News Gluttony

Reading through a Christmas gift, I came upon the story of the second telegram sent by Samuel Morse, "HAVE YOU ANY NEWS?" It (along with the rest of the book) has me thinking about the nature of news.

We seem to be wired for news. Stories of the past often involve isolated towns or homes eagerly awaiting letters or visitors or messengers bringing news. In general, news is something that comes from outside, something that we have not personally been a part of. My birthday party is not news to me, but yours (which I was unable to attend) is.

For most of human history, news was a rare thing. We got news only occasionally, and it was a treat, like a special dessert on holidays. The balance between our own experience (non-news) and that of others (news) was decidedly on the side of non-news.

Today, all this has changed. Thanks to the internet, news is everywhere. Nearly by definition, the internet is all news. Every email I receive, every blog I read, every Facebook album I browse is someone else's experience, that is, news to me. We are awash with news and are compelled to generate it ourselves, sending email and posting to blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and forums. The balance of our lives has shifted, significantly, away from non-news.

So I wonder, can we handle it? Our tendency to crave fat and sugar has gone from a benefit in a lean agricultural economy to a detriment in the land of buffets and drive-thrus.  Is our craving for news any different? Does the constant stream of news help us live better lives? Or is it contributing to mental gluttony with effects we cannot foresee (health impacts of extra weight have only recently been determined, after all)? Is one of those effects the erosion of the non-news part of our lives, the part that we are actually experiencing, not just reading about?

I am not the first to ask this question. This is the first time I have phrased it to myself in this way, though. It is making me think. How about you?

Changing the Payoff

I realized that yesterday's post on "easy" vs. "right" choices had some underlying assumptions that might make my closing question a bit easier to answer. I defined "right" choices as having a better long-term result, or payoff, than "easy" choices. In order for an "easy" choice to be easy, though, it must have the higher short-term payoff. So the question was poorly phrased. Rather than looking at "easy" and "right" choices, it may be more helpful to look at short-term and long-term payoffs.

Using the exercise vs. sleeping in example, the "easy" choice of sleeping has the short-term payoff of peace, rest, warmth, comfort, etc. The long-term payoff is atrophied muscles, weight gain, loss of energy, etc. The "right" choice of going for a run has the short-term payoff of physical discomfort (to varying degrees) and the long-term payoff of health and vitality. It is clear that in the short-term, the obvious choice is sleeping in, while in the long-term, the obvious choice is exercising.

So to redefine my question, is there ever a case where both the short-term and long-term payoffs of a choice are superior to those of the other options?

Phrased this way, it seems a bit less rhetorical than "right" vs. "easy" and it seems logical that short and long-term payoffs may coincide sometimes (though not as often as I would like). More importantly, however, it helps us figure out how to convert the "right" choice into the "easy" choice. Simply change the payoffs.

This is the foundation of nearly every motivational trick, system, or strategy in existence. Accountability partners and groups are one of the best ways to change behavior (Weight Watchers, AA, etc.) because they change the payoff of the easy choice, adding elements of pride, shame, public disappointment, and camaraderie to the mix. By making the choice about more than just a drink or a dessert, it changes the payoff to make the "right" choice easier.

Once the payoffs are understood, and we accept the fact that our tendency is to choose the short-term over the long-term benefits, the power of the choice is back in our own hands. How will you change your payoffs?

(Photo credit to rigor789)

Is easy ever right?

I have written before about making hard choices, usually involving delayed gratification. It seems that nearly all the time, the easy thing to do is not the one with the greatest long-term pay-off.

Watching TV is easier than reading to my kids.

Eating ice cream is easier than eating green beans.

Withdrawing is easier than engaging in relationships.

Sleeping in is easier than going for a run at 5:00.

Giving in is easier than standing firm.

So this has me wondering...is the easy choice ever the best one? Or even a particularly good one? If the easy choice is never the best choice, it simplifies life a bit. Looking at all the choices, throw out the easiest couple and you know the outcome will be better. If it sometimes is, then I want to have lots of those kinds of choices.

Any ideas? Can easy ever be right? If so, how do I get there?

(Photo credit to lidge_34)

Can hard work be a natural talent?

One of the ideas I found in Wooden on Leadership is common among coaches. It could be paraphrased something like this.

You can't do anything about it if they are taller than you, but it's your fault if they work harder.

The implication is that genetics handed me my height (or body type or inherent speed or whatever), but I can choose how hard I work, my determination, my character. Does this really make sense, though?

