Mental Gymnastics - which mental muscles do you train?

I was driving with some colleagues to our client’s office in New Jersey on Monday. On this 45-or-so minute long car ride, I came to find out that one of my colleagues – Kevin – teaches young kids how to play chess. Needless to say, I thought this was pretty cool (I like chess) and have always admired the game. It’s strategic and spatial. Moreover, I know that chess develops the mind, even though I had never thought about why or how.

Kevin mentioned some of his training practices and outcomes. As it turns out, some of his advanced students can learn to think 12-13 moves in advance. Of course, they develop an ability to do this over time, but it’s a cognitive behavior they learn. Very impressive.

I began thinking, what an important behavior to have. How might the world be different if people or organizations thought about the consequences of their actions before they happened and, get this, altered their behavior and made sacrifices to maximize their utility down the road?

So I began thinking this week. What are other cognitive processes that would be really valuable to learn as a child? Or, even as an adult for that matter. I started compiling a list. It’s a list of cognitive processes that people do with their brains (please do let me know if you think of more, yea?).

• Recreating an experience – This is an ability to think of an experience and live it all over again. Being able to recreate a memory in your head as a fresh mental experience.
• Self-awareness – Being able to understand yourself and see yourself how other people see you.
• Imagination – This is an ability to think of something you’ve never experienced before.
• Analysis - Seeing something and understanding its component parts.
• Construction - Seeing something’s component parts and understanding its broader function.
• Empathy – Understanding what someone else is feeling.
• Strategy - Thinking a few steps ahead and envisioning how things will happen over time.
• Systems/Root-cause analysis – Looking into the past to understand the root causes of the present and why things played out over time.
• Memory – storing and having command over the recollection of information.
• Network analysis – Combining bits of knowledge while understanding and gleaning meaning from the connections.
• Logic – having a command of logical reasoning.
• Discipline – Having the control of the mind to not jump to conclusions or cloud thinking with emotional or physical urges.

Notice, though, that these are not skills nor knowledge areas. These are cognitive processes that someone could apply to any situation or mental task…from art to academia. Think of it this way, dancers need to be strategic just like military commanders…they have to be able to think 7-10 steps into the future. Financiers need to be as imaginative as sculptors or computer programmers. All these cognitive processes are important to develop.

Of course, a give person probably requires some more than others in their day-to-day lives, but they are all processes that enhance “thinking”. In fact, I’d consider “thinking” to be a symphony of the cognitive processes I’ve listed here.

I almost think K-B.A. education doesn’t really require measurement of achievement in a subject area. Truly, reading, math and science are all really important because they make the cognitive processes I’ve listed really robust. If I were a teacher I’d try to do things that developed my kids’ imaginations and strategic abilities rather than having them know the properties of ionic bonds or the tenets of the Articles of Confederation. In other words, I’d aim to develop cognitive abilities and build the best multi-disciplinary curriculum I could to accomplish that goal, rather than focus on achievement in a set of disciplines and let cognitive processes develop incidentally.

How, as a teacher, does one do that?

Providence

I really like the movie Akeelah and the Bee, for many reasons. A good script, a heart-warming story and some solid onscreen performances.

One of the lines in the movie, a Maryanne Williamson quote (not that I have any idea who Maryanne Williamson is), often has echoes in day to day life, too. Today, I was thinking about providence. Do we often allow ourselves to have providence? Do we open ourselves to providence? Moreover, do we even allow beauty to seep into our lives? Why wouldn't we want beautiful things to happen to us...why wouldn't we deserve them?

And I remember:
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond imagination. It is our light more than our darkness which scares us. We ask ourselves – who are we to be brilliant, beautiful, talented, and fabulous. But honestly, who are you to not be so?

You are a child of God, small games do not work in this world. For those around us to feel peace, it is not example to make ourselves small. We were born to express the glory of god that lives in us. It is not in some of us, it is in all of us. While we allow our light to shine, we unconsciously give permission for others to do the same. When we liberate ourselves from our own fears, simply our presence may liberate others.

We are powerful beyond belief. Certainly not all-powerful. But within each person lies the opportunity to be wicked or to have grace. But one man is the one who destroyed peoples and one man who freed them from chain.

Why do we turn away from beauty and providence? Why do we not think "it's the right time" for it, or that "we are not ready" for something beautiful to happen to us. Why are we afraid of the good that walks upon the earth?

But alas, not all is lost if we are not willing to accept and allow beauty to permeate us from head to toe. Men and women, if they are showered with enough love, will unlearn the human behaviors of shirking beauty. No, what would be tragic is if we forgot how or refused to create beautiful things. Because to forget how to make things beautiful or to forget how to make beautiful things would be to forget what it is to be human.

Sacrifice in 2010

This past year was rough, for Michigan and for the country, so several I've spoken are thankful that this year is [nearly] complete.

