PLAN ON NO PLANS

January 25th, 2019

Someone recently remarked: “The more often I have plans, the more I realize they don’t work out.”

There is a lot of wisdom in this observation.

At first glance there emerges the simple realization that flexible plans that can adapt as circumstances develop is perhaps indicative of a better strategy.  We might be able to pivot with more agility if our plans are of a shorter concrete nature.  Or rather, our very next action should be as straightforward and definite as possible, but beyond that, our plans should immediately get hazy and more conceptual so that we can integrate whatever feedback that next step yields.  If our plans are too definite too far into the future than we are more likely to ignore feedback from our next step if it is not in accord with those long term designs.  This is how an axiomatic error compounds into a circumstance we have many phrases for: ‘a wake up call’, ‘a slap in the face’, ‘when the bottom falls out’.

We are prescribed by productivity gurus to have definite goals.  This is perhaps poor phrasing because it can easily be misconstrued into ‘have definite plans,’ which is a very laborious process for failure.

What the productivity guru is trying to say is something along the lines of “when you think about going on vacation, make sure you pick a destination!” 

The travel vacation is ironically a very ripe analogy for goal-oriented productivity.  For one simple reason:  what’s the worst part of the travel vacation?  The actual travelling.  Lost bags, delayed flights, cancelled flights, broken down trains, flat tires.  We attempt to plan the travel portion of our vacation like a computer program, where each leg of the journey trips the activation of the next leg of the journey.  We do this so that we can fit the actual travelling part of the trip into a window of time that’s as small as possible in order to maximize the amount of time we spend at the actual destination.  This makes sense in theory, but a walk through the airport any day of the year will evince how often this breaks down in practice.  It’s rare to ask how someone’s vacation went and get the report that the actual travelling part of it was incredibly smooth.

Now compare that somewhat masochistic situation with the opportunity to have open-ended plans?  How often to open-ended plans not work out?  It’s somewhat fundamentally impossible for an open-ended plan to not work out due to the very nature that it’s open-ended.   With such framing, any delay turns into an opportunity to enjoy the current location.  Even an airport can be a wonderful location if we bring along audiobooks or remember we have several dozen hours of podcasts we’d like to investigate, or some writing we could do, or even just sitting and meditating, even if it’s for the first time.  Anyone who has the ability to read or listen to this has the ability to google an introduction to mindfulness and begin developing a new skill.

If we compare both frames of mind, which one is more likely to think themselves…lucky?  Certainly someone who views their life as a series of failed plans is not going to think of themselves as lucky.  But someone who gives up this fear-driven dependence on plans is far more likely to see opportunity in any given circumstance.  Imagine that for a moment.  What if every situation in life suddenly seemed to come ripe with opportunity.  How lucky would you feel?  And yet does it not seem like this is possible if we reinterpret the way that the concept of ‘plans’ effects our life?

While the word ‘plan’ derives from the Proto-Indo-European root pele- meaning to ‘to spread, flat’, which is eventually evocative of the image of spreading a paper drawing or diagram flat in order to see it clearly, it’s worthy to note that it did come through the French language via the word ‘plant’, as in to plant something in the flat ground.

We might ask, do the roots of a plant follow a plan?  Or do they follow an open-ended strategy that changes depending on the soil and circumstance?

Perhaps we would do better to feel our way forward like a plant and plan on no plans.

This episode references Episode 243: Roots, Episode 72: Persevere vs. Pivot and Episode 278: Axiomatic Mistake.

STICKY FINGERS

January 24th, 2019

It’s possible to shove all sorts of food onto a fork, but for the most part, it’s a single-serving bite-sizing tool.  You take a single bite of this, a single bite of that.  Maybe some sauce comes along for the ride.  But for the most part, it’s a one-at-a-time endeavor.

Now picture a toddler trying to eat a bowl of spaghetti.  It’s just a mess, and a fork is something that’s more useful as an object launched across the room rather than as something to manipulate food.

Even in these contrasted methods of eating, we have a subtle nod to ways of thinking and operating that either limit or liberate.

There’s the old idiom used to describe a person of many interests, someone described as “having a finger in every pie.”

Imagine this literally for a moment.  Ten fingers, ten different pies.  Ten different flavors. 

Compare it to a single fork. 

Even in this seemingly banal image, we have a ripe metaphor for optionality.  Our idiomatic description of fingers in pies hints at some kind of awareness of this on the part of our culture.

