Shelfari: Book reviews on your book blog

The Hedonic Treadmill

Here is a provocative passage from Authentic Happiness, a book I recently finished and hope to blog more about.

Another barrier to raise a new level of happiness is the “hedonic treadmill” which causes you to rapidly and inevitably adapt to good things by taking them for granted. As you accumulate more material possessions and accomplishments, your expectations rise. The deeds and things you worked so hard for no longer make you happy; you need to get something even better to boost your level of happiness into the upper reaches of its set range. But once you get the next possession or achievement, you adapt to it as well, and so on. There is, unfortunately, a good deal of evidence for such a treadmill.

For me this passage provokes more questions than answers.One of my biggest takeaways is that expectations shouldn’t rise faster than accomplishments, but I wonder if too much happiness leads to complacency? If we were in bliss after taking out the trash wouldn’t that be a societal liability? While the existence of this treadmill is unfortunate from an emotional perspective, from a societal-value perspective it might not be. Doesn’t the fact that we are never satisfied, always looking for the next achievement to make us happy, drive economic value to society? Perhaps this is further evidence that happiness and innovation are at odds. If you’re seeking to maximize contribution where is the optimal level of happiness? Clearly morbidly depressed people don’t get much done, but what about borderline depressed people who are determined to find fulfillment through achievement but to no avail? How can we be happy and continue to elevate our ability to contribute and achieve?

I’ll let these thoughts linger…but I assure you Seligman does have some good solutions.

by max ~ July 2nd, 2009

Thrashing Duck Syndrome

1421320485_ce9ab49d6d

Most people like to create the perception of having it all figured out. Most people have duck syndrome.

These are people who look calm on the surface but are paddling furiously just to stay afloat.

It’s important to be able to present yourself well, but I find the paddling much more interesting. How do you brush the water back with your feet? How far down the horizon are you looking? Are you studying the angle that propels your feet forward the fastest? Have you asked yourself where and why you are paddling?

I don’t care about looking calm on the surface. I want to let everyone know I’m thrashing, splaying water in every direction. I know that means my head will get dunked from time to time and choking on water will be a frequent occurrence. But I’ll learn from my mistakes, and by acknowledging my turmoil I’ll get better advice from people about how to overcome it. There’s a famous quote, “If you want to increase your success rate, double your failure rate.” One of the best ways to accelerate the rate of change in your life, the 2nd derivative if you will, is to increase your transparency. But increased transparency is scary because you’re going to have to expose your flaws and admit that you don’t have it all figured out.

Transparency Aids Iteration And Thereby Growth

Transparency is the answer to better government, better policy, better science, and better business. Let’s explore how transparency can make us better, too.

Transparency means that you will be showing off a more accurate picture of yourself, both the good and bad. But why would you want to go out of your way to admit you have a chink in your armor? A dented chainmail certainly isn’t as attractive as a pristine one. And we all know people are attracted to shiny, beautiful objects. Don’t you wish you were a shiny beautiful object? If you could take a nice snap shot of your armor, a well angled picture that captured only your good features, a “MySpace shot” as they say (or used to because no one uses it anymore), wouldn’t you do it?  Wouldn’t that shininess win you friends, fame and a high rolling job?

In the short term yes, but in the long term absolutely no. A lesson that will surface time and time again is think long term. If you want to make the most of this life, start thinking long term now.

Most people take the approach of showing only their positive sides. Exposing only positive traits can aid the cultivation of a mystique. If you can prove you are exceptional at a few things, always remain confident and composed and reveal little else about yourself, many people will fill in the blank by extrapolating from your exceptional qualities and assume your are exceptional at everything. So taking well-angled snapshots can create the perception of being an absolute magnet. But sadly, you aren’t. Sooner or later you’ll be found out or you can spend your life protecting your pristine image, seeing other people only when you can show off. You can’t be that perfect knight in shining armor, if you haven’t yet been to battle. If you’re young you should be looking for battles that challenge you and have good chance of knocking you down. And when you rise again and dust yourself off after hitting the ground. Now is the time to be transparent and look for feedback. If you gave your all and know where to look there will be plenty of people who want to help you get to the next stage and overcome the challenge.

You’ve pushed yourself and taken what is traditionally known as failure not as a sign that you’re not good enough but as an opportunity to gain feedback for how to improve. If you get back up and learn from your defeats you’ve turned a failure into a great learning experience. I will be talking more on the blog about transparency and feedback, as those I believe are universal principles underlying progress.