There was a lot of spilled milk this year and even more finger pointing. Lot's of analysis of who was right and wrong (see: bailout, healthcare, Iran, Afghanistan, DPS, Cobo Hall, MI Budget, CA Budget, etc...) and less of an emphasis on what went wrong or how we can move forward, effectively, smartly, and interdependently. The MO was to recognize a problem, try to figure out what wen't wrong, poll the American public, try to make statements to "win" an argument, and lobby any solutions conceived to be evaluated as "right" in the eyes of the public. The way I see it, the amount of emphasis on the "best solution" or accepting/moving past blame was exasperated at best.

Of course, I know that many people work hard towards finding solutions to societal problems, behind closed doors and in conference rooms full of really smart people. But the public image of those discussions and solutions is influential. Public image and public posturing shapes of the boundaries for what public policy solutions might become. For example, if someone holds belief A publicly, any public policy solutions have to reconcile with belief A. In that way, public posturing is important because it limits policy before it is even created.

I often wonder why such image-inspired, solution-conspired dialogue - or multi-person monologue - is so standard and repeated. I have a theory...that it comes down to sacrifice.

I do not for a moment believe that people are not willing to make sacrifice. Even downtrodden Michiganders, I think we would oblige in making a sacrifice as long it was clearly and honestly explained and the difficult of the sacrifice was proportional to the challenge it was meant to alleviate. In other words, when the truth is explained and a reqeust is made, I think people are willing to fulfill the request.

I do not for a moment believe that leaders have evaluated, explained, or requested that I make a sacrifce this year, even though I want to. I know that solving our nation's problems will require sacrifice, but I don't know what sacrifices to make.


Discussion of sacrifice is squelched because it is believed to be unpopular. Intuition would suggest that the public would be angry if a political or business leader asked the country to make any of the sacrifices I have or have not listed. But I don't think so, as long as the requests were honest.

So, tell me how to sacrifice.

Should I cut back on electric use? Should I minimize my reliance on prescription drugs? Should I spend 5 minutes of my day checking on my neighbors? Should I adopt a puppy? Should I carpool to work? Should I enlist in the miitary? Should I pay more taxes?

Some might say, it would be good to do all these things and more. But, that's not helpful. I - and I presume others too - need help to focus and decide on what sacrifices they need to make...simply because the ways to make sacrifices are limitless.

I have ideas on how to sacrifice...if I was the one deciding which sacrifices to ask of the public...I'd probably mention some of the following:

-Use less resources (material resources, energy, food, etc.) to reduce individual carbon footprint. Businesses too.
-Forego luxury purchases to pay down debt.
-Talk to and care for people in your immediate social network.
-Be willing to pare down certain government services and increase taxes to fully fund programs and infrastructure initiatives that remain.
-Sharing.

The problem is, I'm not qualified to ask the public to make sacrifice...because I don't know enough to make really educated assertions about public sacrifice. But that doesn't disqualify me from intuiting that sacrifice is necessary. We just need you, designated leaders, to help focus around some key priorities.

[This could spur into a discussion about the "mission" of government at large, at a really strategic level, but I'll save that for another time...I'm really fired up about getting people to talk about government what is should focus on because I think it has too MUCH on it's plate while being under-resourced and as a result is mediocre at a lot of things]

Instead of this year being about taking and trying to advance the self and winning political arguments and getting ahead of everyone else, I want to make this year about public sacrifice...that is to say about making sacrifices for the public good. Not to compromise individual rights and privileges, but to invest in them so they can be preserved for the next century.

So friends, I ask you this. What sacrifices (for ourselves, our friends/family, our state, and nation) do we need to make in 2010?

The Art of Racing in the Rain #2

There are things that happen in life, that are so close to destiny that I can hardly stand it. You see, I don't like to believe in destiny because it makes me feel like my life is not my responsibility. But maybe it's the opposite, maybe those things--destined things--happening and weaving them together is just as much of a responsibility as a life without destiny.

But this is not of my concern at the moment. Enzo is.

Enzo is the narrator of this book I'm reading, The Art of Racing in the Rain. And, this book, may be part of my destiny. Because it's teaching me things I need to learn, right now. First lesson - life is not about life, life is about making things beautiful and making beautiful things.

Lesson two: here's the context.

I work in consulting. More specifically, I work for a firm that executes and implements projects, not just creates strategies. The firm I work for puts rubber to the road. Because of this, I've started to become inculcated in the doctrine of executable strategies.

I shouldn't do this...well, I should, but not exactly.

See, the problem is, when executing there is time, money and effort that is spent. All of these things are limited, as is the capability of the people executing. So, there comes a time when someone executing on a project must say, "We need to get this done".

And that makes sense, because the world is not built by dreamers, but by doers. The problem is, beautiful things are built by dreamers.

