I remember seeing an ad for milk not too long ago that purported that those that drank at least a glass of milk a day would live longer than those who didn't. With that, I wondered what four glasses a day would do for me.
In a previous blog post "Correlative Causes", I call out claims of sugar and the (dis)credit that politicians will claim because of events that are correlated - but not caused - by things around us. People tend to see that if A happened when B was happening then B caused A. As part of my next writing foray, I've been looking into causes by proving there are direct links between events.
It turns out, for example, that those that drink a glass of milk a day tend to have healthier diets and habits than those that do not. The glass of milk a day is a minor contributor to living longer because it does have healthy nutrients.
Married people tend to live longer. With that, I wondered how one's life could be extended if one married ten people at the same time. Married people take fewer risks, sleep on better schedules, and are usually around to help with severe health problems or a slip & fall. In other words, being married doesn't cause longevity; rather, the environment of marriage causes it.
So everything is GOOD for you. Conversely, everything is BAD for you.
Most people can't even digest milk (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/story?id=8450036). Being married can have terrible health consequences if your partner isn't supportive (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/22/health/good-and-bad-marriage-boon-and-bane-to-health.html).
The chain of events that lead cause to effect can sometimes be staggeringly long. If you've ever spent time around a four-year-old, you will see that they will ask "Why?" to just about anything you say. There's a weird sense of wisdom to this that should extend into our adult years, but, for some reason, we don't ask "Why?" nearly enough and we certainly don't ask it deep enough.
Before someone or something influences you to change your lifestyle, make sure you ask "Why?" deep enough to know if X = GOOD or X = BAD.
Susan
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
The Last Mile - Attitude and Costs
If you've ever traveled to a large city, you may not notice that a significant part of your mood is determined by the last 10% or so of your trip. On one hand, you may find yourself stuck in traffic, getting lost, dealing with road construction, and so on. On the other hand, you may find yourself marveling at the sites, getting excited about what you want to do in the city, developing curiosity about the city's history, etc.
Even though you may have traveled 1,000 miles by car or by plane, the most prominent impression of your trip - and therefore a prominent impression of your mood - is guided by this "last mile". I've traveled quite a bit for both work and pleasure and the last mile inevitably sets the start point for my mood for the rest of trip. If the last mile wrought negativity, then I have a hill to climb; if its positive then it only gets better. We've all seen the torrent of social media posts that tell you that 90%+ of your attitude is within your control - I have yet to meet someone who's even close to 50%. Going to a foreign city and losing your luggage is bad, but having your purse swiped an hour later makes it worse. Having your hotel lose your reservation... well, you get the idea. I for one am not going to say I have such command over my attitude that these succession of terrible events would bring me down (at a minimum). Conversely, if my luggage wasn't lost, I didn't get my purse swiped, and my hotel didn't lose my reservation I wouldn't exactly be put on the positive side of things, right?
Too often we don't provide ourselves with opportunities to amplify the positives in wherever we go or whatever we do. Our focus is on expecting status quo - and this sets us up for negativity if something were to go wrong with status quo. I try to practice the approach of always having opportunities for the positive to immediately take effect during the last mile - and this makes a HUGE difference in having a wonderful experience and staving off negativity's ugly head. At what cost are you imposing on yourself if you don't induce a positive experience during the last mile?
Industry, by the way, has a great deal of focus in reducing the costs of the "last mile". It's easy to get products between cities. It isn't easy for products to reliably get into cities - traffic, construction, end-customer isn't there to sign paperwork, weather (because the product will have a chance of exposure once it's unloaded), etc. Industries usually peg the last mile's total cost of somewhere between 20% to 80% of the product's actual cost - with the 80% for products that are highly susceptible to temperature and humidity changes.
What are your costs of not pre-loading positivity in your last mile? I'm not just talking about money.
Susan
Even though you may have traveled 1,000 miles by car or by plane, the most prominent impression of your trip - and therefore a prominent impression of your mood - is guided by this "last mile". I've traveled quite a bit for both work and pleasure and the last mile inevitably sets the start point for my mood for the rest of trip. If the last mile wrought negativity, then I have a hill to climb; if its positive then it only gets better. We've all seen the torrent of social media posts that tell you that 90%+ of your attitude is within your control - I have yet to meet someone who's even close to 50%. Going to a foreign city and losing your luggage is bad, but having your purse swiped an hour later makes it worse. Having your hotel lose your reservation... well, you get the idea. I for one am not going to say I have such command over my attitude that these succession of terrible events would bring me down (at a minimum). Conversely, if my luggage wasn't lost, I didn't get my purse swiped, and my hotel didn't lose my reservation I wouldn't exactly be put on the positive side of things, right?