When you get back up show off your ugly dents and battle scars because you’re in a rare class of people. You’re dreaming big and willing to fight for something. You haven’t just talked you have taken action. You haven’t just taken any action you’ve put yourself on the line and got burned, learned from your mistakes and asked for more.

That process isn’t really that hard but so few people are willing to embark on it with any vigor and consistency. Because they don’t want to be transparent about their inadequacies, they want to seem like they’ve got it all figured it out. So they don’t grow. Transparency = Increased Feedback. Feedback + Effort = Growth.

Start this process and great things will happen. Dream big. Take Action. Get knocked down. Share your difficulties and ask for help from those with more experience. Learn from your mistakes. Get back up and try again.

Every one starts out with a shiny wide-eyed awe view of the world. But then we start to take some hits and most people don’t get back up. They seek shelter. They crave comfort. But growth is uncomfortable. If you want to grow you have to get used to being uncomfortable. Comfort is overrated anyway. There is nothing interesting about comfort. It is a homeostatic state of complacency. Comfort comes when you’ve mastered a skill relative to the difficulty of your surroundings and you refuse to seek higher competition. Discomfort is the only way to get the best things in life, and why would you settle for anything less. And believe it or not, the walls that guard those abandoned dreams are very surmountable, but you wouldn’t know it if you looked around at the hordes people licking their wounds and the cacophony of cries telling you not to climb because you will get hurt. Don’t listen. All that is needed is the conviction to endure a little discomfort and the will power to persist and take the right, but uncomfortable actions. Understand that a negative emotion here and there isn’t the worst thing in the world. As Randy Pausch said, “Brick walls are there for a reason. The brick walls are not there to keep us out. The brick walls are there to show how badly we want something. Because the brick walls are there to stop the people who don’t want something badly enough. They are there to keep out the other people.”  And it works remarkably well. 99% of people are deterred by discomfort; they follow their emotions. Your emotions just want to ensure basic survival. But if you’re like me and care about doing something remarkable with your life, you’re not just looking to survive, you’re looking to thrive.

Focus on Growth

A muscle grows only when it’s been pushed just past its limit. Growth requires becoming okay with admitting your weaknesses and the limits of your abilities. Growth requires embracing your present state, having the desire and pushing yourself to move beyond it, and listening to the feedback about how you can improve. I’m not saying you should focus on fixing all your weaknesses, that’s an outdated paradigm. Dan Pink (who I’m a huge fan of) says the new paradigm for success is to focus on strengths not weaknesses. But even your strengths have limits, and in order to strengthen your strengths you must be willing to acknowledge their limits and push past them, a necessary discomfort for growth.

Be more transparent about your growth process and you will increase your pace of change and paths to change.

Transparency increases self-awareness because you know other people are watching, thereby increasing accountability. Accountability is an influence that isn’t given enough consideration because if we were perfectly rational, we wouldn’t need external pressures to make sure we do what we say we will do. It’s been proven that if a person sets the goal of going to the gym 3 times a week, they are more likely to fulfill that goal if they give a friend $100 and allow them to keep the money if they don’t achieve their goal of making it to the gym 3 times that week. It’s even more effective if you give the money to an organization you hate, like the National Organization for Marriage. Transparency makes it more likely you will uphold your commitments because you’ve added a nudge of social pressure.

Take Heed

Being more transparent will certainly help achieve goals faster, but it is not without risk.

When you’re exposing your weaknesses, or the limits of relative strengths, you do need to be careful how you present them. Toeing the line between complaining and problem solving is a delicate balance. Especially if you’re putting in the effort to solve the problems you are struggling with. The main difference between complaining and problem solving is whether you are just looking for sympathy or are actively looking to adopt solutions.

Transparency Has Negatives But Negatives Used Correctly Have Virtues

Projecting negativity is unattractive. It is not emotionally pleasing and the recipients of your negative anecdotes could leave with a sour taste in the mouth. But negativity shouldn’t be avoided at all costs. It’s a necessary discomfort of using increased transparency to grow faster.

Even though there are things to be gained from sharing problems you still must be careful not to emotionally pollute your relationships. Sharing negativity is like injecting a little toxic gas that could cause decay, but if the noxious gas is overcome the relationship has built immunity and the bond is strengthened.