I'm making a promise to myself, right now, that I won't become a doer at the cost of relinquishing "the dreamer" in me. It can't do it. I will not give up what is right, responsible, or ideal for sake of "getting things done". I just won't do it because I don't want to live in a world, I want to live in a beautiful world.

Now, I know that there are many battles between convenience and virtue, and not all of them are worth fighting. I acknowledge this. I make this promise to not give up on the big battles. And, I'll try my darnedest to take care of the small ones too.

You might think this is silly. Resources are limited. Time, money, effort, and expertise are limited. To this, I offer no argument. But I do think that view is narrow minded.

Imagination is an unlimited, renewable, resource. If we have this, there is no reason to think we cannot execute while still preserving principle and doing what's right.

Making beautiful things and making things beautiful

There are times where meaning and truth come out of opacity, to translucency and into clarity. By which I mean, therea re times wehre things just make a helluva lot of sense. now is one of those times.

I can't precisely say where this came from, but it did. I was reading "The Art of Racing in the Rain" which is a wonderful story, I might add (I'm halfway through). And I started thinking - I'm the luckiest guy I know. I love life, even when it's hard.

My life is not average, my life is easy. I have great friends, great parents and family, food on the table, blankets on my bed and I get to spend my time doing things I enjoy. Our country is not war torn, nor is my neighborhood. I deserve very little, if any, of it. But self-deprecation is not what I'm trying to accomplish here.

In this vein, I often think about words to describe life. One word tends to be one I keep coming back to - beautiful. Life is beautiful. The things that happen in life are beautiful as is life itself. Take a second, realize how many unlikely circumstances in the universe have had to happen for you have taken a breath...it's amazing.

Again, in this vein, I often think about what the point of life might be. For the longest time, I thought it was simply to live. To be. To have life. But reveling in living and being appreciative of life itself, I ruminated this evening, isn't the point. Because the beauty of life is only partly an intrinsic quality. In addition to things having inherent beauty, I think it also takes something else. Intent.

So, I think life isn't just about living - that's almost lazy and necessary but not sufficient. I think the point is to both make beautiful things or make things beautiful. Essentially it is to provide goods and services, except the end goal is not a profit, it is attaining beauty. I think it's that simple.

Second Thoughts on Draft #1

So, the last post -- piss poor quality of writing aside -- just struck another thought. Let me explain.

"The Ways I Wait" wasn't about anyone in particular. Instead it was an emotion and reflection on the idea of someone or something. At the time, I thought it was a powerful feeling...something rooted in a deep stirring that causes thoughtful engagement in day-to-day life

Is it? Or is it "'emotional cowardice"? By emotional cowardice I mean something that's emotionally hollow and used as a shield to deflect real feelings and experiences with real people?

Think of it this way...if it's a genuine, powerful, feeling and idea -- the act of loving and being committed to the idea of someone that isn't explicitly identified -- maybe it causes the thinker to dive right into life. But if it isn't, maybe the idea is a self-defense mechanism that provides a rationalizing for not diving into life?

Ahh, hard to explain and I'm really hungry so I don't have the patience to sound it out.

But maybe this is a simpler model to explain the difference.

If idea presented in "The ways I wait" is something powerful and genuine: Think --> Imagine ideal state --> Try damndest to build ideal state

If idea presented in "The ways I wait" is on the order of emotional cowardice: Think --> Imagine ideal state --> Thought that "nothing lives up to the imagined ideal state" --> Rationalization of inaction

Looking at it this way, there seem to be two things that influence the outcome.

1. Imagination of the ideal state - You have to begin with the end in mind, here. It has to be an authentic conceptualization of the ideal state...something that works in the real world. Something simple...a criteria that can be evaluated against.

2. The first move after Imagining the ideal state. If you don't start to act, right at that moment...when would you?

Simply put...you have to really clearly know what you want...then go after it like a madman. Sounds a lot like any task.

Draft #1

A return to spoken word (at least a legitimate attempt, finally. This is a draft of course...I just won't be able to read my notebook handwriting if I don't strike now!)

The Ways I Wait - Draft #1

I think I'll know you in a flurry.

In a sunlight-broaching-past-you-standing-in-the-doorway-of-a-hardwood-floored-urban-apartment sort of way. With a peaceful, heart-throbbing fury.

Divine, honest, and true.

But until then darling, these are the ways I wait for you:

By gleefully squeezing where the back of your hand and the base of your digits would be,

when a song comes on that we'll listen to someday.

Your hands are aged but soft, I already know.

By looking across dinner for one, imagining glances of you avoiding your tomatoes reminding me that "honey, salt isn't good for you". Attracting your TLC with the shaker is half the reason I have a "salty" tooth.

Or by smelling and putting my fingers through your hair, as if you're already there. And saving saving square-footage of comforter and fluffing your pillow to practice for our nightly routine.

And dream about you.

