The human digestive system works on a simple principle. Food goes in, waste goes out. Along the way, the body is nourished. Sometimes, though, something goes wrong and constipation results. Food goes in, nothing comes out. Along the way, the body hurts. Pain is a clear signal of malfunction.
The human spirit works on a similar principle. Food goes in, fruit goes out. Along the way, the spirit is nourished. Sometimes, though, something goes wrong and spiritual constipation results. Food goes in, nothing comes out. Along the way, the spirit hurts, but the signal it sends is more subtle than physical pain...(more)
This article was written for Lucid Magazine. Click here to read the rest of it and check out the other cool stuff.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
How are you learning?
50 books.
That's my reading goal for 2010. In addition to blogs, magazines, and whatever else, my goal is to read 50 books by year-end. No limits on the genre, length, or quality...just 50 books. With 13 to date in the 1st quarter, I'm on track.
I have chosen this goal because books open up new worlds to me. New ideas, new facts, new ways of thinking; they all come to me through books. I read for entertainment, but above all, I read to learn. Learning leads to growth, and without growth, there is only decay. So despite all the demands on my time, I read.
The point of this post is not, however, to impress you with my reading goal (many people read more). Nor is it to encourage you to read more (though I think that's always a good idea). Rather, it is a question of learning. Specifically,
How are you learning?
If not through books, what? How? Are you listening to Open University courses? Online training sessions? Attending lectures? Blogs, magazines, newspapers?
Life keeps moving. The only way to keep up is to grow, and without learning, there is no growth. How are you keeping up? How are you learning?
(That last question is not rhetorical. I know how I'm learning, and I'm curious...how are you learning?)
That's my reading goal for 2010. In addition to blogs, magazines, and whatever else, my goal is to read 50 books by year-end. No limits on the genre, length, or quality...just 50 books. With 13 to date in the 1st quarter, I'm on track.
I have chosen this goal because books open up new worlds to me. New ideas, new facts, new ways of thinking; they all come to me through books. I read for entertainment, but above all, I read to learn. Learning leads to growth, and without growth, there is only decay. So despite all the demands on my time, I read.
The point of this post is not, however, to impress you with my reading goal (many people read more). Nor is it to encourage you to read more (though I think that's always a good idea). Rather, it is a question of learning. Specifically,
How are you learning?
If not through books, what? How? Are you listening to Open University courses? Online training sessions? Attending lectures? Blogs, magazines, newspapers?
Life keeps moving. The only way to keep up is to grow, and without learning, there is no growth. How are you keeping up? How are you learning?
(That last question is not rhetorical. I know how I'm learning, and I'm curious...how are you learning?)
Sunday, February 14, 2010
On Connection
In the age of the internet, connectivity is everywhere. There are hundreds of apps and websites all seeking to connect us with others. It seems, as well, that this is something we desire. If we didn't care about connection, Web 2.0 would never have begun, let alone thrived. Yet, is there a limit? Can we be too connected?
There is only one way to find out (for an engineer). Derive the equation for the system and see if there is a maximum. Pretty easy, except that we are dealing with humans, not atoms, so there will have to be some approximation. So, simplifying it down, I propose the Connection Index (CI).
As a result of man's aversion to complexity, we are therefore drawn to the simple factor: number of connections. We know that a single connection makes us feel good, so we strive to increase the number of connections, knowing that more connections leads to greater CI (assuming constant quality). Since we are ignoring quality because it is too complex, we might as well assume it is constant. So we have more Twitter followers, more Facebook friends, and more LinkedIn connections, each one linearly increasing our CI...right?
Clearly, this logic breaks down. A short pause is all it takes to realize that my 350th friend on Facebook does not have the same quality of connection that I do with my wife (at least, they better not). So if the average quality of each connection is not the same, our assumption of constant average quality may not be as valid as we would like to think.
Imagine, for example that you have one connection with your soul mate. Your best friend in the entire world. One connection times a very high average quality equals a high CI. Now add another connection of an old classmate whom you have not seen in 15 years (a common Facebook occurrence). Very little connection quality, dragging the average quality of connections down significantly. But the number doubled, so the overall CI likely went up a bit, since the connection with your soul mate is unaffected by this new Facebook friend. So far, so good...Facebook has increased our CI.
Continue the thought experiment for a while, now. More and more people friend you on Facebook. One introduces you to Twitter and mentions LinkedIn. MySpace looks interesting, as does Tumblr. Google throws in Wave and Buzz. Connections (and the platforms that facilitate them) are multiplying rapidly. Which is good, since more connections leads to greater CI...right?
This is where it gets sticky. All those connections are clamoring for time and attention. On Facebook, your spouse gets equal screen time with your college roommates who compete with your clients on LinkedIn. Simply having a connection requires something of you, and that something has to come from somewhere. That somewhere will eventually be from the time and attention spent on your soul mate, that first and strongest connection. At first, that is no big deal. But soon, a loss of time will lead to a loss of quality in that connection, and CI begins to drop.
By this reasoning, at some point, additional connections begin to reduce the average quality more than can be compensated by the added connection. CI starts dropping, and will continue to drop with more connections, likely accelerating as we try to compensate for the negative feeling of a lower CI with a greater number of connections. (Remember our focus on the easy part of the equation? Plus, it worked up until now, right?)