Too often we don't provide ourselves with opportunities to amplify the positives in wherever we go or whatever we do. Our focus is on expecting status quo - and this sets us up for negativity if something were to go wrong with status quo. I try to practice the approach of always having opportunities for the positive to immediately take effect during the last mile - and this makes a HUGE difference in having a wonderful experience and staving off negativity's ugly head. At what cost are you imposing on yourself if you don't induce a positive experience during the last mile?
Industry, by the way, has a great deal of focus in reducing the costs of the "last mile". It's easy to get products between cities. It isn't easy for products to reliably get into cities - traffic, construction, end-customer isn't there to sign paperwork, weather (because the product will have a chance of exposure once it's unloaded), etc. Industries usually peg the last mile's total cost of somewhere between 20% to 80% of the product's actual cost - with the 80% for products that are highly susceptible to temperature and humidity changes.
What are your costs of not pre-loading positivity in your last mile? I'm not just talking about money.
Susan
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
The Ripples of Punishment and Reward
A friend of mine is in the gym - seemingly all the time. If he's asked where to buy steroids, he takes it as a compliment. When asked how does he reward himself for reaching fitness goals, he invariably asks the same question, "What do you mean?" No one appears to expect him to respond with a question - or a question like this.
His lengthy answer is distilled into two corollaries:
1) He doesn't look at working out as a punishment in the sense that he has to give himself something to keep him going.
2) He doesn't look at working out as a means to get a reward for hitting a goal.
For him, working out becomes the reward. He makes this clear by saying, "My reward is that I'm not fat." or something along those lines. And, almost as invariably as asking the first question, the next question is usually something like, "What about eating a pint of ice cream or something? Just once?"
His answer to this is much shorter: "That's like a recovering alcoholic rewarding himself with a shot of whiskey."
What I've observed about these encounters with (usually) complete strangers is that he affects all of them positively - insomuch that they get a boost of morale and encouragement to workout out a little harder, a little longer, and with a better attitude. I observe this in the various industries that I've encountered: Many people make a goal to get through the work/school day. Sometimes you need to do this because of other stress; however, see what you can do if you were to look at your work/school day as the reward and not a means to a reward. It becomes infectious and you'll probably enjoy life much more because of it.
His lengthy answer is distilled into two corollaries:
1) He doesn't look at working out as a punishment in the sense that he has to give himself something to keep him going.
2) He doesn't look at working out as a means to get a reward for hitting a goal.
For him, working out becomes the reward. He makes this clear by saying, "My reward is that I'm not fat." or something along those lines. And, almost as invariably as asking the first question, the next question is usually something like, "What about eating a pint of ice cream or something? Just once?"
His answer to this is much shorter: "That's like a recovering alcoholic rewarding himself with a shot of whiskey."
What I've observed about these encounters with (usually) complete strangers is that he affects all of them positively - insomuch that they get a boost of morale and encouragement to workout out a little harder, a little longer, and with a better attitude. I observe this in the various industries that I've encountered: Many people make a goal to get through the work/school day. Sometimes you need to do this because of other stress; however, see what you can do if you were to look at your work/school day as the reward and not a means to a reward. It becomes infectious and you'll probably enjoy life much more because of it.
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Un-Hope Yourself
"Hope is a euphemism for surrendering one’s fate
to someone or something else’s will.”
- Father Crane, Polarity Reversed
Today's blog will center on the concept of hope. I won't give a dictionary meaning of the word - that's a bit expected; however, I firmly believe that hope is more personal and unique to each of us. Aside from Father Crane's distilled point of view, we find that hope has many flavors and many avenues.
Buying lottery tickets is, in effect, buying hope - you probably won't win, but you certainly can't win unless you play. Doing everything you can for a sick, loved one is then left in the hands of hope; hope becomes the unseen force of optimism that drives recovery. Hoping for world peace is quite an endeavor, but at a minimum, peace cannot happen unless you (as in yourself) are peaceful. Many people survive day-to-day relying on hope: Consider the many violent conflicts going on at this very moment. While I'm the comfort of a keyboard, there are literally thousands of men, women, and children stranded on a mountaintop running from ISIS.
On one end of the spectrum is lottery tickets. On the other end is day-to-day survival. The latter example puts much of what we complain about into perspective.