The key difference between the good and bad kind of negativity is whether you are proactively trying to problem solve or are just complaining to get things off your chest. The good and bad become grossly intertwined when you intend to share the good kind of negativity but it is misconstrued and misinterpreted as complaining. But that is your fault not the recipient’s. The meaning of the communication is the response you get. Of course, another variable is the person who is receiving the communication. So an additional filter is to recognize whether you respect the person who misunderstood you and whether they are trying to help you or are merely projecting their own insecurities.

Even though risks exist, don’t let potential negatives of sharing problems overshadow the positive. If you express the desire that you want to improve you are more likely to receive advice and opportunities about how to improve rather than unconstructive criticism. Unfortunately humans are incredibly risk averse and place considerably more importance on avoiding losses and than achieving gains and frequently miss out on learning opportunities because they mistakenly feel they have more to lose than to gain.

A simple rule of thumb for knowing when to share things that aren’t going well in your life is whether you have established some level of trust or respect with the person you are talking to. (If you’re sharing issues online you will be better received if you’ve already established credibility and reputability). But don’t go around sharing your problems with everyone you meet. Negativity is a double-edged sword that if used carelessly is more likely to cut you than your problems.

I consider myself an overwhelmingly positive person. But I think a healthy dose of negativity is a good thing. At first glance 100% positivity attractive, but on second glance, it is not because it is not an accurate portrayal of anybody. Everybody has things in their life that aren’t perfect, that they could improve. Overconfidence can be attractive but it is not honest. That attraction can be useful when a leader is trying to inspire the fainter hearted to take on challenges they would normally shy away from, but if you are someone who is a calculated risk taker, understanding limitations is essential for growth.

The question is do you want to take the safe route and save face whenever possible or are you willing to take a risk and admit you have a problem with the intent to improve?

Value Process Over Tips and Nuggets

The process of hearing how another person solves problems in their lives is filled with transferable lessons and teachable moments. Few people talk about their challenges because they don’t want to expose any vulnerability. The common answer I hear when most people’s problems come up in conversation is, “Whatever, I’ll figure it out,” an attempt to quickly divert any attention from being focused on their struggle.

Personally, I find it very interesting to hear about people’s challenges and how they are approaching solving them. Our information society often reveals only the successes and punchy takeaways, hiding the process and all the false starts along the way. Success is often the result of  ordinary actions taken over and over again. There is no magic formula and by exposing your intermediary steps you can gain feedback on the daily processes that really matter instead of just relying on a few lessons that the winners have encapsulated and enshrined after their triumph. Brian Kim voices this well, “There’s a hidden danger that comes with relying on tips that most people don’t realize. The people who offer these tips in a short article or book often attribute the solution to a particular problem via these tips, when in reality, they’ve actually laid the foundation down first which is the real solution without ever realizing it. The tips they offered are then byproducts of that foundation.”

Not revealing the process or placing due importance on it is very dangerous. The anecdotes of those who have failed are often more informative and insightful than the anecdotes from those who succeeded. I find it more interesting to hear about what isn’t going well is than to hear about what is going well. Assuming though, that we’re not taking a failure story from someone who is completely incompetent. There are more lessons to be had from a failure story if it appeared the person had a lot going for them. And when you hear negative anecdotes from a person, it’s not as interesting, from a perspective of success, if they’ve frequently made poor decisions throughout their life compared to someone who appears to be making all the right moves.

Similarly in business, common wisdom says to keep business ideas to yourself. But this is not the smart move. It’s extremely unlikely somebody will steal your idea and you’ll learn much more from the feedback you receive as a result of freely sharing your ideas. When you start talking about your idea with everyone you will get a very large source of wisdom and a diversity of perspectives that will likely reveal opportunities and challenges you never considered. Business ideas are almost always about solving a problem. And a negative issue of life if framed correctly, similarly should be about solving a problem, in which case many business principles apply. In fact, in many cases thinking about your life as a company is a helpful analogy for finding the best places to improve and grow.

Being more transparent about dilemmas in our life is healthy and productive.  It is sexy to project an attitude that you’ve got it all figured out all the time, but there’s a lot to be gained from sharing it all, including the struggles. Don’t just share the end result of your winning battles, share the process both the good and the bad and your success will hasten. But most people figure it foolish to let others know they are thrashing.

by max ~ July 1st, 2009

Getting Excited Is Just The First Step

Picture 4

So many people write about the solutions they’ve found and the things they’ve discovered. I rarely see people write about they problems they are confronting, the different factors they are weighing, the sacrifices they are making and ultimately how they decide. We hear success stories all the time, that follow a traditional story arc: at first he didn’t know what to do, then he got an idea, but the challenge seemed too daunting and he thought about giving up, but he persevered and made it happen. You can do it, too! And then they run off a list of traits that they think allowed them to succeed. But those lists are most of the time emotional feel good junk food. They make us feel good, pump us up and let us know that it is possible for us to enjoy that success as well. But pumping someone up and not giving them good options about how to proceed is very dangerous. It’s deceptive to credit success with tips that hint at the process that underly it without providing enough awareness of the real ingredients. It is the process that unlocks that potential to replicate results.

