture the things coming at you? This includes requests, orders, questions, internal desires, spam, whatever.
- How do you know what to do right now? What if nothing is scheduled?
- How do you keep from missing deadlines?
- How do you keep track of things you have asked of others?
Monday, October 26, 2009
The language of truth
Does the language we use affect the truth we hear?
I attended a wedding recently where Scripture was read in 5 languages (English, Greek, Hebrew, Spanish, Thai), only one of which I understood. Yet it was a powerful experience. I heard truth that I knew (the passages were familiar) spoken in a way I could not comprehend. Two thoughts came to my mind.
Truth can be spoken in many ways. The way I am accustomed to hearing truth (or Truth, it makes no difference) is well and good, but it is not the only way. Others will hear it differently, or even not hear it at all with the same words. I must be careful not to claim a monopoly on truth only because I have a monopoly on the form of communication.
I must communicate in the way my hearers need. Just because I understand what I am saying, that does not mean my audience does. My wife needs different words than I do, and my kids need different words than she does. The guy who speaks Mandarin will need different words again. It is not their responsibility to understand what I am saying, it is my responsibility to communicate in their language.
What words do you need to change? How has the form of communication affected your understanding of truth?
Does language influence meaning?
I attended a wedding recently where Scripture was read in 5 languages (English, Greek, Hebrew, Spanish, Thai), only one of which I understood. Yet it was a powerful experience. I heard truth that I knew (the passages were familiar) spoken in a way I could not comprehend. Two thoughts came to my mind.
Truth can be spoken in many ways. The way I am accustomed to hearing truth (or Truth, it makes no difference) is well and good, but it is not the only way. Others will hear it differently, or even not hear it at all with the same words. I must be careful not to claim a monopoly on truth only because I have a monopoly on the form of communication.
I must communicate in the way my hearers need. Just because I understand what I am saying, that does not mean my audience does. My wife needs different words than I do, and my kids need different words than she does. The guy who speaks Mandarin will need different words again. It is not their responsibility to understand what I am saying, it is my responsibility to communicate in their language.
What words do you need to change? How has the form of communication affected your understanding of truth?
Does language influence meaning?
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Out-of-sight, Out-of-mind
Out-of-sight, out-of-mind (OOS-OOM) is a fact of nature. Are you taking advantage of it?
Much of the time, we seem to use it as an excuse. I didn't see something, so I didn't think about it. If I didn't think about it, I probably didn't do anything about it. As a result, we keep things where we can see them so that they get thought about and done.
This leads to cluttered desks, full inboxes, and general information overload.
What if, instead of using OOS-OOM as an excuse, we could take advantage of it? What if we could clear our minds simply by moving things out of sight?
This is a central tenet of GTD (Getting Things Done). Using this technique results in a clean desk, an empty inbox, and a clear mind. Why would you not want this?
Check it out. You'll be glad you did.
Much of the time, we seem to use it as an excuse. I didn't see something, so I didn't think about it. If I didn't think about it, I probably didn't do anything about it. As a result, we keep things where we can see them so that they get thought about and done.
This leads to cluttered desks, full inboxes, and general information overload.
What if, instead of using OOS-OOM as an excuse, we could take advantage of it? What if we could clear our minds simply by moving things out of sight?
This is a central tenet of GTD (Getting Things Done). Using this technique results in a clean desk, an empty inbox, and a clear mind. Why would you not want this?
Check it out. You'll be glad you did.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Pride, Arrogance, Confidence, Hope
Pride is silly. Pride is thinking that what you did is really as important as you think it was. It probably wasn't, though it also probably won't hurt anyone for you to think so.
Arrogance is foolish. Arrogance is when you think what you did or who you are gives you the right to something in the future. Your right to whatever it is will not be honored by someone, and you'll get pissed for no good reason.
Confidence enables. Confidence is the firm foundation that based on what you have done, you have a good chance at success in the future. Starting with reasonable expectations of success is a good thing.
Faith comforts. Faith is confidence without the past performance. Sometimes that's a bad idea, but usually it doesn't hurt and might help.
Arrogance is foolish. Arrogance is when you think what you did or who you are gives you the right to something in the future. Your right to whatever it is will not be honored by someone, and you'll get pissed for no good reason.
Confidence enables. Confidence is the firm foundation that based on what you have done, you have a good chance at success in the future. Starting with reasonable expectations of success is a good thing.
Faith comforts. Faith is confidence without the past performance. Sometimes that's a bad idea, but usually it doesn't hurt and might help.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Conflicting advice
Careful readers of this blog may have noticed that I recently gave some conflicting advice. First, I recommended giving up, while the very next day I said to not give up. What gives? Am I really that bad at advice? Should you quit reading now?
The answer to the last question is up to you, though I would say no. Whether I give bad advice or not is also a question for you to answer, but it has nothing to do with the conflict. The crazy thing about advice is that it is almost never wrong. That is, nearly any advice given by anyone is applicable to someone, somewhere. This is one reason that there are always new books, articles, and blog posts...the market for advice is insatiable, and authors can always say something new.