So where does that leave us? In an ever downward spiral of reaching for something that is fleeing from us faster than we can pursue it. Once CI begins to drop, the only way to stop the bleeding is to defy instinct and stop. Don't add more friends, don't join another network, just stop.
Then focus on the other half of the equation. Rather than increasing numbers, increase the quality. Spend more time with your spouse, face-to-face with friends. Invest in the connections you have, and maybe even cut off some of those that are wasting your time.
The index is what matters. Stop stressing quantity and make the quality happen.
There is only one way to find out (for an engineer). Derive the equation for the system and see if there is a maximum. Pretty easy, except that we are dealing with humans, not atoms, so there will have to be some approximation. So, simplifying it down, I propose the Connection Index (CI).
Connection Index = number of connections * average quality of each connection
I also propose that each of us desires to maximize our CI. Since the equation is straightforward, maximization of CI involves increasing the number of connections and/or their quality. It gets complicated when we consider that one of those factors is easy to both influence and measure, while the other is not.
As a result of man's aversion to complexity, we are therefore drawn to the simple factor: number of connections. We know that a single connection makes us feel good, so we strive to increase the number of connections, knowing that more connections leads to greater CI (assuming constant quality). Since we are ignoring quality because it is too complex, we might as well assume it is constant. So we have more Twitter followers, more Facebook friends, and more LinkedIn connections, each one linearly increasing our CI...right?
Clearly, this logic breaks down. A short pause is all it takes to realize that my 350th friend on Facebook does not have the same quality of connection that I do with my wife (at least, they better not). So if the average quality of each connection is not the same, our assumption of constant average quality may not be as valid as we would like to think.
Imagine, for example that you have one connection with your soul mate. Your best friend in the entire world. One connection times a very high average quality equals a high CI. Now add another connection of an old classmate whom you have not seen in 15 years (a common Facebook occurrence). Very little connection quality, dragging the average quality of connections down significantly. But the number doubled, so the overall CI likely went up a bit, since the connection with your soul mate is unaffected by this new Facebook friend. So far, so good...Facebook has increased our CI.
Continue the thought experiment for a while, now. More and more people friend you on Facebook. One introduces you to Twitter and mentions LinkedIn. MySpace looks interesting, as does Tumblr. Google throws in Wave and Buzz. Connections (and the platforms that facilitate them) are multiplying rapidly. Which is good, since more connections leads to greater CI...right?
This is where it gets sticky. All those connections are clamoring for time and attention. On Facebook, your spouse gets equal screen time with your college roommates who compete with your clients on LinkedIn. Simply having a connection requires something of you, and that something has to come from somewhere. That somewhere will eventually be from the time and attention spent on your soul mate, that first and strongest connection. At first, that is no big deal. But soon, a loss of time will lead to a loss of quality in that connection, and CI begins to drop.
By this reasoning, at some point, additional connections begin to reduce the average quality more than can be compensated by the added connection. CI starts dropping, and will continue to drop with more connections, likely accelerating as we try to compensate for the negative feeling of a lower CI with a greater number of connections. (Remember our focus on the easy part of the equation? Plus, it worked up until now, right?)
So where does that leave us? In an ever downward spiral of reaching for something that is fleeing from us faster than we can pursue it. Once CI begins to drop, the only way to stop the bleeding is to defy instinct and stop. Don't add more friends, don't join another network, just stop.
Then focus on the other half of the equation. Rather than increasing numbers, increase the quality. Spend more time with your spouse, face-to-face with friends. Invest in the connections you have, and maybe even cut off some of those that are wasting your time.
The index is what matters. Stop stressing quantity and make the quality happen.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Today, Haiti, Tomorrow...Haiti?
According to the CIA World Factbook, Haiti's per capita income is $1,300 annually, ranking it 203rd in the world (out of 229). Inflation is 15.5% (194th highest in the world) and unemployment is not even reported as a number, rather as "widespread unemployment and underemployment; more than two-thirds of the labor force do not have formal jobs." These numbers are from well before the recent earthquake.
A tremendous amount of aid will pour into the country over the next few months. After that, our memories will fade, the money will dry up, and then what? Will more than half of Haitians finally be employed? Not likely. Recovery from disaster is hard...recovery from endemic poverty is nearly impossible.
So I want to challenge you to join me and my family in making a commitment that goes beyond a text message. For the past four years, we have been sponsoring Robendy through Compassion International. Robendy lives in Haiti and happens to have been born exactly 8 years to the day before our twins. He lives on the side of the island away from the worst of the damage, but beyond that, we know no more than you do about his current fate. He was our first thought on hearing about the earthquake.
Sponsorship is different than giving to disaster relief. Instead of a chunk of cash now, sponsorship is spread out over time, a steady drip of help to those in need. It keeps us engaged, and though the contributions are automated, we are constantly reminded through letters, updates, and bank statements that we are involved, every day, in what happens in Haiti.
Compassion is not the only organization that has a sponsorship model. Haiti is not the only country in the world with poverty. So I don't really care if you give through Compassion, and I don't particularly care if you give to Haiti. I do care that you make a commitment beyond the headlines. Haiti will need us next year, just like they did last year. Will you be there?
Click here to access Compassion International's sponsorship page.
Click here to access Compassion International's Haitian disaster relief page.
PS - I did no research into other organizations for this post. If you have one you would recommend, please mention it in the comments. Also, if you have a sponsorship story, I would love to hear it.
(Photo credit to Compassion International)