I’m not saying these are bad, it’s good to share your story and I don’t know how much more can be accomplished in the time speeches like these are given, except for the emphasis on the hard work needed, and on pointing to resources that allow the inspired to learn more in depth about the process of building a strong foundation for success. I don’t know many of organizations that really prepare young people holistically for success. School certainly doesn’t teach you how to be successful. It teaches you socialization and a narrow band of academic knowledge. Being more transparent about your process will give other people the opportunity to guide you in the right direction through offering advice, point to resources and opening up opportunities. That’s the approach I’ve taken, I had no idea how to get Force For the Future started. So I took my ambitious ideas for a project and learned how to get lunch and coffee meetings with people who could give me the feedback and point me to the resources necessary to begin down an entrepreneurial road. I picked their brains and told them about my problems and got advice about how to succeed and now I have a network of friends and advisors who I can rely on for almost any problem I have.

Getting pumped up is necessary but being told something is possible without being told how is like telling a kid there’s candy hidden somewhere in a one hundred room mansion. He’ll be excited at first and run around looking for it. But then he’ll give up after while, frustrated. And maybe his eyes will light up again when he’s reminded tomorrow that there’s still candy somewhere in the mansion. But his enthusiasm will soon fade and his expectations will lower next time you bring it up. And he won’t ever find the candy because he was only told of it’s existence he wasn’t told anything about how to find it. And that’s how most people start to feel about success: like a helpless kid who just doesn’t want to be messed with anymore. He’d rather sit and suck his thumb than get his hopes up again only to be disappointed.

We need better structures to support those with the desire to do something big to actually make it happen. This is an incredibly important problem to solve. We need more young people on a trajectory towards solving today’s big issues and providing the resources, support structure and education for them to do that is the difference between resigning to dispassionate ‘pay the bills’ work or an insatiable entrepreneurial drive to improve humanity. This is a problem that I think is very surmountable and am working with some great people on some solutions right now.

by max ~ June 30th, 2009

Notes on Wisdom

318367903_8cbdc99d38

 On Thursday night I was having dinner with friends and we discussed the topic of Wisdom. What it means, and who has it.

I thought I’d share some of our ideas.
In order to have wisdom you need to have had some success. You can’t have failed all the time. Some success is better than all failure.
Mixed consensus on whether to a hire a CEO who has failed twice or one who has succeeded twice.
But having experienced both success and failure is best. Probably the best combo is success – failure – success.

Wisdom requires being articulate and being able to express what you have learned, though this can be done without out words.

Judging the wisdom of an individual has elements of trajectory and their wisdom relative to other’s their age is an important factor as well.

Wisdom about very narrow topics i.e. virality isn’t really wisdom, it’s expertise. Wisdom is about life. A wise person thinks about what it means to have a good life.

A 55 year old is often a wiser than a 75 year old. In general, this is largely due to the emotional baggage and bitterness of those in old age. An important marker signifying when someone’s wisdom begins to decline is when they begin to feel their own mortality and start thinking about death.

Thinking about death could cause some to focus on what’s important in life, but if they weren’t focusing on what’s important in life before they thought about death, how wise were they really?
Wise people focus on what’s important and are still looking to grow. No longer looking for growth is one of the causes of declining wisdom.

Older people who realize their years are limited are often focused on maintenance rather than growth. Seeking growth is essential for wisdom. A wise person has to understand there’s always room to grow. Some would conjure up images of the old Japanese man in the tea garden who is it all figured out, but I don’t think any wise person can profess to have anything all figured out. Perhaps they have mastered certain principles and can share those with confidence and certainty. But there’s always room for improvement and life is a never ending journey in pursuit of growth.

by max ~ June 16th, 2009

Lessons from Sports: Focusing On The Right Things

Picture 3

I’ve written about sports frequently because I think the lessons are incredibly transferable. Athletics are extremely competitive with a long history of results-oriented focus. It’s a huge business, with a lot of attention, money and science aimed at maximizing results. While transferring lessons from a game can be dangerous, because any game is an over simplification of the complexity of the real world,  closed environments are great testing grounds for honing narrow theories, skills and practices.