What should you do with that, then? First, never take general advice to be specifically directed to you. You can apply general advice to your life, but only by using it to sharpen your own thinking. Doing something just because you read it in a book (which I am often guilty of) is lazy and irresponsible. The author does not know you, and what he or she says may have no relevance to your life whatsoever. Critical thinking is important.
Second, take specific advice from people you trust and who know you. Notice that there are two criteria. Does the person have a platform to speak from (is their own life in that area in order) AND do they have the information to speak to (do they know enough about your situation)? Without the first, it is likely bad advice. Without the second, it is general advice and you need to go back to the critical thinking.
So should you give up? Or not? I have no idea. But you probably should do one of them.
The answer to the last question is up to you, though I would say no. Whether I give bad advice or not is also a question for you to answer, but it has nothing to do with the conflict. The crazy thing about advice is that it is almost never wrong. That is, nearly any advice given by anyone is applicable to someone, somewhere. This is one reason that there are always new books, articles, and blog posts...the market for advice is insatiable, and authors can always say something new.
What should you do with that, then? First, never take general advice to be specifically directed to you. You can apply general advice to your life, but only by using it to sharpen your own thinking. Doing something just because you read it in a book (which I am often guilty of) is lazy and irresponsible. The author does not know you, and what he or she says may have no relevance to your life whatsoever. Critical thinking is important.
Second, take specific advice from people you trust and who know you. Notice that there are two criteria. Does the person have a platform to speak from (is their own life in that area in order) AND do they have the information to speak to (do they know enough about your situation)? Without the first, it is likely bad advice. Without the second, it is general advice and you need to go back to the critical thinking.
So should you give up? Or not? I have no idea. But you probably should do one of them.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
All of the Above
Scitizen published a recent article titled The Necessity of "All of the Above". In it, the author argues that fossil fuels will continue to play a role even as renewable energy gains momentum. The bottom line is that as energy demand continues to grow, a single source will not be able to keep up, particularly if America sees a future of "energy independence."
If you have not read anything about this, or if you are convinced the "Drill, Baby, Drill" crowd is either right on or completely wacko, check out the article. It makes the point well that there are no easy solutions for energy, and everyone (coal, biofuel, wind, oil, gas, hydro, etc.) is going to need to be invited to the party.
If you have not read anything about this, or if you are convinced the "Drill, Baby, Drill" crowd is either right on or completely wacko, check out the article. It makes the point well that there are no easy solutions for energy, and everyone (coal, biofuel, wind, oil, gas, hydro, etc.) is going to need to be invited to the party.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The Power of One
The Daily Voice posted an article the other day about Olympia Snowe's lone Republican vote in favor of the Senate Finance Committee's health care bill. In the middle of it, the writer asks and answers a question:
I think this points directly back at us. Where can we be The One? The One to stand up to a bully, The One to reach out to your enemies, The One to stand out from the crowd?
There is strength in numbers, but power in The One.
How did one senator from a state smaller than the size of my New York City area code become so powerful? By being the only one.The rest of the article deals with the political wrangling around health care. That is all important stuff, but what struck me was the power of one. By choosing to not go along with her peers, Senator Snowe gained power, fame, and influence.
I think this points directly back at us. Where can we be The One? The One to stand up to a bully, The One to reach out to your enemies, The One to stand out from the crowd?
There is strength in numbers, but power in The One.
Monday, October 19, 2009
You have no free time
You may think you do, but you have no free time. When we normally talk about free, we mean without cost, unattached, or empty. So Gmail is free, a released balloon is free, and there may be some free space in my closet. None of these apply to time, though, which is never free.
I have already talked some about the cost of time. Time is a scarce resource, and there will always be trade-offs, which are the same as costs. By doing one thing, I pay with the option to do anything else. So time is not Gmail-free.
Time is never disconnected, either. A given hour is always attached to the one before and after it and always lasts exactly 60 minutes. This means that the choices for right now depend on the choices for back then. I cannot, for example, choose lunch at 11:30 in New York and an early dinner 6 hours later in Sydney (given current technology). Time is always attached to the rest of time and is not balloon-free.
Finally, I think when we talk about free time, we intend closet-free. "I am free for lunch" means that my schedule is empty at that time. My schedule is free (empty), I am committment-free (unattached), so I claim that my time is free. Time can never be empty, though. I think the theory of relativity says that time is defined by the thing(s) existing in it, which means that if time were empty, it would cease to exist at all. Therefore time cannot be closet-free.
What do we really mean by free time, then? A free schedule is probably the right meaning. We mean that our time can be used as we see fit, unencumbered by external committments and requirements. I can choose in that moment what to do.
Who cares? Am I not just splitting linguistic hairs? Maybe. However, "free" is a powerful word, and we often let it influence our behavior without meaning to. Having a free schedule can lead us to believe we have cost-free time available to us, which is never true. So the next time you have "free time," consider the cost, make the trade-off, and enjoy it. Just do not think your time is really free.