We all know the value of hard work. Put in more effort, and (generally) we get more rewards. We all want more rewards, and we would all (for the most part) prefer the longer-term rewards that result from hard work than the short-term rewards of sloth. Why is there such a disparity in how hard we actually work, then?

Some people appear to have a greater work ethic than others. They seem to more easily put off pleasure now for rewards later, and seem hard to distract from the task at hand. Others (I find myself in this latter category most of the time) hardly think past the next meal, let alone the resultant heart attack from a fast-food diet 30 years from now. Given the choice between hard work or blowing it off until tomorrow, such folks (we) take procrastination.

Is there perhaps a natural limit to our work ethic, then? Resulting from nature or nurture, am I limited in how hard I can work, just as I am limited in how fast I can run and how tall I will grow? Can such limits be extended to other elements of character? Self-discipline, kindness, generosity, contentment?

I do not have an answer to this question. More importantly, perhaps, I do not know what I would do with an answer. Would this give me an excuse to slack off, knowing that I have reached my natural limit? Or inspire me to work harder to reach that limit and perhaps prove it a little bit wrong? Do you think our character has limits? What would that imply for you?

Why?

Of all the question words, I like "why" the best. Why?

Who asks about people.
What asks about facts.
How asks about methods.
Where asks about locations.
When asks about times.
Why asks about purpose.

Knowing why leads to the others. Tell me why your company exists and it is easy to figure out what you sell to whom. It doesn't work the other way around.

Who, what, where, when, and how all have objective answers (whether you know them or not). Why is subjective, pointing to underlying motives.

Why has power. Without a reason, without a purpose, the who is aimless, the what is meaningless, the how is mechanical, the where and when are arbitrary.

Why is multi-dimensional. As any 4-year-old knows, there is no limit to the number of times you can ask why. There is always a reason behind the reason.

Why makes us human. The search for purpose separates us from animals who care only about the what, the who, the where, the when, and the how (relating to food and sex, primarily...not that we don't care about those, too...we just add the why).

That's why I like why.

Agree or Disagree or Both or Neither?

Scott Young recently posted about advice he disagrees with, including some of his own. It is a fun post because

1. I agree with him
2. I disagree with him

The cool thing about the web is that there are folks out there I agree with and those that I disagree with. The same is probably true for you. Here is the surprise in the days of black-and-white partisanship...sometimes they are the same person.

It is fantastic to read something that both affirms and challenges me at the same time. The list isn't long. Go read it and see if you can find yourself nodding in agreement and writing him off as a fool at the same time. I did.

Net Present Value

Net Present Value (NPV) is a powerful measure that businesses use all the time. For those that do not use it, NPV is the value of all future revenue minus all future costs, both discounted to the present day using the time-value of money. Using NPV, decisions can be made based on a longer-term view than simple up-front cost and benefit.

The trouble is, I ignore this in my everyday life. Yet it can make a huge difference. Paying twice as much for a jacket that lasts four times as long makes sense, except that I am cheap, and I rarely look beyond my wallet.

Two lessons come out of this.

1. Think about the future. It usually does not take much thought or time, but the decisions we make today matter (both purchases and otherwise).
   
2. Buy Avalanche Wear. I bought an Avalanche fleece vest many, many years ago only because it was on sale. Beyond making me think about this question, it has been my go-to mid-weight warmth in the Grand Canyon, on ski slopes, and around town. It has been the best outdoor clothing purchase I have ever made (and I have made a lot). 
   

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

1. 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.
   
2. 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.

The funny thing is that these two reasons are nearly mutually exclusive. For businesses trying to sell me something, it is a bit of a quandry. Which do you choose? That is a hard question and one reason I stick to easy stuff like calculus in my day job. Good luck! :)

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.

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?

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.

Throw-away lifestyle

Mechanical Engineering (the magazine of ASME) has a challenging article this month about our culture of disposable goods. All of us have an energy footprint, some of which is obvious - air conditioning, gasoline, air travel. The article focuses on the more subtle energy costs of stuff. It takes energy to produce our cell phones, laptops, automobiles, and underwear. That energy cost gets spread over the life of the product, so short-lived products mean higher energy use.

In today's world, replacement is often cheaper than repair, and marketers work hard to make us want new stuff. The implications of new stuff go well beyond our own convenience, though. (See Glenn Beck's favorite online movie, The Story of Stuff for another take on this issue.) Am I willing to sacrifice my disposable lifestyle for something longer-lasting and responsible?