[spoken rapidly to a crescendo]by dipping a broomstick, curbing my cursing, practicing pancake flipping, avoiding trans fats, putting the seat down, mowing the lawn, dotting my Is, crossing my ts, wearing sunscreen and, waiting, hoping wishing and waiting to open my eyes...

Sometime. One time. I do.

But until then darling, these are the ways I wait for you.

Random

1. So, today was a more banal, jaw-clenching day than usual.
1a. However, things happen which make you remember why life is great...every time you wake up it presents an opportunity to be damn happy or to make someone else damn happy.

2. My life is easy. Rather, it's hard in the easiest ways. And that's okay, for now.

3. Watching how people act under duress is revealing. So is watching them in their most relaxed state.

4. Ain't nuttin like a good PB&J Sandwich.

Doing the little things big.

I used to think more about about big things and big moments. And by "think" I mean dream and romanticize about them. There's an allure to imagining yourself at the pinnacle of your element, doing what you always imagined. And it's healthy, because by visioning yourself performing at the highest level and immersing yourself in the thought of your greatest moment is one step required to get to that point in time.

I want to know that something I did mattered, or that I was able to accomplish something big in my life. I yearn to make an impact--just like millions of others, especially other arrogant, optimistic, passionate, young, educated people I've met or know intimately.

And yet, I'm not so sure that those moments really matter, at least not in the way I had originally imagined them.

I always thought of those moments, the "big" ones, as the times where the world changed. Like the falling of the Berlin Wall, the Apollo moon landing, 11 September 2009, or any monumental political moment (e.g., elections, major legislative victories, or Supreme Court decisions)--I thought these events were the time that defined our world and our lives within them.

But, I think I was wrong. These events are not the moments where the world changed, they are the moments that signify that the world has already changed. They are not the transformative moments they are the occurences which signal that the cat's already out of the bag. When those "big" moments happen, it shows that there's no going back to yesterday's world order.

The same goes with our lives individually or on a smaller scale. Life is changed--won and lost--with all the seemingly little moments in between the noise-making, siren-howing, bookend events. The little things--that happen in the trenches--are where the magic happens.

I have a hard time articulating this paradigm that I'm feeling--I guess what I mean is that even that the "big" moments are fun to fantasize about, the seemingly "little" moments are what deserve the majority of our effort and attention. Little opportunities happen all the time and those opportunities are important to chase after and build upon, because through those moments--little ones accumulating--that's where happiness and success lie and that's where the world's problems get solved.

The little things aren't "dues to pay" to make big things happen. Doing the little things big is what's really powerful. May that's what I mean.

Ahh, I can't really get this idea out of my head in a way that's really compelling.

Every Day is a Good Day

I don't think it's atypical, but I really enjoy and miss little things. Especially lately.

I miss things like playing FIFA or roommate quirks. I miss hugs and high fives and spontaneous laughter. I miss walking places and moments of total autonomy. I miss having coffee with others and having no expectations attached. Most of all, I miss spending time with close friends and family. If I had any idea how time was limited, maybe I would've realized how wonderful humdrum days really were. The best things happen on those days--they are the brick and mortar of day to day life. Memories...the really good ones are made then.

But, why? Why remember those silly things?

Maybe it's because those moments were most at ease. Maybe those are the times that it's possible to connect with an "inner center", with others or with broader truths in life. I don't know why I long for those moments so much...it's cliche that I do. But yet, I can't help but remember them, and savor them.

Maybe it's because idle time is so precious these days. Maybe it's because I have a long commute and am forced to sit by myself for 1.5 hours a day.

Either way, every day is a good day.

Game

Today, was my first informal lesson in "game". Sure, I've had chats with buddies about game and some anecdotal accounts of technique. But a friend of mine really knows his stuff. And, he imparted some of his wisdom, findings and challenges to me.

Which is helpful. I don't have much "game", at the very least the "game" I do have isn't traditional or particularly effective for someone in their early to mid twenties. I was an eager student.

But, it's a shame that we need game--don't naively thing that we don't--in the first place. Why? Because its essential to get the attention of the person we're interested in. We need to meet people--men or women, depending on your preference--and that takes effort. Beyond that, we REALLY need game, though because everyone else is engaging in competitive behavior.

By competing eachother we accelerate the need to advance our own interests. If we do not engage in game, we will be consumed by others playing the game. If a guy doesn't "game" at a bar, someone else will try to sweep away a woman he's eyeing and comingling doesn't really happen spontaneously at bars. (Sometimes I think that people enjoy engaging in this semi-competitive behavior, but that's a different story). Basically, if you don't play the game...you're more of less out of luck.

It's not unacceptable, but it's essentially a selfish behavior, i think. To get the attention of someone else, you have to take and be a little bit selfish.

But, as I often come back to, selfish behavior doesn't have to rule our interactions if nobody is selfish. In other words, if nobody else is acting selfishly, you don't have to.