I have already talked some about the cost of time. Time is a scarce resource, and there will always be trade-offs, which are the same as costs. By doing one thing, I pay with the option to do anything else. So time is not Gmail-free.
Time is never disconnected, either. A given hour is always attached to the one before and after it and always lasts exactly 60 minutes. This means that the choices for right now depend on the choices for back then. I cannot, for example, choose lunch at 11:30 in New York and an early dinner 6 hours later in Sydney (given current technology). Time is always attached to the rest of time and is not balloon-free.
Finally, I think when we talk about free time, we intend closet-free. "I am free for lunch" means that my schedule is empty at that time. My schedule is free (empty), I am committment-free (unattached), so I claim that my time is free. Time can never be empty, though. I think the theory of relativity says that time is defined by the thing(s) existing in it, which means that if time were empty, it would cease to exist at all. Therefore time cannot be closet-free.
What do we really mean by free time, then? A free schedule is probably the right meaning. We mean that our time can be used as we see fit, unencumbered by external committments and requirements. I can choose in that moment what to do.
Who cares? Am I not just splitting linguistic hairs? Maybe. However, "free" is a powerful word, and we often let it influence our behavior without meaning to. Having a free schedule can lead us to believe we have cost-free time available to us, which is never true. So the next time you have "free time," consider the cost, make the trade-off, and enjoy it. Just do not think your time is really free.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Haikubole
Combining the Japanese zen simplicity of haiku with the American arrogance of hyperbole, I present two original haikubole compositions.
The Cocky Bibliophile
Books I read daily.
Number one hundred or more.
You know you can't hang.
The Early Riser
Twenty miles I ran.
Two hundred push-ups as well.
All before breakfast.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Lessons from the Little Engine
Yet another book I have finished recently is The Little Engine That Could. In fact, my toddlers have encouraged me to finish it a couple times a day for the last several weeks. That has given me lots of time to see the brilliant lessons it contains that make it a timeless classic.
Enjoy your work
"She was a happy little train for she had such a jolly load to carry."
The first character we encounter in the book is a happy little train who enjoys her work. As we will learn later on, she does not have the most important or fanciest of jobs, but her load was jolly, and she enjoyed it.
Leadership involves action
"'Here comes a shiny new engine,' said the funny little clown who jumped out of the train."
The only doll who actually does anything in the book is the "funniest little toy clown you ever saw." The other dolls and toys spend their time whining or crying or being sad. The clown jumps out of the train and waves his flag and as a result is the default leader of the group, despite his red nose and blue bow-tie.
Always be polite
"Please, Shiny New Engine..."
"Please, oh, please, Big Engine..."
"Please, Kind Engine..."
"Please, please, help us, Little Blue Engine."
What's the magic word? There is no guarantee that it will work, but saying "please" is always a good idea, particularly when desperate. Notice that after several rejections, the clown is still polite. That is good leadership.
Don't give up.
"Here is another engine coming...Let us ask him to help us."
"Here comes another...perhaps he can help us."
"Here is another engine coming...maybe she will help us."
The first three requests for help were turned down. Only on the fourth did the dolls and toys get the ride over the mountain they needed. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Persistence can pay off.
Don't close your eyes to possibilities.
"...the boys and girls on the other side won't have any toys to ply with or good food to eat unless you help us."
"...won't have any toys to play with or good food to eat unless you help us."
"...unless you help us."
"...unless you help us." (emphasis mine)
During every request, the clown repeats the same message, that disaster will strike unless you help us. Yet 75% of the engines surveyed did not help and the boys and girls still had food and toys. While the statement may be simply part of a hard sell on the part of the clown, it reads like he is putting all his hopes on a single engine savior at a time. There is always an alternative, do not get locked into the choice in front of you to the exclusion of all else.
Stay positive.
"The Passenger Engine is not the only one in the world."
"He looks very old and tired, but our train is so little, perhaps he can help us."
Sometimes the best thing to do is to put on a brave face and keep going. So what if the big Passenger Engine just blew you off? Maybe the Rusty Old Engine has one more trip over the mountain in him. Chin up now, everybody all together, "the sun'll come up, tomorrow!"
Try new things.
"I have never been over the mountain."
So what if you haven't been over the mountain? Metaphorically or physically, there is no need to let the fact that you have never been over the mountain before stop you from going over it now.
Take control of your own destiny.
"Here comes a shiny new engine...Let us ask him to help us."
Besides taking action in general, the funny little clown leads by taking control of his own destiny. At the beginning of the story, he's a passenger, riding a train wherever it takes him. When that train breaks down, though, he jumps out and takes charge. Knowing that he wants to be on the other side of the mountain, he makes it happen. Are you riding a train, or flagging one down?
Care about others.
"'What is the matter, my friends?' she asked kindly."
The Little Blue Engine is kind from the beginning, and through her kindness is given a chance to climb the mountain into literary history. The book is not named for the arrogant Passenger Engine or the gruff Freight Engine, but rather for the kind Little Blue Engine.