During Halftime of the NBA Finals there was a great segment where Dwight Howard, a future great, was spending time learning from Bill Russel, the greatest winner of all time — 11 championships.  Michael Wilbon talked about the importance of listening and its tendency to be underrated. Wilbon praised Howard’s willingness to listen to Bill Russell.

They were discussing how you become great and Russell told Howard that when the season ended he should take a month off and not even look at a basketball. This violated Howard’s worldview — “That’s time others could be working,” he replied incredulous.  Intuition says Howard is right: maximize time working. But I’m inclined to trust the greatest winner of all time. It fits with the current paradigm of the productivity-obsessed that the correct paradigm is to focus on energy management not time management.

High achievers who strive to be the best seem to undervalue the long term benefit of taking time off. Growth requires focus and intensity and you simply can’t do that 24/7/365. Stepping away, recharging, and revitalizing is crucial for long term growth. And think long term growth whenever possible.

Jeff Van Gundy made another astute point on a common error most people make. Van Gundy was addressing criticism other people had of Kobe Byrant, that he should shoot more or pass more. Van Gundy said focusing on passing more or shooting more was flat out wrong. Instead he said, just focus on making the right decision. Let the situation dictate your decision making. If they go single coverage go 1 on 1, if they try and double team, find the open man. This lesson struck me as very universal. So many times we can get zeroed on doing something regardless of the situation, like deciding we should pass more or shoot more. Instead focus on the right thing: being flexible, assessing the situation and adapting. “Mind like Water” as they say.

If you’re trying to write a popular blog don’t focus on the wrong metrics like “driving more traffic” to your site. Instead focus on better content first. If you’re in a conversation with someone important or beautiful and you’re nervous, don’t focus on saying the perfect thing instead just focus on having 100% belief in what ever comes to mind. If you’re trying to get the ear of someone who is incredibly busy and you see them at an event, don’t make a pact that you’re going to get him to help you no matter what, instead if you do enter in conversation just go with the flow, make a good impression and follow up later.


by max ~ June 15th, 2009

The Coming Educational Landscape Pt. 2

First I recommend you read the previous post on this subject.

Concurrently to that facebook discussion I was having this discussion over Instant Messenger as a result of this tweet: Hypothesis: Future of education is the structure of unschooling combined with resources of a Harvard/Stanford. What do you think?

Cory

i find ur stastus interesting

do u mean something like an online school?

11:40am

Max

well I think that’s one model, but it’s not sufficient, face to face is still very important for learning

I’m thinking something more decentralized but in a local area

11:42am

Cory

so essentially there are still “schools”

but every school has resources like harvard

?

11:43am

Max

hm, I don’t know if that’s possible, one school will always have more resources. I suppose every school could have what harvard has now, if harvard then had even more…11:45am

Max

but more specifically, what I’m proposing, is that the structure of unschooling combined with resources comparable to that of Harvard is better than what Harvard currently provides. This would create more engaged, and effective people

11:46am

Cory

hm

i like your goal for sure

11:48am

Max

And I think many colleges could provide more value by adopting that model, instead of trying to emulate harvard

I sense a ‘but’

11:49am

Cory

i cant say but yet, cuz im not totally sure what a more local education would be like

11:49am

Max

I”m actually working on this btw, I’m taking a gap year and working on a startup that aims to foster this , by allowing more young people to actually make big ideas happen, instead of it just being momentary enthusiastic and losing interest.

Entrepreneurship and startups give you the early signal of what it will look like

21st century demands being entrepreneurial in my opinion, that doesn’t necessarily mean starting a business though.

11:51am

Max

ex: Preben Antonsen, close friend who went to Lick, wants to get todays youth more into classical music, so as part of “Formerly known as classical” he organized a concert. That’s entrepreneurial, it’s making things happen and it’s way more empowering than anything that happens in the classroom.

11:55am

Cory

another great idea

you always appear on my newsfeed

and sadly

no one else is really enthusiastic or about the world or engaged

Continue reading »

by max ~ June 10th, 2009

The Coming Educational Landscape Pt. 1

Earlier this morning I posted this statement on twitter: Hypothesis: Future of education is the structure of unschooling combined with resources of a Harvard/Stanford. What do you think?