I think this applies to game as well. If people are just being honest and making intentions clearly, there would be no reason to "game". It'd probably be simpler and probably easier. I'd say the risk involved with "gaming" is just about as severe as the risk of just being honest, though honest migh tbe a little bit tougher to bear because if you blow it being honest, there's no other recourse or place to deposit blame.

So overall -
"Game is selfish"
It doesn't have to be because if nobody does it, then theres no reason for game.
So, why "game" when you can just be honest.

It gets complicated, I think, but I think the answer here is a simple one. Don't be selfish. If most people don't act so selfishly, our social intearactions would be much different.

Gosh, I shouldn't write when I'm exhausted.

The Unlikely Consequences of Genetic Engineering

I was listening to a TED talk: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/gregory_stock_to_upgrade_is_human.html on the car ride home today. Let me summarize before I comment on it.

Biotechnolgy will drive our lives soon. Because of advances in genomics/biotechnology we can unlock our biology and have designer babies, live a long time and do lots of crazy stuff. There will be things we agree with and things we wont. But that does not matter because if people have the power to do something crazy with our genes, it will happen somewhere. (Of course, I'm crudely summarizing a really eloquent, interesting talk. Also, I'm only taking the portions which are relevant to what I'm going to comment on).

People will have tremendous power in the future to alter DNA or manipulate DNA to their own purposes. That's god-like power.

How will we handle it?

The way I see it, humans will have to learn to be tame with power before all of this starts happening. We'll have to depend on people to do the right thing at all times, especially while they hold onto this power. Legislation and enforcement can't solve everything. People have to act on their own in a way that does not negatively affect the community.

The way I see it, genomics isn't the only area in which this matters. We have increasing amounts of control over the courses of our own lives. On the internet you can do whatever you want and say whatever you want. We have the ability to influence others with our dollars, technology and ideas in a way never before possible in human history. Beyond that, in America at least, it seems as if political institutions and policymakers are trying to enable individuals with more and more responsibility. And, political institutions are having more and more difficulty containing the behavior of their respective citizenries. In short, weak individuals are becoming more powerful. Individuals are able to disrupt the community in a really, really powerful way sometimes.

It's clear that we have to tame power in our society--espeically as weaker people become stronger--if we don't many disruptive forces will start to...well, disrupt. Which is great if mroe people are empowered, and there's great benefit to societal disruption (civil rights movement, anti-apartheid, etc.).

But, if individuals are becoming more powerful and able to disrupt, those individuals have to act in a way that preserves the welfare of others, if we don't, we'll slowly (or quickly) destroy ourselves. The way I see it, if we (individually or collectively) have too much hubris, we're doomed. We have so much power, to help ourselves or hurt ourselves. If we don't use that power wisely or are too arrogant to think we're vulnerable to abusing power we're doomed.

But how?

I think it's possible to tame great power, because I see pockets of people who tame their own power...who do the right thing and do not act out of fear but out of virtue. So, I know it's possible. The problem with widespread adoption of humility and virtue is a problem of scale, I think. How do you get large numbers of people to voluntarily do the right thing. How do you get large numbers or people to trust one another and tame their own power?

I had a professor once that would call this ability--the ability to tame ones power and do the right thing--leadership. I would agree, I believe leadership is simple...do the right thing and get others to, too. The army calls it "Be, Know, Do". But I digress, my firm belief in virtue/character-based leadership is a topic for another day.

I dream of the day that leadership will no longer reference an individual, but a group of individuals or larger groups than that, like countries. As in, one might say, not that the United States has leaders or is a leader, but that the the United States is leadership. The sky is blue, the people are leadership...you know, like an adjective.

I know we can do this--tame power. And with what power we will discover in the future...during my lifetime even, we'll have to.

Forgive the poor use of language/grammar...this was a hustle post, I was afraid to lose my thought if I didn't speed on through.

Early September, Part II - Early Childhood Education

Lots of people advocate for education--access, k-12, higher ed., etc. I'm glad they do. I haven't really been bit by the Education reform bug...not more than any other left-leaning independent anyway.

But early childhood education, I'm sold that's the best solution we've got.

I don't really mean to talk about politics here, but just write an expression of thanks.

I'm so lucky to have the parents I did. They read to me, read with me, and had me read to them...all starting by the time I was three. They brought me up with two languages. They had me doing times-tables and math from a really early age. My dad started showing me pre-algebra a few years before it was introduced in school.

It got me started learning really early in life. They supplemented my schooling in ways that were invaluable.

That shouldn't be considered "lucky".

Early September, Part I - Fear the most

Earlier, I took a few moments to think about the topic of fear. You can find that discussion, here: http://ntambe.blogspot.com/2009/05/exploring-fear.html.

Here's an excerpt:
"...Loneliness is [what I fear], and death by extension. A world alone is one that I would never want to live in. I'm damn sure that fear isn't natural, I know exactly where it comes from.