There's nine lessons without even mentioning the "I think I can" tagline. What else have I missed? What other so-called children's books would you use as a life coach?
Enjoy your work
"She was a happy little train for she had such a jolly load to carry."
The first character we encounter in the book is a happy little train who enjoys her work. As we will learn later on, she does not have the most important or fanciest of jobs, but her load was jolly, and she enjoyed it.
Leadership involves action
"'Here comes a shiny new engine,' said the funny little clown who jumped out of the train."
The only doll who actually does anything in the book is the "funniest little toy clown you ever saw." The other dolls and toys spend their time whining or crying or being sad. The clown jumps out of the train and waves his flag and as a result is the default leader of the group, despite his red nose and blue bow-tie.
Always be polite
"Please, Shiny New Engine..."
"Please, oh, please, Big Engine..."
"Please, Kind Engine..."
"Please, please, help us, Little Blue Engine."
What's the magic word? There is no guarantee that it will work, but saying "please" is always a good idea, particularly when desperate. Notice that after several rejections, the clown is still polite. That is good leadership.
Don't give up.
"Here is another engine coming...Let us ask him to help us."
"Here comes another...perhaps he can help us."
"Here is another engine coming...maybe she will help us."
The first three requests for help were turned down. Only on the fourth did the dolls and toys get the ride over the mountain they needed. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Persistence can pay off.
Don't close your eyes to possibilities.
"...the boys and girls on the other side won't have any toys to ply with or good food to eat unless you help us."
"...won't have any toys to play with or good food to eat unless you help us."
"...unless you help us."
"...unless you help us." (emphasis mine)
During every request, the clown repeats the same message, that disaster will strike unless you help us. Yet 75% of the engines surveyed did not help and the boys and girls still had food and toys. While the statement may be simply part of a hard sell on the part of the clown, it reads like he is putting all his hopes on a single engine savior at a time. There is always an alternative, do not get locked into the choice in front of you to the exclusion of all else.
Stay positive.
"The Passenger Engine is not the only one in the world."
"He looks very old and tired, but our train is so little, perhaps he can help us."
Sometimes the best thing to do is to put on a brave face and keep going. So what if the big Passenger Engine just blew you off? Maybe the Rusty Old Engine has one more trip over the mountain in him. Chin up now, everybody all together, "the sun'll come up, tomorrow!"
Try new things.
"I have never been over the mountain."
So what if you haven't been over the mountain? Metaphorically or physically, there is no need to let the fact that you have never been over the mountain before stop you from going over it now.
Take control of your own destiny.
"Here comes a shiny new engine...Let us ask him to help us."
Besides taking action in general, the funny little clown leads by taking control of his own destiny. At the beginning of the story, he's a passenger, riding a train wherever it takes him. When that train breaks down, though, he jumps out and takes charge. Knowing that he wants to be on the other side of the mountain, he makes it happen. Are you riding a train, or flagging one down?
Care about others.
"'What is the matter, my friends?' she asked kindly."
The Little Blue Engine is kind from the beginning, and through her kindness is given a chance to climb the mountain into literary history. The book is not named for the arrogant Passenger Engine or the gruff Freight Engine, but rather for the kind Little Blue Engine.
There's nine lessons without even mentioning the "I think I can" tagline. What else have I missed? What other so-called children's books would you use as a life coach?
Friday, October 16, 2009
Uprising, or why you should just give up
I recently finished Erwin McManus' Uprising: A Revolution of the Soul. In general, I appreciate his straightforward style and non-sissy Christianity. Unfortunately, I have nothing to say about this particular book. Nothing good, nothing bad. All I learned was that taking too long to finish a book is just as pointless as not finishing at all.
I started the book in February of this year, meaning it took nine months or so to get through it. In the meantime, I started and finished about 20 other books (give or take). I did a lot of other stuff, too: traveled, played with my kids, worked, slept, listened to podcasts, etc. So by the time I got to the end of the book, the conclusion had no meaning because I lost the point somewhere back in April.
Why am I sharing this? Partly because I thought I should write a review of the book and this is the best I can come up with. Mostly, though, I want to share some advice:
Give up.
That's right, give up. Sometimes the payoff of finishing something simply does not justify the cost. Many times we know that subconsciously, which is why we procrastinate. Then we pay a cost of guilt without even the meager reward of finishing. Plus, there is the opportunity cost of not doing something really valuable because we are too well conditioned to never give up.
What do you need to give up? A book? (Crime and Punishment has been haunting me for a decade.) A project? (A workshop in my garage? What workshop?) A relationship? (No examples from me on this one right now.) Go ahead, you have my permission. Give up and move on. You'll be glad you did.
I started the book in February of this year, meaning it took nine months or so to get through it. In the meantime, I started and finished about 20 other books (give or take). I did a lot of other stuff, too: traveled, played with my kids, worked, slept, listened to podcasts, etc. So by the time I got to the end of the book, the conclusion had no meaning because I lost the point somewhere back in April.
