Good listen:
Subscribe Via RSS:
This blog is updated Daily.Subscribe by e-mail:
Top Posts
Categories
Good listen:
Some interesting emails with readers about Dokkodo, and the merits of a life of service. Â Service is important, no doubt, But I still put the individual first. Â After all, service of any kind is, eventually, for the benefit of individuals. Â Sometimes one individual, sometimes billions. Â But individuals, still. Â Albert Einstein had some thoughts on this as well:
A man’s value to the community depends primarily on how far his feelings, thoughts, and actions are directed toward promoting the good of his fellows. We call him good or bad according to how he stands in this matter. It looks at first sight as if our estimate of a man depended entirely on his social qualities.
And yet such an attitude would be wrong. It is clear that all the valuable things, material, spiritual, and moral, which we receive from society can be traced back through countless generations to certain creative individuals. The use of fire, the cultivation of edible plants, the steam engine — each was discovered by one man.
Only the individual can think, and thereby create new values for society — nay, even set up new moral standards to which the life of the community conforms. Without creative, independently thinking and judging personalities the upward development of society is as unthinkable as the development of the individual personality without the nourishing soil of the community.
The health of society thus depends quite as much on the independence of the individuals composing it as on their close social cohesion.
When their money is at stake, people often ask what the downside is. Â How much can I lose? Â Then they weigh this against the upside. Â How much can I make?
Strangely, when money isn’t at stake, people don’t really seem to consider the second question. Â A lot of people don’t hesitate to be the bearer of bad news, especially when it comes to personal matters. Â Ally makes a snide comment about Bob, and Cathy immediately informs Bob. Â What’s the downside, right? Â If Cathy doesn’t tell say anything, maybe Bob will find out and then be mad at Ally and Cathy.
But on the other hand. Â What’s the upside? Â Now you’ve guaranteed that Bob’s going to feel shitty, or angry, or hurt, or all of the above.
Most of the time, there is no upside. Â (And, when you really look at it, there’s hardly ever a downside in these situations: Bob’s never going to be mad at Cathy for something Ally said. Â And if he is, fuck Bob. Â He’s an idiot.)
So ask yourself: What’s the upside? Â If the answer isn’t obvious (and doesn’t outweigh the downside), then keep it to yourself.
Note that this is true for literally every profession, especially the “glamorous” ones (click to enlarge):
HT: Chase Jarvis
Miyamoto Musashi is regarded as the best swordsman in Japanese history, and one of the greatest warriors in history. Â He was also a devout strategist. Â Written during the week he spent preparing for his own death, a period in which he gave away most of his possessions, Dokkodo, or the Path of Aloneness, reflects Musashi’s thoughts on living a good life.
It’s hard to ignore how different this advice is from what we would expect to hear from our own parents or grandparents.  But it’s not surprising at all considering the duty based culture Musashi was birthed in.  Musashi’s culture did not fear death.  For that reason, in addition to others, there wasn’t the same emphasis on obtaining pleasure or relief during life.  The most honorable life you could live was one of service.  The more useful you could be to others, be it the emperor, or society at large, or simply an ideal, the more honorable and respected you became.  And honor and respect was something to cultivate as much for one’s family and ancestors as it was for one’s self.  Like modern parts of the Islamic world, failure to do the culturally acceptable  thing brought shame to one’s family, which was often worse than death.
Now, I think history shows quite clearly whose system is better for humanity in the long run. (Western culture put a man on the moon and is on its way to curing death.) Â But that doesn’t mean there isn’t much to learn from a duty based way of life. Â Not ironically, many of the most successful men in Western culture succeeded precisely by, more or less, following these rules. Nearly half of the above list embodies the basic principal of capitalism: forgo pleasure now in order to build capital for later. Â Nearly a quarter of the list embodies the single most important trait for success: awareness. Â Great stuff.
But, number one on the list is perhaps the most backward, depressing, authoritarianism-fostering piece of advice I could even imagine building a life, let alone a society, around. Â So, as always, take of Musashi (and duty based culture) what you can. Â There is a lot to offer. Â But don’t become such an adherent that you lose the life that’s worth applying those principals to.
It’s scary if you’re the only one doing something. Â The immediate thought is that you must be doing something wrong. Â Surely, if you were right, someone else would be doing it.