Almost immediately engaged conversation began in number of places. I wanted to share that discussion in a more open space. (Here is part 2)

Below is our facebook conversation lightly edited and separated into clearer threads.

Thomas Mamajama Mallon at 11:36am June 10

I think we’ll have a more fluid pricing model, i.e a cost more proportional to ranking, but unschooling will principally happen at the grammar/high-school level. I don’t think traditional college is going anywhere withing the next 2 decades.

Max Marmer at 11:42am June 10

Let’s say unschooling model I just proposed is competing with traditional college. What does traditional college do better?

Joseph P Jackson at 11:47am June 10

See weapons of Mass Instruction, Gatto’s newest book. Also see Tapscott’s recent article at Edge on the end of the University and Neil Gershenfeld’s interview in SEED on how the MIT model is obsolete. FAB lab networks, community techshops, etc being the future. On the contrary I think the University could die faster than the state coerced system. Tuition hit 50K per year for “4 yr liberal arts undergrad” even before the financial collapse. The credentialing function is dead as soon as Web 3.0, semantic web/blog/social software mining for reputation metrics comes online, est 10yrs.

Max Marmer at 11:59am June 10

A lot of good resources here. 

1) Gatto: I will check it out. However I saw him speak at Future Salon last year and while he had a lot of good ideas, I wasn’t impressed with the coherence of a solution, though he was really good at delivering anecdotes that illustrated the problem. Did you read the book? Maybe that’s better.

2) I read Tapscott’s article, it was great.

3) I will check out Gershenfeld’s article. I’m a big fan of his and it’s my intention to involve the making community in Force For the Future. It was reading Fab four years ago that inspired me to go down this route. Digital Fab owns a significant part of 21st century learning landscape, I think. Not all of it though. There are some really key startup/entrepreneurial parts I’m working on.

Max Marmer at 11:59am June 10

4) Great answers on credentialling, that’s what I’ve been feeling, but that’s a great expanation of the tools that will actually take the system down. A degree is one, very antiquated way of signaling competency, but it’s much better to prove competency with the work you actually did. Project based learning is a way people can show they have real skills and can actually contribute, not just explain how it works on tests and papers. 

It’s already not the most effective way to judge talent, if you’re willing to do research for 10-20 min online and see what a person is like and what they have done, and who they surround themselves with. Just 10-20 min isn’t scalable if you have 100+ people applying for a job.

Continue reading »

by max ~ June 10th, 2009

Elite Are Elite Because They Have Better Genes. But For How Long?

Lessons in Survivial an article than ran in Newsweek details an experiment run at military training camp that explains scientifically why Special Forces units are able to bounce back faster than ordinary soldiers. The study shows that their bodies are simply genetically better suited for enduring and recovering from high pressure, high stress situations. 

Morgan found one very specific reason that Special Forces are superior survivors: they produce significantly greater levels of NPY compared with regular troops. In addition, 24 hours after completing survival training, Special Forces soldiers returned to their original levels of NPY while regular soldiers were significantly below normal.

With so much more NPY in their systems, the Special Forces soldiers were much more clearheaded under interrogation stress and performed better according to the trainers. Special Forces soldiers really are special and different from the rest of the Army. They stay more focused and engaged in a crisis and bounce back faster afterward because their bodies produce massive amounts of natural anti-anxiety chemicals. In the fog of war—and everyday life for that matter—that’s a major advantage.

The results beckon the classic debate of nature vs. nurture. At present nature appears to be winning this battle, by the tide is soon to turn.

This evidence destroys a big part of the mystery of why some people are simply in a different class compared to others in their field. You can explain differences between the elite and ordinary based on this study, very roughly in mechanistic way. For example, African Americans are on average are better athletes than white people. Roughly speaking they naturally produce more fast twitch muscle fiber and other important chemicals essential for athletics.

But if the metric we’re defining success by is talent how much can you chalk up to having genes that produce the optimum amount of chemicals vs. undergoing rigorous training that increases important chemicals in your body?  Does having better genes make you automatically better than most of your peers? At present training, practice and hard work is the determining factor for most people. But that’s because most people have genes that deviate little from the average, which gives only a slight advantage in terms of expressed talent. So nurture matters a lot today. That’s where you get theses like Malcolm Gladwell’s 10,000 hour rule. But it’s undeniable that the genetic outliers have a distinct advantage. If Lebron James never practiced playing basketball his whole life, he could still probably beat 99% of dedicated amateurs his age. But in most cases nurture still reigns supreme of nature given an average genetic composition. But the balance starts to swing in nurtures favor very soon. Most medical science today is horribly imprecise, with drugs having all sorts of unintended effects, yet macroscopically still being able to produce somewhat of the desired effect. But the biotechnology and nanotechnology on the very near horizon will allow personalized medicine and allow everybody to have the same kind of chemical advantages that the genetic freaks have gotten naturally and luckily. 