Why am I sharing this? Partly because I thought I should write a review of the book and this is the best I can come up with. Mostly, though, I want to share some advice:
Give up.
That's right, give up. Sometimes the payoff of finishing something simply does not justify the cost. Many times we know that subconsciously, which is why we procrastinate. Then we pay a cost of guilt without even the meager reward of finishing. Plus, there is the opportunity cost of not doing something really valuable because we are too well conditioned to never give up.
What do you need to give up? A book? (Crime and Punishment has been haunting me for a decade.) A project? (A workshop in my garage? What workshop?) A relationship? (No examples from me on this one right now.) Go ahead, you have my permission. Give up and move on. You'll be glad you did.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Basic Economics
I have made several references to this book, so it seems worthwhile to devote a post to it. I downloaded Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy from Audible.com as part of a 3-for-2 special. A bit ambitious of me to go for a book on economics, but I was well rewarded.
Here's the summary:
Another recurring theme is that the intent and effect of government intervention are not the same. A favorite line is that there are not enough economists for politicians to worry about when election time comes, so they can make policy without regard for actual effects understood by the specialists.
Missing from the book is a full treatment of so-called "externalities," which cannot be accounted for by price. What is the value of beauty, clean air, or human goodness? Attempts to fit such things into a price-coordinated economy will always be awkward and forced, but that does not negate their value.
I posted on Twitter at one point that Basic Economics should be required reading for anyone wanting to express an opinion about anything. That may have been a little strong, but not by much. The book reveals the logic behind economies, not matter how they are structured, and opens our eyes to how decisions today may affect the future. Words and meaning are two different things; Sowell tries to get past the first and into the second. He (or we) may not succeed all the time, but the effort is worth it.
Here's the summary:
A price-coordinated economy takes advantage of distributed knowledge to most efficiently allocate scarce resources to meet the desires of consumers.Along the way, Sowell fleshes out a lot of details and give examples about how rent control leads to housing shortages and food price controls lead to overproduction and starvation (at the same time!). Throughout, he keeps coming back to the idea that knowledge is king and only free price fluctuations (i.e. a free market) can make use of knowledge quickly enough to be useful.
Another recurring theme is that the intent and effect of government intervention are not the same. A favorite line is that there are not enough economists for politicians to worry about when election time comes, so they can make policy without regard for actual effects understood by the specialists.
Missing from the book is a full treatment of so-called "externalities," which cannot be accounted for by price. What is the value of beauty, clean air, or human goodness? Attempts to fit such things into a price-coordinated economy will always be awkward and forced, but that does not negate their value.
I posted on Twitter at one point that Basic Economics should be required reading for anyone wanting to express an opinion about anything. That may have been a little strong, but not by much. The book reveals the logic behind economies, not matter how they are structured, and opens our eyes to how decisions today may affect the future. Words and meaning are two different things; Sowell tries to get past the first and into the second. He (or we) may not succeed all the time, but the effort is worth it.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Selective reasoning
Do you have an open mind?
I doubt you do. If you are reading this, you have been around for a few years, learned how to read, and been exposed to a lot of stuff. Books, people, experiences. All of those are now a part of you, and everything you see, read, and experience is screened through a filter that is uniquely you.
That means you easily agree with some things and disagree with others, independent of the thing itself. For example, my filter is inclined toward free market economics. That means I am inclined to think Basic Economics is a good book and Flat Broke in the Free Market is playing loose with the facts. My opinion is not based on a deep understanding of economic theory and practice, but only my own filter.
Does this mean your mind cannot be changed? No, but it does mean it is hard. Plus, it will require exposure to things that are outside your comfort zone. As a Tea Party Patriot, have you read any Al Franken? As a Progressive Democrat, have you read any Sean Hannity?
Reading only what you agree with rarely leads to learning anything new. It reinforces current filters and prevents growth. Mix it up, read a book that makes you want to throw it across the room, and see where it takes you. Our minds will never be truly open, but a few cracks never hurt.
I doubt you do. If you are reading this, you have been around for a few years, learned how to read, and been exposed to a lot of stuff. Books, people, experiences. All of those are now a part of you, and everything you see, read, and experience is screened through a filter that is uniquely you.
That means you easily agree with some things and disagree with others, independent of the thing itself. For example, my filter is inclined toward free market economics. That means I am inclined to think Basic Economics is a good book and Flat Broke in the Free Market is playing loose with the facts. My opinion is not based on a deep understanding of economic theory and practice, but only my own filter.
Does this mean your mind cannot be changed? No, but it does mean it is hard. Plus, it will require exposure to things that are outside your comfort zone. As a Tea Party Patriot, have you read any Al Franken? As a Progressive Democrat, have you read any Sean Hannity?
Reading only what you agree with rarely leads to learning anything new. It reinforces current filters and prevents growth. Mix it up, read a book that makes you want to throw it across the room, and see where it takes you. Our minds will never be truly open, but a few cracks never hurt.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Why read fantasy?