Sometimes, that’s true. Â Nobody is selling bacon-flavored oxygen because that’s dumb and no one would buy it. (Oh, wait…)
But many times, no one else is doing it simply because it’s scary. Â You might have experienced this on your own scale. Â None of your friends are starting their own businesses, or getting a medical or law degree, or buying a house. Â Does that mean people that do start a business, or get a medical degree, or buy a house are wrong? Â Probably not. Â In fact, people that do those things are probably right, in the long term. Â But they’re still scary things to have to do right now. Â And so many people avoid doing them.
If you find yourself scared of doing something, that’s a pretty good indication that it might be worth doing.
More excellent advice from David Ogilvy, founder of one of the preeminent advertising firms in the world:
The better you write, the higher you go in Ogilvy & Mather. People who think well, write well.
Woolly minded people write woolly memos, woolly letters and woolly speeches.
Good writing is not a natural gift. You have to learn to write well. Here are 10 hints:
1. Read the Roman-Raphaelson book on writing*. Read it three times.
2. Write the way you talk. Naturally.
3. Use short words, short sentences and short paragraphs.
4. Never use jargon words like reconceptualize, demassification,attitudinally, judgmentally. They are hallmarks of a pretentious ass.
5. Never write more than two pages on any subject.
6. Check your quotations.
7. Never send a letter or a memo on the day you write it. Read it aloud the next morning—and then edit it.
8. If it is something important, get a colleague to improve it.
9. Before you send your letter or your memo, make sure it is crystal clear what you want the recipient to do.
10. If you want ACTION, don’t write. Go and tell the guy what you want.
– David Ogilvy
Ran across these thoughts on how minimizing your screen real estate might actually boost your productivity:
Having a big screen is a good excuse to stick a Twitter client here, mail client there, have list of files pane constantly open, and in general keep every window at some random size, definitely not full-screen. In best-case scenario you’re just lost in open documents and you’re juggling windows, dragging them to the left, to the right, pushing out of visible workspace etc. More realistic scenario: everything above + each open app takes a bit of your attention, which is counter-productive and annoys you in the longer run.
Two or more screens can be a huge boon to productivity. Â I use them constantly when drafting documents: it’s such a huge time saver to be able to have a screen full of reference materials and a screen full of writing material without having to switch back and forth. Â But, when I’m not writing, or when I don’t need to reference something, it’s hugely tempting to fill that second screen up with an email client. Â Or email and twitter and gchat and news and … . Â Those potential distractions can quickly turn into major time sucks. Â Know your tendencies. Â I’m easily distracted. Â If I don’t need that second monitor, it stays off.
Idiots
The quoted post is good, thought provoking advice that runs counter to a lot of the thinking of the last 5-10 years. Â Now, check out the comments on that page. Â Half of the substantive comments are “this won’t work for me” or “hey, I use multiple monitors and I’m super productive!” Â I notice this pattern constantly. Â Please, people who do this, seriously, kill yourselves. Â You are insane if you expect a public blog to be written solely for your consumption or to address your unique needs. Â You’re telling me, you can’t professionally edit video on a 12″ notebook screen? Â Well, I guess there’s nothing else you could possibly take from that post, could you? Â Guess you better ignore the thought process behind a technique and tell everyone why the specific technique is wrong, for you. Â Ugh.
Superstition, then, is engendered, preserved, and fostered by fear. Â If anyone desire an example, let him take Alexander, who only began superstitiously to seek guidance from seers, when he first learnt to fear fortune in the passes of Sysis (Curtius, v.4); whereas after he had conquered Darius he consulted prophets no more, till a second time frightened by reverses. Â When the Scythians were provoking a battle, the Bactrians had deserted, and he himself was lying sick of his wounds, “he once more turned to superstition, the mockery of human wisdom, and bade Aristander, to whom he confided his credulity, inquire the issue of affairs with sacrificed victims.” Â Very numerous examples of a like nature might be cited, clearly showing the fact, that only while under the dominion of fear do men fall a prey to superstition; that all the portents ever invested with the reverence of misguided religion are mere phantoms of dejected and fearful minds; and lastly, that prophets have most power among the people, and are most formidable to rulers, precisely at those times when the state is in most peril.
– Benedict de Spinoza, Theologico-Political Treatise
From about 5 years old to somewhere between 18 and 30 years old, we’re asked to solve problems in some specific way in order to demonstrate we understand what the professor was paid to teach us. Â You’re allowed to use this method, but not that one. Â You’re allowed to employ these techniques, but not these shortcuts. Â Your answer must be written, and fit within this many pages.