Soon we will be able to model the chemical composition of these genetic freaks  and transfer that pattern to everybody. Not long after that we will begin trying patterns that no humans currently possess naturally. Admittedly all of this is a gross simplification but these types of technologies and procedures are on the horizon.

These are dangerous waters that certainly need to be tread carefully. And I sure hope open science is in full bloom by then. But don’t I must take a moment to refute the argument about how this experimentation is bad thing because we may end up with perfect humans. First of all perfection won’t be achieved because no matter how good something this there is always room for improvement. We won’t be perfect we will only have a higher baseline standard.  And there’s nothing wrong with striving for “perfection” anyway. I’ve heard many people afraid that biotechnology like this will make everybody the same, a meme propagated by movies like Gattica. But I’m sure this won’t be true. Whenever there’s been an increase in control over our environment diversity as increased not decreased. When the baseline standard of humanity’s capabilities are raised our possible lifestyles, and creative works of art and discovery will increase exponentially. Look at the incredible diversity of applications of computer technology today. All computer programs are just unique patterns of 1’s and 0’s, just going really, really fast.  Think about the difference between the current Mac OS X operating system and the punch card operating systems of the early computing days.

We’ll when this new technology comes around faster than you expect, because “technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense ‘intuitive linear’ view“, humanity will be operating on an incredibly more powerful operating system.

by max ~ May 28th, 2009

Gladwell & Simmons’ Debate Sports and Everything Else

I’ve just been getting around to finishing the Bill Simmons–Malcolm Gladwell article on espn.com and it has to be the most intriguing, insightful and entertaining sports article I’ve read in a long time. Both pull from a wide range of disciplines have great knoweldge of the history of the sport and possess unique views about where the sports should be headed.

Here are some of my favorite quotes:

 

I’ve just been reading several of the books that were written about the fall of Bear Stearns, and those books illustrate another side of this story. Bear Stearns didn’t fail because the employees were incompetent, because they weren’t good at what they do. They failed because they were good at what they do. They were so successful for so long that they grew overconfident and arrogant and complacent. The biggest obstacle to success is success. My biggest worry for LeBron is that he wins the title this season. And if he wins again next year, and the year after that, then what do you have? A guy still in his mid-20s who has already done it all, and has no reason to doubt his own skills and judgments, ever. You’ll bring him in as a free agent when you become GM of the Minnesota Christians and team him up with Larry Bird’s nephew and two 5-foot-9 “character guys” from Holy Cross, and it’ll all be downhill from there. Mark my words.

By contrast, remember what happened to LeBron last summer during the Redeem Team practices? He watched Kobe getting up at 6 a.m. every day to train for three grueling hours, then said to himself, “All right, this guy works harder than me. I need to step it up.” And he did. And that exposure had a profound effect on his career, just like every splendid Michael Lewis story probably keeps you on your toes. If Kobe dropped dead of a cocaine overdose eight years ago, does LeBron have that epiphany? Maybe not. You can become great without the help of someone else, but you can’t stay great without someone pushing you. Golf excepted, of course.

 

Given that, then, why do so few underdog teams use the press? Pitino’s explanation is that it’s because most coaches simply can’t convince their players to work that hard. What do you think of that argument?

There are two other things here that fascinate me. After my piece ran in The New Yorker, one of the most common responses I got was people saying, well, the reason more people don’t use the press is that it can be beaten with a well-coached team and a good point guard. That is (A) absolutely true and (B) beside the point. The press doesn’t guarantee victory. It simply represents the underdog’s best chance of victory. It raises their odds from zero to maybe 50-50. I think, in fact, that you can argue that a pressing team is always going to have real difficulty against a truly elite team. But so what? Everyone, regardless of how they play, is going to have real difficulty against truly elite teams. It’s not a strategy for being the best. It’s a strategy for being better. 

I wonder if there isn’t something particularly American in the preference for “best” over “better” strategies. I might be pushing things here. But both the U.S. health-care system and the U.S. educational system are exclusively “best” strategies: They excel at furthering the opportunities of those at the very top end. But they aren’t nearly as interested in moving people from the middle of the pack to somewhere nearer the front.