I just finished reading Rick Riordan's The Lightning Thief. It took me about four hours total, and I enjoyed it greatly. Why did I enjoy a mass market adolescent fantasy novel?
- Escapism. Sometimes it gets a little old to be constantly immersed in business, economics, and world crises. A 12-year old decapitating Medusa off the New Jersey turnpike makes for a nice change of pace.
- Clear good guys and bad guys. A good fantasy may have false trails and such in the middle, but at the end, the hero wins, the bad guy is defeated (at least until the next book) and I can sleep well. All is right with the world.
- Inspiration. Yes, it is fiction, but if a kid can confront Hades and sacrifice his own desires for the greater good, what is stopping me? Ender's Game is one of my favorite novels of all time for exactly this reason.
Monday, October 12, 2009
5 effects of long nights with sick kids
- Visions of St. Camillus de Lellis
- Polypedophobia (fear of multiple children)
- Really important questions: "Why doesn't adult Tylenol come in berry flavors with a dropper?"
- Narcolepsy envy
- Legal amnesty from anything said or done the following day
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Riding the rapids
In the midst of upheaval at work these days, I am reminded of advice I got during a whitewater kayaking class many years ago. When facing rapids at the limits of our skills, the instructor told us,
So ride the rapids. Right-side-up if you can, upside-down if necessary. It'll be over soon enough either way.
Remember, it's over in 20 seconds. It doesn't matter if you go through right-side-up or upside-down, you'll be done in 20 seconds.The advice is not very warm and fuzzy, but the reminder is clear. We spend a lot of time worrying about the rapids of life. Rapids that will nearly always be over shortly (20 seconds, a month, a year) no matter what we do. Stressing is rarely worth it.
So ride the rapids. Right-side-up if you can, upside-down if necessary. It'll be over soon enough either way.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Friday, October 09, 2009
Wealth vs. Poverty
Another insight from Basic Economics: wealth is the most effective weapon available against poverty.
Now that I have heard it, it seems self-evident. Poverty is the lack of money (in one sense). Wealth is an abundance of money. The best way to eliminate a lack is with an abundance, so wealth can eliminate poverty. Logical, right?
Yet the biggest complaint I hear about capitalistic economies is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Wealth is, by this measure, exacerbating poverty. How can this be? Mostly by making a false statement.
In an efficient capitalistic free market, the top level of wealth does rise. Note that it is the level of wealth, not necessarily individuals within that. If you were rich in 1975, you might well be richer today, but you were also passed like you were standing still by Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. In addition to the top level rising, the bottom level rises, too. The bottom levels of American wealth today drive better cars (measured by durability, reliability, etc) than many in the top levels did 50 years ago. Better goods indicate greater wealth.
The trouble comes when the gap between the top and bottom levels widen. The absolute value of an individual's wealth is only relevant when compared to a contemporary (it seems). So the fact that I am wealthier by nearly any measure than my grandfather was, or the average Bangladeshi is, makes no difference if my neighbor is wealthier than I am.
So being poor today may feel poorer than yesterday, but that is not objectively the case. As America has created wealth, it has reduced absolute poverty. Further reductions will never be achieved by reducing wealth (through large taxation and welfare programs), but rather by creating more and more of it. Wealth can fight poverty; little else can.
Now that I have heard it, it seems self-evident. Poverty is the lack of money (in one sense). Wealth is an abundance of money. The best way to eliminate a lack is with an abundance, so wealth can eliminate poverty. Logical, right?
Yet the biggest complaint I hear about capitalistic economies is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Wealth is, by this measure, exacerbating poverty. How can this be? Mostly by making a false statement.
In an efficient capitalistic free market, the top level of wealth does rise. Note that it is the level of wealth, not necessarily individuals within that. If you were rich in 1975, you might well be richer today, but you were also passed like you were standing still by Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. In addition to the top level rising, the bottom level rises, too. The bottom levels of American wealth today drive better cars (measured by durability, reliability, etc) than many in the top levels did 50 years ago. Better goods indicate greater wealth.
The trouble comes when the gap between the top and bottom levels widen. The absolute value of an individual's wealth is only relevant when compared to a contemporary (it seems). So the fact that I am wealthier by nearly any measure than my grandfather was, or the average Bangladeshi is, makes no difference if my neighbor is wealthier than I am.
So being poor today may feel poorer than yesterday, but that is not objectively the case. As America has created wealth, it has reduced absolute poverty. Further reductions will never be achieved by reducing wealth (through large taxation and welfare programs), but rather by creating more and more of it. Wealth can fight poverty; little else can.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Business and the status quo
Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics has been an interesting listen for me (in audiobook form). One of the fascinating points he made is that pro-business does not equal pro-free market. In fact, it is often just the opposite. A free market thrives on open competition, while existing businesses thrive on keeping competition out.