But, even if I understand fear more clearly now, this wishy-washy idea of "alignment" isn't any easier. But luckily, we're human. I'm convinced that the human spirit is strong enough to do almost anything. In fact, when the human spirit triumphs, it makes me feel fearless. Even if only for a quickly passing moment."

I went to Chicago on Friday. I decided to stay the evening and fly back to Detroit on Saturday morning. Obviously, I needed a place to stay. I had three options: 1) Drop some money for a hotel room, 2) Stay out all night, 3)Find a friend to stay with. A friend from work, offered me a couch for the night in an e-mail earlier that week.

I declined. I went ahead and booked a hotel, even though she had offered. I didn't know why at the time.

I though to myself that I politely declined because I didn't want to inconvenience her. After all, I'd pretty much be staying on her couch for 3-5 hours and leaving extremely early the next morning. I thought, I was being considerate...rather, I convinced myself of it.

What I thought about Friday evening--ironically, I was walking to see Jersey Boys at the theater, alone, at the time--what that I had declined because I was scared. Even though she had offered, I was afraid she would angered by the request, refuse or think poorly of me if I had asked. In other words, I was avoiding making a request of her (a sort of confrontation, I suppose) and rejection. Why? Because rejection is the step-sister of loneliness.

Why do I bring this up? I don't know, maybe it's just for my own reflection. But also, I think it's terrific that these fears show symptoms. It's just hard to see them. And then admit them. Then do something about them. Really tough stuff.

So I guess it was nice that everyone had left town to go to Ann Arbor, my phone died--so I couldn't contact my colleagues after the show to meet up, and nobody else I had tried to make plans with had called me back. Otherwise, I would've never thought about this. But, it was pretty scary being by myself...I had felt pretty lame. As it turns out, being alone was exactly what I needed to understand why I get so anxious about loneliness.

Is that irony, coincidence or perfectly sensible? Sensible, I think.

PS - Jersey Boys, a pretty good show. Quite a pleasant surprise.

Innovation, Pressure and Leadership

I've been listening to a lot of material about innovation lately. There's one consensus thought: innovation takes discipline. It takes the management of inspiration and persistence, so they say. And, I agree. To be creative--to have good ideas which are valuable in people's lives--is useless if it happens randomly or only in sporadic surges of ideating. Innovation is valuable, if a problem-solver can produce an innovative by recalling a process, instead of just being dependent on unpredictable spurts of creativity. That process takes persistence.

I've also been living in a world where pressure rules. There's never enough time to complete a task in a manner that's comfortable. Everyone works in a hurry because it consumes less resources and prevents opportunities from extinguishing. Also, groups of people seem like they are hardly motivated without pressure.

The problem is, rushing doesn't produce innovation. I suppose it might--because competition might require innovation--but pressure seems unlikely to guarantee truly brilliant innovation because there's no opportunity for experimenting, exploration or risk-taking while under tight deadlines or immense pressure. I suppose innovation MIGHT happen, but in the random, sporadic way. Not the cultivated, systematic way. That cultivated innovation--through discipline--is the kind of innovation I'm after.

So, there are contrary forces here: the need to innovate and the pressures of organization(constraints of time, resources or anti-inspiring missions). So, in a way...maybe it's not typical to lean towards innovation. It's not rational to fly in the face of pressures and constraints. Maybe that's why it takes "leaders" to transform. Maybe that's why it takes the "crazies" to innovate.

I do have quite an admiration for the leadership that entrepreneurs can provide, they relentlessly do what is most difficult. And, those whose creativity lies in creative processes instead of creative talent...those are the people that I'd bet my marbles on.

What was Gandhi's intent?

It's not just the social justice crowd that adheres to or at least proclaims that one must "be the change they wish to see in the world". Lots of people advance this idea. But, I wonder, what exactly did Gandhi mean when he said this?

Most of the idea is simple enough "[blank] the change you wish to see in the world", that's pretty straight forward. But what exactly did he mean when he said "be"? I wonder, what was the nature of this imperative. Was it a suggestion, a compulsion to action or simply a state of mind or spirit to be in? Let me explain.

I think there's two ways to interpret the verb in the quotation. The more common understanding, I suspect, is a call to arms by Gandhi. He meant for us to go out and do things in the world. To live the change we wish to see by performing deeds and actions. He meant for us to focus on our actions, strongly. This is a command of the deepest sort--to be--make agitation and action your existence. He meant for us to transform the world through service.

Or did he?

Did Gandhi put character in front of action in his advice? Perhaps Gandhi, when using the verb "be", deliberately did NOT provide a call to arms and instead urged people at an individual level to live more virtuously. In other words, maybe "be" meant to have more character. His advice could have been to live better more noble lives and change the world by living an example that others could follow.

Surely, many will understandably complain about my analysis because Gandhi obviously meant to do both or his idea could reasonably be extended to include both interpretations. But, his primary motivation is what concerns me because it seems to underpin his philosophy on change...what's in the drivers seat, changing institutions or changing people? Again, a complicated question because the two are symbiotic actors.