That career oriented individual who inhabits single positions one after another, switching either through promotion or company change is strangely evocative of eating a meal with a fork.  One bite after another.  Single bites of flavor, one following the other.

We might now switch to the individual who spends an hour or two every night after work developing a little side hustle.

Often this arises from a convergence of an interesting hobby and a concurrent exposure to lightweight business models.  In the age of the internet, it’s become exceedingly easy to set up a business with minimal start up expenses.

Such a side-hustling individual might be said to have a taste of two pies.

The funny difference between creative pursuits and a career job is that we have no idea where a creative pursuit might go, whereas a career job seems more predictable and stable, it has an absolute upper limit that cannot be breached in the way that an independently owned creative pursuit can.  Our fear-based instant reaction to such a point would most certainly go along the lines of “ya but there’s no guarantee that a creative pursuit will yield anything.. it could just fall flat.” 

This is actually false.  Even if such efforts don’t yield anything that is observably meaningful, like cash in the bank, the experience of putting one’s self through such motions is perhaps more valuable because of how such an experience effects the psychology of the individual who makes the attempt.  Companies send their people off on development retreats, which is perhaps funny if we compare a week of conventional hotel living and conferences, or something edgy and outdoor with the experience of living lean and working hard on something totally new.

There’s also the fact that anyone can get fired from any career job at pretty much any time.  This quaint little fact is something that we like to conveniently ignore.  But if we backtrack through the reasoning here, the initial ‘ya but there’s no guarantee’ statement starts to look quite nonsensical. 

Investigating why there’s a tendency to proffer such poor logic will quickly unearth a flimsy emotional reason.  We’re scared of uncertainty and venturing into that unknown arena.  It’s as simple as that: a little fear.

If this fear can be fully processed, by either diving into it like a messy toddler or by dissecting it through seemingly rational means, bite by bite, then we come to a counter-intuitive conclusion:

It’s best to throw away the fork and get a finger in as many different pies as we can reasonably keep track of.

Even the great Isaac Newton had no idea if his development of calculus would be more valuable than his efforts regarding alchemy and theology, but he was curious enough to have a finger in all three pies.  Imagine if he had solely focused on alchemy?  He would have gone down unremembered in history as just another crack-pot who thought he could turn lead into gold if he just kept tinkering with it.  Instead he also spent some time tinkering with numbers and gave birth to one of the greatest tools of humanity.

At the very least, having a few fingers in a few different pies can give you a better context regarding  your opinion about your main meal.  One taste of a better pie and who knows what curiosity and creativity it might spark in you.

Life is a buffet of opportunity.  Best to throw away the fork and taste as much as you can.

LOSE YOURSELF

January 23rd, 2019

Everyone with the capacity to understand this sentence has at one point been so engaged in attention that they completely lose a sense of self.

The most accessible example of this phenomenon is watching a movie.  Generally, we as people are fairly poor in our ability to all sit silently facing the same direction.  We are more likely to turn and engage with one another.  But in a movie theatre, something magical seems to happen, and for 90 or so minutes we seem to forget everything other than the fantasy of light on the wall.  Who we are seems to become a lost concept as we identify with the characters, the plot, and the narrative as a whole. 

Only the burgeoning annoyance of needing to use the restroom or stuff more salty or sugared food into our face seems to break the spell.  In fact, we enjoy this loss of self so much that if another person near us fails to properly lose themselves in the story and talk, we scowl and even pester such a person so as not to interrupt our focused attention. 

Where exactly are we during such a phenomenon of attention?  Is our identity somehow on hold?  Or does this phenomenon present both answer and evidence for the Identity Danger as discussed in Episode 17 of Tinkered Thinking?

The concept of identity becomes more flimsy the more we attempt to zero in on it.  The word itself is an excellent example of how people of a culture can latch on to concept without even really understanding what it is.  The etymology of the word ‘identity’ arises from the Latin ‘idem’ meaning same.

Same as what?

Same as this person, or that group or concept?  This is how we generally seem to be using the word, in a way that groups and categorizes people who are sort of the same.  But doing so glosses over the details, which is potentially dangerous, and indicative of a culture characterized by so much disagreement.

What happens to the word identity if we localize it to the max, meaning:  What if our identity is fluid and changes instant by instant depending on what our attention is focused on?