A more accurate statement is that pro-business means being in favor of the status quo, both in a positive and negative sense. In the positive, businesses can best provide services and earn profits when they know what the rules of the game are. In countries where the laws change with the whims of the current ruler, the risk to businesses is too great to make investments and generally conduct profitable business.
In the negative, the status quo protects current business at the expense of innovators who may be able to produce the same good or service at a lower cost or a better product at the same cost or some combination.
I have nothing to add to Sowell's view paraphrased here except to encourage us all to think about what people are saying and what it means. Is GM really for free trade and fair competition? Is libertarianism in the best interest of businesses? My assumptions have been challenged, and yours might be, too.
A more accurate statement is that pro-business means being in favor of the status quo, both in a positive and negative sense. In the positive, businesses can best provide services and earn profits when they know what the rules of the game are. In countries where the laws change with the whims of the current ruler, the risk to businesses is too great to make investments and generally conduct profitable business.
In the negative, the status quo protects current business at the expense of innovators who may be able to produce the same good or service at a lower cost or a better product at the same cost or some combination.
I have nothing to add to Sowell's view paraphrased here except to encourage us all to think about what people are saying and what it means. Is GM really for free trade and fair competition? Is libertarianism in the best interest of businesses? My assumptions have been challenged, and yours might be, too.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Underserved kids
Who loses out in institutional schooling?
- Smart kids - please wait quietly for your classmates to finish. No, you may not go learn something else.
- Dumb kids - once dumb, always dumb...welcome to the caste system.
- Average kids - perfect. Sit quietly, do what you're told, and please don't disrupt the system.
- Specialized kids - you can draw, but not add? Go to #2.
- Active kids - if you can't learn by sitting still for 8 hours, we'll make sure you don't learn at all.
- Slackers - welcome to an advanced course in how to game the system. Good luck making that work after you graduate.
- Hoodlums - break a rule, go to detention; break a law, go to jail. Repeat.
- Goodie-two-shoes - congratulations on learning to find your value in the approval of others.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Friction is good
Seth posted recently about what would happen if Craigslist charged $1. He talks about the friction of cost and how it is a good thing.
I could not agree more. In the age of Free, I love things that make me pay. Those that make such things might not like both my reasons, though
I could not agree more. In the age of Free, I love things that make me pay. Those that make such things might not like both my reasons, though
- I value things more when I pay for them. If you offer me a free download of an audiobook, I will probably take it. If I pay for it, I will take it AND listen to it. For example, I am learning Dutch right now, not through the two courses I have obtained for free (both well-known and proven methods), but through the Rosetta Stone software I paid for. So please, charge me so that I value what you offer.
- Adding a price tag to something often removes it from my list of choices. This makes my life far more managable. Which productivity software will I use? Which word processor? Which operating system? If I simply eliminate the ones that cost me money, I am normally left with a very managable list of items that will work just fine. So please, charge me so that I can ignore you.
Monday, October 05, 2009
The economics of attention
Economics is defined as the study of the allocation of scarce resources. Those resources could be oil, education, people, iPods, time, or about anything else. Economics does not care how those resources are allocated, whether by a price-coordinated market economy or a central decision-maker, only that the resources themselves are scarce, and that by using them for one purpose, they are not used for another.
Attention is one of the scarcest resources we have. We can pay attention to one, maybe two things at a time to the exclusion of all else. Therefore, every thing we pay attention to requires us to forgo paying attention to everything else in the world at that moment.
Most of that is easy. No offense intended, but I am fine with not paying attention to your cat for the rest of my life. That still leave a lot of stuff that I do care about, though. Will I watch a movie, write a post, talk with my wife, get some sleep, clean the kitchen, or read a book? All are things I want to do, but my attention is scarce, and I can only choose one right now.
Despite the costs, though, I still rarely attend to where my attention is. I am more likely to go with my gut (which tends toward selfishness, gluttony, and laziness) than with my mind and heart which desire greater things. I can only spend that attention in one place at a time, though, and I can never get it back.
Attention is scarce. Allocate wisely.
Attention is one of the scarcest resources we have. We can pay attention to one, maybe two things at a time to the exclusion of all else. Therefore, every thing we pay attention to requires us to forgo paying attention to everything else in the world at that moment.
Most of that is easy. No offense intended, but I am fine with not paying attention to your cat for the rest of my life. That still leave a lot of stuff that I do care about, though. Will I watch a movie, write a post, talk with my wife, get some sleep, clean the kitchen, or read a book? All are things I want to do, but my attention is scarce, and I can only choose one right now.
Despite the costs, though, I still rarely attend to where my attention is. I am more likely to go with my gut (which tends toward selfishness, gluttony, and laziness) than with my mind and heart which desire greater things. I can only spend that attention in one place at a time, though, and I can never get it back.
Attention is scarce. Allocate wisely.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
No pain, no gain
No pain, no gain. So reads the wall of many high school locker rooms. The application is obvious - if you do not push your body in practice to the point that it hurts, you will not be getting any better. On the track and in the weight room, there is no gain without pain.