Personally, I dislike the concept of hope. It is tantamount toward declaring that you will do no more to achieve something. Many times you can't do anything more, but I would urge you to reconsider relying less on hope when given the chance. Look into every possible way to reach whatever goal you seek. Instead of playing the lottery, save the money for a higher education, starting your own business, investing in someone else's business, or buying a loved one a gift (you would be surprised how enriching this act can be). Relying on hope is throwing in the towel; sometimes you must, but not all the time. If you've acted on all possible angles, then focus on backup plans, if possible.
I sometimes talk about my day job - it's very technical. I've been privileged to make some really state-of-the-art systems. I can tell you this: Those I work with have never relied on hope. Instead, they plan for suppliers to be late, R&D to be late, funding to be late, and so on. We know that when we deliver something to end consumer that they may not like it - this is out of our control. However, we develop backup plans for the "what-if" that they don't. We make a plan instead of hoping.
I've had those close to me pass away from illness. All I had was hope - I'm not a doctor and even the doctors were left relying on hope.
Before you rely on hope: Make sure that you've tried everything. Make sure that you have a backup plan, if possible. Don't let your fate be surrendered to someone or something else's will, if you have to power to do so.
- Father Crane, Polarity Reversed
Today's blog will center on the concept of hope. I won't give a dictionary meaning of the word - that's a bit expected; however, I firmly believe that hope is more personal and unique to each of us. Aside from Father Crane's distilled point of view, we find that hope has many flavors and many avenues.
Buying lottery tickets is, in effect, buying hope - you probably won't win, but you certainly can't win unless you play. Doing everything you can for a sick, loved one is then left in the hands of hope; hope becomes the unseen force of optimism that drives recovery. Hoping for world peace is quite an endeavor, but at a minimum, peace cannot happen unless you (as in yourself) are peaceful. Many people survive day-to-day relying on hope: Consider the many violent conflicts going on at this very moment. While I'm the comfort of a keyboard, there are literally thousands of men, women, and children stranded on a mountaintop running from ISIS.
On one end of the spectrum is lottery tickets. On the other end is day-to-day survival. The latter example puts much of what we complain about into perspective.
Personally, I dislike the concept of hope. It is tantamount toward declaring that you will do no more to achieve something. Many times you can't do anything more, but I would urge you to reconsider relying less on hope when given the chance. Look into every possible way to reach whatever goal you seek. Instead of playing the lottery, save the money for a higher education, starting your own business, investing in someone else's business, or buying a loved one a gift (you would be surprised how enriching this act can be). Relying on hope is throwing in the towel; sometimes you must, but not all the time. If you've acted on all possible angles, then focus on backup plans, if possible.
I sometimes talk about my day job - it's very technical. I've been privileged to make some really state-of-the-art systems. I can tell you this: Those I work with have never relied on hope. Instead, they plan for suppliers to be late, R&D to be late, funding to be late, and so on. We know that when we deliver something to end consumer that they may not like it - this is out of our control. However, we develop backup plans for the "what-if" that they don't. We make a plan instead of hoping.
I've had those close to me pass away from illness. All I had was hope - I'm not a doctor and even the doctors were left relying on hope.
Before you rely on hope: Make sure that you've tried everything. Make sure that you have a backup plan, if possible. Don't let your fate be surrendered to someone or something else's will, if you have to power to do so.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
I'm Back. Some thoughts about the Hachette/Amazon dispute.
Hello all,
Polarity Reversed is finished and I am able to return to many other things that I've eschewed for a few months now. I used to have hobbies somewhere... just can't remember where I put them.
I have much to write in this blog, but I still have to keep some wiggle room for subsequent editions and Polarity #3 - I will tentatively blog only on Wednesdays now.
Over the past few months, I've had several readers that expressed interest into what it takes to become a writer. I've written about this topic before, but I was remiss on expounding on what happens AFTER you're published. What's become front-and-center recently is the very public dispute of Amazon and Hachette. Since this is a blog about ripple effects, I felt it apropos to delve a little deeper into the ripple effects this will cause.
Most people (even readers) don't even know that Hachette is one of the 'Big 5' major publishers. If you read James Patterson, David Baldacci, or Robert Gilbraith (aka JK Rowling) then you are reading a Hachette book. I am not a Hachette author, having chose the Indie route for reasons outside the scope of this discussion. Many other authors have focused on the "bullying" nature of Amazon and have made more of a qualitative argument. Being that I'm more of a quantitative person...
The inside rumor is that Amazon wants Hachette to get 50% of the sale price instead of 70% for ebooks. In a nutshell:
1. Authors that sign with major publishers get anywhere from 20% to 30% of the sale price as their royalty for an ebook. This means that 30% goes to Amazon and 40%-50% goes to Hachette. If you think 20%-30% for the author is bad, consider that they usually get 5% to 12% for printed books. These numbers vary. Authors don't see any money until after they've exceeded their advance amount. 15% goes to their agent.