When focusing on a problem, it’s tempting to get wrapped up in the confusion of not seeing the solution.  If we pick apart this all-too-familiar situation though, we can see that the confusion becomes the thing we are focusing on.  By focusing on the emotion of frustration that is often produced by confusion, we cease to focus on the actual problem.  To lose focus here is to actually lose sight of it. But something is always in sight: in this case it’s the physical sensations of frustration and confusion.

In this moment, we are identifying with the physical sensations of the body instead of the details of the actual problem.

This leads to a strange-sounding restatement:  If we refocus on the problem, we then identify with the details of the problem.  The way we usually phrase this is: By refocusing we pay attention to the details of the problem.  But in terms of the experience of consciousness, they are one in the same.  Just as our focus on a movie in a movie theatre invokes an identification with the characters we are paying attention to.

We can even ask the odd question: is the concept of who I am even a useful area of thought to wonder about?

Maybe not, for the simple reason that it means that we lose focus of everything outside of our self.  We lose focus of the world and we begin to exist in an echo-chamber.

This episode references Episode 17: The Identity Danger, Episode 49: Confusion or Curiosity, and Episode 92: Focus

BATTLE ROYALE

January 22nd, 2019

This episode is dedicated to Andrew Ruiz.  Follow him on Twitter @then_there_was.

A Battle Royale is a fierce fight.  A Japanese movie of the same name perhaps took it to the ultimate extreme.  In the movie a fictional government has come to the conclusion that the youth are becoming lazy and complacent.  In response a rather brutal reality show contest is invented where a class of school children are plopped on an island, given various weapons and left to kill one another until there is one standing.  Such a plot might sound like the popular hunger games series.  To be clear, the Japanese version came first and is far more – let’s say – realistic.

While it’s best that such an exercise is left to the realm of fiction, we would do well to delve into the application of such a brutal process to the realms of fiction we entertain.  More specifically, applying the concept of a Battle Royale to our thoughts, our ideas, and perhaps most importantly our beliefs.

One word that is often coupled with the word ‘belief’ is the word ‘cherished’, as in the phrase ‘our most cherished beliefs’.   And yet how many cherished people, of all nations and creeds and ages and sex have suffered as a result of another person’s cherished belief? 

This unfortunate fact of human psychology is at the core of the Identity Danger.  By holding on to any identity too tightly, people can become fearful of other identities and when this phenomenon is compounded with a power differential, terrible atrocities can occur.  All because one person or group of people cherished some belief.

Human atrocities aside, holding on to a bad belief that we cherish can be incredibly self-limiting.  Holding onto a certain belief can mislead us for years and blind us from fundamental mistakes in our plans and strategies.  Not only can the underlying belief be an Axiomatic Mistake, the tendency to hold on to such a belief is also an Axiomatic Mistake.  The error here compounds.  And in retrospect we can realize that being flexible, and adaptable means being able to let go of ideas and pivot quickly towards more useful ones.  This might sound like an absolute crazy free-for-all, but not if we institute it at varying levels using a Well-Oiled Zoom.  First we would want to apply this Battle Royale method to our list of priorities.

What are the few most fundamental things that should be of concern both long term and short term.  The best way to do this is to actually look at what we do on a daily basis and throw those activities in to the arena with what we think our priorities are.  If some of our daily activities don’t stand up to the masochism invoked by juxtaposing them next to our imagined priorities, then we know we need to cut out certain behaviors and initiate others.

With priorities set, this can give rise to goals that we’d like to see occur.  Again, the arena of our mind for ideas about how to accomplish those goals should be subjugated to a Battle Royale.  This is an exercise in the exorcism of denial.  We ask, which ideas will actually be affective and which ideas do we simply like.  Such a mental Battle Royale doesn’t ensure success.  Far from it, we need to act upon the winner of such a mental Battle Royale and get some feedback from reality.  Such feedback may in a sense ‘re-equip’ our different ideas for action and give reason for another Battle Royale of ideas.

Regardless of the specifics of how we actually chose to act, the core utility of this metaphor is to be ruthless and masochistic towards our own ideas and beliefs to ensure that they are worth the rent they charge our minds. 

We often hear the prescription to ‘get out of our own way’.  This may in fact be a direction to get some of our cherished beliefs out of our way so that we can see with a better set of eyes and move forward unencumbered. 

The episode references Episode 17: The Identity Danger, Episode 278: Axiomatic Mistake and Episode 72: Persevere vs. Pivot, and Episode 54: The Well-Oiled Zoom.