 

Or how about eliminating the draft altogether? I’m at least half-serious here. Think about it. Suppose we let every college player apply for and receive job offers in the same way that, oh, every other human being on the planet does. That doesn’t mean that everyone goes to L.A. and New York, because you still have the constraints of the cap. It does mean, though, that both players and teams would have to make an affirmative case for each other’s services. So you trade for Steve Nash or Jason Kidd, because they make you instantly attractive to every mobile big man coming out of college. Instead of asking the boring question — which team is going to be lucky enough to draft Derrick Rose? — we ask the far more interesting question: Which team, out of every team in the league, should Derrick Rose play for?

The bigger point here is that what consistently drives me crazy about big-time sports is the assumption that sports occupy their own special universe, in which the normal rules of the marketplace and human psychology don’t apply. That’s how you get the idea of a reverse-order draft, which violates every known rule of human behavior.

We had lunch a few weeks ago and discussed the parallels between music and basketball. The structure is fundamentally the same: You have a lead singer (the NBA alpha dog, like LeBron or Kobe), the lead guitarist (the sidekick, like Pippen or McHale), the drummer (an unsung third wheel, like Parish or Worthy), the bassist (a solid, reliable and ultimately disposable role player: like Byron Scott or Anderson Varejao); and then everyone else (the other rotation guys). Bands can go different ways just like successful basketball teams. McCartney and Lennon were two geniuses who ultimately needed one another (like Young Magic and Older Kareem, or Shaq and Young Kobe), whereas MJ and LeBron were more like Sting or Springsteen (someone who could carry the band by themselves). And if you want to drag hip-hop or rap into it, the best parallel would obviously be Jordan’s post-baseball Bulls: MJ was Chuck D, Pippen was Terminator X, and there is no effing doubt that Rodman was Flavor Flav.

 

by max ~ May 23rd, 2009

Asking The Right Questions

Good writing and good conversation seem to have many parallels. In order to continue to write you’re basically having a conversation with yourself and you need to intuitively, or perhaps, sliently whisper the right questions to yourself to prompt an interesting recall or synthesis of information. Asking myself better questions is definitely something I want to improve on. I think this ability, whether conscious or not, underlies the development of long trains of thought. Personally, I don’t feel like I know what the best questions to focus on are. In conversations I can feel there’s a next level that I don’t know how to reach; a way to draw more interesting comments out of someone, if only I knew what to ask. I have the same experience with writing. I will generate a ideas but not be able to take it as far as I want to. I can feel there is a next level to go to, if only someone asked me the right question. Or better yet, if I knew how to ask myself the right question, a flurry of insights would ensue.

But is focusing on asking the right questions the right model? Perhaps this idea is breaking down train of thought too finely to render focusing on the right question paralyzing rather than catalyzing. Yesterday on Twitter I asked “When is the advice not to take it one step at a time? Or are those words of wisdom universally applicable?” I think the answer is that, yes focusing on the next step is always the right thing to do, but the size of the step varies. The extremities run from focusing on only the desired end outcome, while ignoring the process, to focusing on an infinitum of smaller and smaller minutiae like in Zeno’s Paradoxes. In this case, I’m trying to discover what the right level of conscious focus is, to extend the complexity and length of trains of thought.

In reading, for example, first we focus on reading individual letters. Then we graduate to reading individual words. Then a few people move on to reading sentences. And even a smaller select few claim to be able to read paragraphs the same way most people read words. This is essence of what most speed reading programs teach. Those levels are the “what” of faster reading but what’s more interesting is the “how”, because that allows us to know not just what’s possible but achieve it ourselves. I’ve been experimenting with some of these techniques and have been able to get up to the level of reading sentences and thus paragraphs in a few eye movements in situations with few distractions (though those are hard to come by lately). Reading with a purpose is one such technique, but more on specific reading techniques another time.

In writing there is a similar process. We start out with very simple ideas and then string them together to form longer, complex thoughts. What is the technique, the “how” that unlocks the potential to begin connecting multiples of complex thoughts together. I think focusing on the right questions might be one successful approach.

Ultimately, what I’m talking about here is consciously understanding and modeling what many elite figures do intuitively and unconsciously, so if you asked them there’s a good chance they couldn’t articulate how they do what they do. What I hope to talk more about is the tremendous power and flexibility in understanding consciously many of the processes that skilled naturals understand only intuitively.

by max ~ May 21st, 2009