Because this idea of approaching problems within a set of constraints gets hammered into our brains, most people carry on thinking this way for the rest of their lives. Â This is the way this problem is dealt with, so that’s how I’m going to deal with it. Â This tool is what the last guy used to solve this problem, so this is the tool to use to solve this problem.
Many times this approach will suffice. Â But that doesn’t mean its the best approach, or the easiest, or the cheapest, or the optimal approach. Â We should remember that the arbitrary constraints that apply to problem solving in the academic world usually don’t apply in the real world. Â And just because others in the industry have imposed such constraints, because they’ve become “industry standards”, doesn’t mean you have to work within them.
For example, in California, there is nothing in the law that says you can’t include diagrams or pictures in a legal brief. Â Millions of words could have been spared with the use of a picture, or a chart, or a drawing, but they are exceedingly rare (I have never actually seen one used). Â But none of that means you can’t use a picture. Â And, when a drawing was the easiest way to convey the information we needed to convey, that’s what we did.
The more academia we’re exposed to, the more indoctrinated we get into this idea that there is a certain way things are done, and thus we must do certain things that way. Â Rarely is this actually the case.
The video, embedded below, is difficult to quote, but touches on some of the issues we’ve discussed before. Â Definitely worth soaking in:
When I see those paparazzi pictures of Fat Kevin Federline, sometimes sporting dopey cornrows, sometimes waddling across some anonymous poolside deck with beer in hand, I imagine a guy who does not know who he is, what he is supposed to be doing, or how he wound up in the unexpected circumstances of his own life. This is how I feel about myself 90 percent of the time.
– Michael Ian Black, You’re Not Doing It Right
It’s comforting to remind ourselves that we’re not unique, special little snowflakes. Â Even those people smarter, better looking, and more successful have the same fears, self-doubt, and wonder. Â Everyone steps back and wonders how the hell they got here and what the hell they’re doing. Â Totally normal.
The most successful among us simply make the most of those lucid moments. Â They look around, recognize an opportunity, seize onto it, and hang on while life whizzes past.
Alain de Botton with a good reminder:
One of the interesting things about success is that we think we know what it means.
A lot of the time our ideas about what it would mean to live successfully are not our own. They’re sucked in from other people … And we also suck in messages from everything from the television to advertising to marketing, etcetera. These are hugely powerful forces that define what we want and how we view ourselves.
What I want to argue for is not that we should give up on our ideas of success, but that we should make sure that they are our own. We should focus in on our ideas and make sure that we own them, that we’re truly the authors of our own ambitions. Because it’s bad enough not getting what you want, but it’s even worse to have an idea of what it is you want and find out at the end of the journey that it isn’t, in fact, what you wanted all along.
In 1959, long before the X-prize, Henry Kremer offered 50,000 pounds to anyone who could finally build a flying machine powered only by the pilot’s body power. Â All an entrant had to do was fly in a figure eight around two posts placed half a mile apart. Â Kremer also offered 100,000 pounds to anyone who could fly across the English Channel.
Many undertook the challenge. Â All of them failed. Â Their designs were too heavy, too prone to failure, and took too long to fix to be economically viable.
Paul MacCready realized where the others had failed. Â He recognized that their biggest flaws weren’t in the design or weight of their aircrafts. Â Instead, he recognized that each competitor was spending up to a year on a single design before launching it. Â These teams would finally complete their designs and then promptly lose a year’s worth of work when it inevitably crashed. Â They didn’t do any interim testing because their machines, once destroyed, took months to rebuild.
The problem, MacCready realized, was that nobody understood the problem.
By taking the opposite approach, by designing a machine that could be rapidly rebuilt, changed, and tweaked, MacCready was able to launch 3 to 4 flight attempts per day. Â He was able to constantly test and rework his designs.
MacCready’s first attempt didn’t work.  Neither did his second.  Or his twentieth.  But it didn’t matter.  MacCready need only six months to solve the problem others had been working on for 18 years because he understood that the process was the real problem that needed solving.   Just six months after the Gossamer Condor claimed the 50,000 pound prize, MacCready’s Gossamer Albatross claimed the 100,000 pound Kremer prize for crossing the English Channel.  All because he understood what the real problem was.
The measure of a good gift is in its appropriateness, not its cost.
The corollary to this is if you receive an expensive gift from a wealthier friend, you’re not obligated to give him something of equal value in return.  You’re only obliged to give him something equally appropriate and thoughtful.