Which interpretation would Gandhi advocate for?

I bring this up because of some reading I've been doing--The US Army Leadership Field Manual. The Army believes the following: Be, Know, Do. This roughly means, have character, have competence, combine the two through action. For the Army, the two interpretations outlined above are different ideas (Be and Do). I wonder if Gandhi felt the same way.

Nevertheless, this quote has lost so much value when people recite it. I really believe that motivational speakers and the like say it without thinking really critically about what it means. As I hope to have demonstrated above, it can mean radically different things.

Eating our Vegetables

There was a question in President Obama's news conference Wednesday night, in fact a them, about what Americans are going to have to sacrifice. The President gave a nonsensical, straw-manned response. I'll liken it to the following (I'm summarizing and paraphrasing, of course):

Question: What will the public have to sacrifice, you've talked a lot about what they are going to get...but what are the things we'll have to give up?

Answer: We'll have to give up having healthcare services we don't need.
We'll have to give up the old way of doing things, we'll have to give up the status quo.
You can find a transcript, here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/22/transcript_of_obama_prime-time.html

I was flummoxed by the response. I know our President isn't a healthcare professional or a scientist, but would it have killed him to talk about some things that are obvious? For example, would it have been a stretch for him to say that Americans are going to have to eat healthier, exercise more and manage stress better? Isn't it obvious that we're going to have to see our doctors for routine checkup instead of letting health problems fester until they are emergencies?

I think he should've. Why? Because it's the truth. I thin under any new system, citizens must take care of themselves better. We'll have to change to living healthier lifestyles. Is that so controversial? For the President to neglect such narratives--discussions of sacrifice--is a deficiency in leadership. It is dishonest, deceptive and doesn't not provide appropriate expectations for a difficult road ahead.

President Obama should've told us to put down the doughnut. If he had, wouldn't you have agreed with him?

Like Catching Fireflies

There is god in art, I think. In images, in movement, in sound in color and words. Which is why we like it so much or so desperately want it. What's not to desire of something with beauty or grace? The rest can be taught, but beauty and grace can only be gifted and maybe discovered. Why else would the things that are essentially majestic usually be natural, spontaneous or dreamed in a rage of creativity?

It's as if the artist--of whichever medium--is catching fireflies. We catch them one by one and put them in shiny mason jars when the weather is just right. And like fireflies, it's wonderful and reasonable and uplifting to have those fireflies held in those jars, even though we know that's not where they belong. They belong in nature, where god created them. I think art is meant to be free.

If it isn't, it makes me feel much better about not being able to catch a poem and cage it in a notebook, in years. It's gotta be okay to borrow creativity for awhile, though.

And, I don't know how I feel about god (though I use the idea freely here) whether or not a god exists or has relevance in our day-to-day lives outside of faith--or if any of it even matters. But if that god was responsible for making things like art, friendship, freedom or souls and their mates...that god has to be a gracious one.
-----------------------------------------------
We'll make scribbles in the morning soil,
And a put a canvas on the afternoon squall.
In the evening shaking like the first tree we see,
Before recording the whistling of the stars,
Oh...what a masterpiece we'll make.

Governance 2.0? and reviewing Paul Light's a Government Ill Executed

Whether or not I've blogged about this before, I often think it: our reconstruction of institutions for governance are outpaced by our increasing and increased demands on institutions for governance. Our problems are becoming more difficult to solve just as our capacity for solving those problems lags behind. I'll take this as truth because I've read about it quite a bit in Paul Light's A Government Ill Executed, I've heard about it from people who know governance, I've witnessed it myself and it's evidenced in small things like crumbling bridges, baffling government websites and inept paper trails.

So, what do we need to do to get governance ready for new problems?

First, what are the tell-tale signs of new breeds of problems?

Interdisciplinary Complexity - We're not in Kansas anymore. Problems we have are large and difficult, often requiring multi and interdisciplinary problem solving approaches. For example, protecting our borders requires addressing illegal immigration, drug smuggling, food safety, the mapping of terrorist networks, financial intervention etc...only to name a few. This one example encapsulates many different disciplines and issues. Moreover, many of these components are intertwined in other government missions (food saftey is related to public health, etc.).

Data Centered - The problems now have to be addressed in the most cheap, effective, and non-intrusive way possible. On top of that there's a tremendous amount of data that's able to be collected. On top of that, performance is measured quantitatively (my guess that it's a borrowing from the financial system, for better or worse). All of this requires data at all steps in the problem-solving process.

Speed, but - Things move fast. If problems aren't addressed quickly, the nature of the problem will change. At the same time a lot of problems require long term strategy, planning or oversight. So, speed must be balance with long-term circumstances...which is really hard, in my opinion.