(RE)SEARCH

January 21st, 2019

Do we think of entrepreneurs as researchers?  While the label might not seem inappropriate after a moment of consideration, it’s probably not the first thing we would ascribe to an entrepreneur.  Nor would we really think of a researcher as a kind of entrepreneur.  And yet, at their core, it doesn’t seem like their process is all that different.  Both are trying to finding something, to figure something out, and put things together in a way that hasn’t been thought of before.

So Is there really much of a difference?  We might relegate such a difference as the researcher within the institutional domain and the entrepreneur as outside of such a domain.  Or we might highlight the difference in motive: we generally ascribe the pursuit of money to the entrepreneur and the loftier pursuit of knowledge to that of the researcher.    And yet a researcher is required to seek out money, often in the form of grants in order to fund the often expensive process of research.  Whereas the entrepreneur can – with a little luck – bootstrap from absolutely nothing.

These differences are perhaps superficial if we refocus back on the core of what each does.  Each is searching for something.  But, the circumstantial influences of each most likely hinder the ones in each given domain and could prove useful to the other.

A simple example might be healthcare.  The researcher who is associated with an institution most likely has some kind of coverage which absolves this variety of stress.

Whereas the bootstrapping entrepreneur has no such stress net, unless of course they happen to be lucky enough to live in a country where this necessity is a given.

This is a practical difference, but the difference in strategy is perhaps even more important.

In some relative sense, the entrepreneur is throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, whereas the institutional researcher is methodically designing experiments to slowly increment knowledge to create a richer context.  Both are looking for something in this process, but when the styles of each method are compared, one seems tediously slow and the other seems perhaps: reckless.

How many entrepreneurs would have found success instead of failure if they had been a little more methodical and incremental with their approach.  And how many researchers would speed up the rate of discovery if they performed a greater number of experiments instead of spending the time in the minutia of experimental design?  We’re probably more inclined to agree with the former and find discomfort with the later.

Is this because our feelings about such questions are absolutely correct?  Or is it because we are accustomed to associating a certain style of approach to each domain separately?

If we are comfortable with each style in it’s own domain, why do we find discomfort with a merging of such styles of inquiry?  Perhaps this is another niche of human thinking where The Identity Danger creeps in.

The strange lack of emotional overlap here hints at the real difference between these domains.  Institutional research carries within it an implicit contradiction and we can see it symbolically in the word ‘research’ itself.  The verb implies that researchers are merely searching through what has already been found in order to find connections that can solve our problems.  They are in essence searching again for what someone has already found.  But unpacked like this, it proves a fallacy.  Certainly researchers are building on top of previous knowledge, but the motive is to push forward and find something new with the help of previous knowledge.  The institutional shell for this process perhaps undermines this truth by implying that the solutions have already been found and catalogued, they just need to be… researched.  The reality is that many solvable problems have yet to be solved and we would do well to wonder if the concept of an institution devoted to the problem actually makes headway towards a solution or if it merely makes us feel better in the absence of faster more efficient headway?

The entrepreneur on the other hand operates with none of this implied denial and the underlying fear.  Leanness, often in the personal life of the entrepreneur leaves little time nor energy for such concerns.  The precious little time and energy must be spent actually doing things – throwing things at the wall of reality to see what will stick, what reality will take and run with.  The entrepreneur is like a water skier on the shore throwing a line out into the water of reality hoping a whale or shark will catch the end and pull that entrepreneur out over the water fast enough for one wild ride.

The real differences seem to be merely dispositional.  The entrepreneur invokes that fearless willingness to jump into the unknown and make things up as they go along, whereas the stereotypical image of the researcher is one who is safe in the certainty of routine inquiry. 

But beyond this, the entrepreneur and the scientist are one in the same, and it is perhaps an unfortunate ramification of constructed institutions that result in the simultaneous limiting of progress on the part of the scientist and scaring away more people from embarking on the entrepreneurial journey.

The institution burdens the researcher with the hoops and hurdles of bureaucracy and broadcasts to the would-be entrepreneur that the institutional path is the only reliable option. 

The concept of an institution may in fact be an offspring of a mass fear that we can all relate to on an individual level.  The fear inherent in taking a chance, venturing out into the unknown.  It is the act of searching the unknown for something new, as opposed to the empty achievement of researching something another person had tenacity to bring back from the unknown.

This episode references Episode 17: The Identity Danger.