Then we step into the real world. There is no slogan about pain in my home. Or my office. Or in my corporate handbook. Does that mean it does not apply?
Afraid not. Pain is the prerequisite for gain. If I want to lose weight, I suffer the pain of hunger. If I want a promotion, I suffer the pain of long hours. If I want a retirement fund in the future, I suffer the pain of present-day deprivation.
There is no gain without pain. There is no growth without pain. A pain-free life is only possible through stagnation, which may be the worst pain of all.
Then we step into the real world. There is no slogan about pain in my home. Or my office. Or in my corporate handbook. Does that mean it does not apply?
Afraid not. Pain is the prerequisite for gain. If I want to lose weight, I suffer the pain of hunger. If I want a promotion, I suffer the pain of long hours. If I want a retirement fund in the future, I suffer the pain of present-day deprivation.
There is no gain without pain. There is no growth without pain. A pain-free life is only possible through stagnation, which may be the worst pain of all.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Acting with intention
CNBC was on in the break room of the training class I was in recently, which was eye-opening for me. Watching this financial hysteria over lunch made me wonder about how effective it really is. Do avid financial news network watchers have improved results (profits)? Somehow I doubt it.
Like all information we take in, it is worth thinking about the motivations of the people providing it. CNBC makes money on ads, which rely on viewers watching, not viewers making money. So even if the reporters and analysts have the best of intentions for providing useful financial information, their priority will always be toward keeping you watching.
That means excitement, crises, newness, not necessarily useful information. Yet the way to make money is generally to make a good decision and then wait (think Warren Buffet). So the constant barrage of information will more likely lead to losing money, rather than making it.
The question we should ask ourselves is, are we reacting to hysteria, or acting with intention?
Like all information we take in, it is worth thinking about the motivations of the people providing it. CNBC makes money on ads, which rely on viewers watching, not viewers making money. So even if the reporters and analysts have the best of intentions for providing useful financial information, their priority will always be toward keeping you watching.
That means excitement, crises, newness, not necessarily useful information. Yet the way to make money is generally to make a good decision and then wait (think Warren Buffet). So the constant barrage of information will more likely lead to losing money, rather than making it.
The question we should ask ourselves is, are we reacting to hysteria, or acting with intention?
Friday, October 02, 2009
Why should freaks have all the fun?
I just finished reading the Freak Revolution Manifesto. Worth reading for all, and it raises the question:
Why should freaks have all the fun?
The authors are self described as "a poly bisexual lesbian kinky pagan transgender unschooler gamer geek and a lesbian poly unschooler geeky edgewalker witch." I know some of those words, but can only guess on the meanings of several.
They go on to preach a message of connection rather than control, rejecting dominant paradigms and living the life you want, not the one you are told to live. All great stuff, except that I'm not a freak.
I am a mono heterosexual straight-laced Christian male engineer. I have no interest in a raw lifestyle, an open marriage, or neopaganism. At the same time, the dominant paradigms of modern America don't do much for me, either.
Fortunately, challenging the dominant paradigm is possible for even non-freaks. All it takes is a little thought. Think about what you drive. Think about how your kids are being educated. Think about what you eat. Sometimes that thinking leads to a revolution. Sometimes not. The important thing is that you (we) are thinking, challenging, and not doing things only because "that's they way they're done."
So be a freak. Or not. Just as long as you think.
Why should freaks have all the fun?
The authors are self described as "a poly bisexual lesbian kinky pagan transgender unschooler gamer geek and a lesbian poly unschooler geeky edgewalker witch." I know some of those words, but can only guess on the meanings of several.
They go on to preach a message of connection rather than control, rejecting dominant paradigms and living the life you want, not the one you are told to live. All great stuff, except that I'm not a freak.
I am a mono heterosexual straight-laced Christian male engineer. I have no interest in a raw lifestyle, an open marriage, or neopaganism. At the same time, the dominant paradigms of modern America don't do much for me, either.
Fortunately, challenging the dominant paradigm is possible for even non-freaks. All it takes is a little thought. Think about what you drive. Think about how your kids are being educated. Think about what you eat. Sometimes that thinking leads to a revolution. Sometimes not. The important thing is that you (we) are thinking, challenging, and not doing things only because "that's they way they're done."
So be a freak. Or not. Just as long as you think.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
The Pen - good for you, good for the world
Following up on yesterday's post on disposable goods, I want to encourage everyone to go buy a nice pen. Get something with some heft that you will enjoy writing with. Maybe even try a fountain pen! Nice pens are more pleasant to use and better for the environment. Not only that, they can help you recover the joy of handwritten notes, which can be good for your relationships, both personal and business.
Join me in rediscovering the pleasure of pen on paper. Buy the pen (I can recommend Levenger as a great place to start looking) and then write me a note. You'll be glad you did.
Join me in rediscovering the pleasure of pen on paper. Buy the pen (I can recommend Levenger as a great place to start looking) and then write me a note. You'll be glad you did.