Subject to democracy - As constituents, we have access to a lot of information. Because of this there can be a tremendous amount of scrutiny from interest-groups, the educated public or the public at large. So, governmance structures not only need to be able to withstand scrutiny but also filter out irrelevant or politicized criticism and leverage increased exposure of government work to aid in problem solving. Institutions of governance need to be able to know when to say "we're wrong", "you're wrong" and "we could use your help". This issue is beyond public relations, it's more appropriate to consider this issue public integration because the public is inolved in governance from day 0.

Resource constrained - Anyone and everyone bashes institutions of governance. This rhetoric is characterized by the suggestion of big, bloated government or in the assertion of extended individual rights at the cost of the good of the republic. As a result governance organizations have to d more with less. Perhaps once their performance is elevated or better recognized resources will follow, but for now, they've gotta do more with less, god forbid Americans don't get another tax cut or get pork barrel spending in their state or district.

There are probably other qualities.

So, what to do? A first step (and I agree with Light here) reorganize the government to center around missions, not functions. What is within the purview of the government, what are the most important priorities? Government agencies have inertia and should be moving forward not based on what prior needs were but on what future needs are going to be.

Clean up the data and fix up the portals. There's a LOT of information, but it needs to be better organized so that governments and the public can use it better. Otherwise, why have it in the first place? With this goes, triage. Creating systems that allow valuable public interaction not only keep the public at bay regarding issues that don't concern them, but it also puts the public comfortably in the center of the debate in issues which their involvement matters greatly.

I have to think about this more.

Reviewing Paul Light's A Government Ill Executed:

An important book which sharply addresses one central question...what's the deal with the Federal Civil Service. It lacks an in-depth historical perspective as to why the Federal Civil Service came to be this way just as it only has a brief list of prescriptions. It's strength is explaining the situation on the ground, right now. And, by golly, the situation is dire.

A particular treat was analysis surrounding particular areas of reform and the difficulties those reforms might bring. Light had a particularly keen insight about streamlining the Federal Civil Service. It's not simply about cutting staff and resources. It's about trimming layers of management and moving resources way from the top of the hierarchy and towards the front-lines, where resources matter most. He also unveiled another issue, the size of the "shadow" contractor workforce, which most tend to underrate.

Light's prescriptions, though brief, are clear. The educated reader could easily piece together a slew of ideas by simply reading the analysis he provides. Whether Light does this to keep the page count low or to avoid partisan overtures is irrelevant, his text is well researched, candid and urgent. Light keeps it non-partisan but like most Americans his tone is pro-good governance.

His most important call to us is not issue specific. He bring momentum to the idea that piecemeal reform just won't do anymore and that we need a comprehensive, non-partisan, civil-service reform agenda. I sincerely hope that's a call that American's and America's elected officials will take action towards.

Stories in sacrifice

How can we possibly learn to do something that has the appearance of being against individual interest?

Well, here's a place to start. Why make a sacrifice? Of course, these are interrelated, but in my mind they are distinguishable cases.

-For someone else: an individual or group sacrifices for the benefit for another individual or group. (A parent commutes a longer distance so that their children can attend a better public school)

-For themselves: an individual sacrifices so they can ultimately benefit. (I sacrifice an extra helping of cake so that my health gains)

-For the future: An individual or group sacrifices so that there will be utility in the future. (A company invests in a pension fund)

Now, another assumption: this behavior is learned. Even if it's not, we make an effort to teach it, and those interventions seem like they might have a chance at forcing someone to sacrifice in an involuntary manner--which causes sacrifice to happen even if it's not dictated by the conscience of the sacrificer.

So, there are ways of sacrificing, and that behavior is [at least partially] learned or directed. There are other ways of influencing behavior, like coercion or incentives. And there are times when people sacrifice when they don't HAVE to...like giving change in your pocket to someone on the street. So why do people sacrifice when they don't have to?

Perhaps it's a question of assigning value. Maybe people see the option of sacrifice as providing more value to another person or in the long-run. This is plausible, because I'm skeptical of this suggestion because individuals as consumers have so much difficulty placing value on the choices they make or the resources they have. If value is at the core of this myster, we'd have to tepidly assume that people are extremely rational--to the point of controlling their primary urges--right?

Persuasion is another problematic explanation. Simply put, if people make sacrifices because of persuasion, they can also be persuaded out of making sacrifices or be persuaded into making bad sacrifices. Which, seems to stand up to reality I concede.

Some sacrifices seem to just happen, whcih means it's in the nature of some people in some circumstances to sacrifice or that sacrificing can be learned/cultivated.

I don't know exactly how that teaching/learning happens. I think it's by example. I just know it's important...many of our public policies will need sacrifice to be successful. When people don't sacrifice, it seems like non-optimal outcomes happens...if all that happens is take-take-take, there eventually won't be enough left to give, right?

Sheesh, what a random thought-experiment. So much for the vignettes.