Maybe. Worth thinking about, at least.

All predictions are wrong

There was a thought provoking article on the peak oil issue over at Scitizen the other day. If you have never heard of Peak Oil, it is the argument that the constantly increasing production of oil will someday reach a peak, after which point production will begin to steadily decrease. Many individual countries have experienced this phenomenon (the US being one), and the world peak is predicted to happen any time between 2012 and 2050.

A peak is a problem because demand for energy (which today means oil) is projected to increase monotonically without peaking. Increasing demand with decreasing supply leads to increasing prices and likely public outrage and government over-reaction. Chaos is probable and complete social disaster possible. Not good.

I have no facts or figures to support any of the predictions, but I do have two points to add to the Peak Oil debate and any other predictions of the future.

1. Forecasts have a hard time accounting for market forces. Small increases in the price of oil will drive innovative entrepeneurs to exploit technology in ways we cannot dream of, adjusting both the supply and demand sides of the equation in unknown ways (e.g. 2008 Prius sales). Therefore, forecasts are most certainly wrong.
   
2. Forecasts do a good job forcing us to think about the future. Nearly every individual forecast is wrong. Nearly every individual forecast is possible. It is important for us each to understand the inputs and implications of predictions so that we can decide if we are willing to contribute to, or fight against, that particular possible future.
   

Read the Scitizen article and maybe a couple others that are linked on that page. Think about the issue and how you will respond, if at all. Will you buy oil futures? Start biking to work? Do not let hysteria overwhelm you, just learn, think, and act.

Destroying books

My kids love books. They love to sit in your lap and read all about dogs or trucks or ducks or whatever is on the page. They have favorite books that they toddle across the room with, and will often sit happily by themselves flipping pages.

So it really frustrates me when they sit down with a book and start deliberately, methodically ripping out pages or tearing off the spine.

Why are they destroying something they love so much? I try to stop it when I can, but that has not prevented a growing collection of books without covers, without binding, without pages.

They are not insane (at least I hope not). They just are not seeing the big picture. Reading a book and tearing it apart are two fun, but unrelated activities, and they are simply unaware that tearing a book today prevents it from being read (at least as easily) in the future.

Yet again, my kids teach me something. Temporary gratification today can mean no joy tomorrow if I am not seeing the big picture. My actions have consequences, and not always what I intend. So keep the big picture in mind, and be careful not to tear up your joy.

Crisis America

Can we have a problem anymore without it being a crisis? Recently I've read or heard about the following issues in America:

• The Water Crisis
• The Climate Crisis
  
• The Economic Crisis
• The Kids-in-Nature Crisis
• The Education Crisis
• The Health Care Crisis
• The Food Crisis
• The Energy Crisis

Are we really in this much trouble? Is everything about to collapse on us?

(Editors note: a crisis can be defined as "a condition of instability or danger, as in social, economic, political, or international affairs, leading to a decisive change" and does not necessarily imply a negative result. But still.)

I'm not sure. Maybe. Perhaps the world really is in that much trouble. Perhaps we only talk about the problems that are at crisis-level. Perhaps in the growing cacophony of media, the only way to get noticed is to convince people that your issue is a crisis issue (David's lawn care crisis, anyone?).

Unfortunately, when everything's a crisis, nothing's important. No one has enough time, energy, focus, or money to deal with more than a crisis or two at the same time. It is analogous to trying to fight a war on several fronts at once. Occasionally necessary, but rarely effective or a good idea. At best, we just worry a lot. At worst, we do nothing.

The problems are out there, though. Something needs to be done about most of them. Let's just pick a couple, though. If we are all individually focused and we stop blowing some things out of proportion, maybe The Crisis Crisis can be averted.

I don't care what people think

Do you care what people think? We're not supposed to, right? We're supposed to be our own person, do what we're called to, what's right, regardless of what people think. Caring about what people think is just approval-seeking and putting our success and self-esteem in the hands of others.

The trouble is, I see too many people use this ideal of independence as an excuse for self-centered and heartless behavior. I think it's because the phrase is missing something.

I don't care what people think about me.

Now we're independent. I do what's right without caring what you think about me. If I love you, though, even in the most generic sense, I very much care about what you think. What you think is a large part of who you are, and if I don't care about that, I don't care much about you.

So be independent. Don't worry about what other people think about you. Just care about what they think.