2. Going to 50% from 70% would really hurt both Hachette and their authors. You have a better chance making a living as a professional athlete than you do as an author. Hachette would undoubtedly have to reduce the royalty they pay to authors, thus making a living from it becomes even more astronomically bad.
3. 70% or more of ALL book units sold are ebooks these days. The chain of people - from author to agent to editor(s) to artist to sales reps to person X - get paid in money, not percentages. The math means that there is a lot less money for these people to make. Skirting the argument that greed exists in every corporation, rest assured that there are many people in this chain that add significant value and aren't rolling in the big bucks. Many of these people say that they must all work twice as hard for half the money. You, as a reader, can read whomever you want. My point is that the major publishers aren't trying rake as much money out of you, the reader, so they can be rich; they do it primarily to pay their employees and to have money to pay advances to up-and-coming authors. The industry has been bleeding immensely over the past ten years mostly because roughly a third to half of all sales are from self-publishers and Indies (something that was more or less non-existent about 15 years ago). Hugh Howey has done some great analysis on this subject.
4. Amazon offers a 35% royalty option and a 70% royalty option to those who self-publish. The 35% option gives some extra flexibility and some extra money for international sales. Most choose the 70% option. I scratch my head wondering why Amazon can't extend this to Hachette and I can only infer that I don't have all the details.
5. Amazon is really upsetting a lot of non-Hachette people out there because of the end result of what we see so far. One can only reason that Hachette had some kind of distribution agreement in place with Amazon that seemed to cost Amazon more money in the long run. Or that Jeff Bezos really needs that extra house on the moon.
6. I wonder what Amazon will do to me (and I refer to any author). I don't have to sell on Amazon, but the reality is that 41% of all new books on the planet are sold there. It is estimated that 90% of all book purchases originate with checking Amazon's prices at some point.
The upshot to all of this is that both Amazon and the publishers will have to streamline their processes even further. There is a vast over-supply of book titles out there given the demand of readers; you can't afford to lose fans. Fans are what drive consistent sales. As a reader, how many times do you try a new author and deeply regret wasting your weekend reading their book?
Polarity Reversed is finished and I am able to return to many other things that I've eschewed for a few months now. I used to have hobbies somewhere... just can't remember where I put them.
I have much to write in this blog, but I still have to keep some wiggle room for subsequent editions and Polarity #3 - I will tentatively blog only on Wednesdays now.
Over the past few months, I've had several readers that expressed interest into what it takes to become a writer. I've written about this topic before, but I was remiss on expounding on what happens AFTER you're published. What's become front-and-center recently is the very public dispute of Amazon and Hachette. Since this is a blog about ripple effects, I felt it apropos to delve a little deeper into the ripple effects this will cause.
Most people (even readers) don't even know that Hachette is one of the 'Big 5' major publishers. If you read James Patterson, David Baldacci, or Robert Gilbraith (aka JK Rowling) then you are reading a Hachette book. I am not a Hachette author, having chose the Indie route for reasons outside the scope of this discussion. Many other authors have focused on the "bullying" nature of Amazon and have made more of a qualitative argument. Being that I'm more of a quantitative person...
The inside rumor is that Amazon wants Hachette to get 50% of the sale price instead of 70% for ebooks. In a nutshell:
1. Authors that sign with major publishers get anywhere from 20% to 30% of the sale price as their royalty for an ebook. This means that 30% goes to Amazon and 40%-50% goes to Hachette. If you think 20%-30% for the author is bad, consider that they usually get 5% to 12% for printed books. These numbers vary. Authors don't see any money until after they've exceeded their advance amount. 15% goes to their agent.
2. Going to 50% from 70% would really hurt both Hachette and their authors. You have a better chance making a living as a professional athlete than you do as an author. Hachette would undoubtedly have to reduce the royalty they pay to authors, thus making a living from it becomes even more astronomically bad.
3. 70% or more of ALL book units sold are ebooks these days. The chain of people - from author to agent to editor(s) to artist to sales reps to person X - get paid in money, not percentages. The math means that there is a lot less money for these people to make. Skirting the argument that greed exists in every corporation, rest assured that there are many people in this chain that add significant value and aren't rolling in the big bucks. Many of these people say that they must all work twice as hard for half the money. You, as a reader, can read whomever you want. My point is that the major publishers aren't trying rake as much money out of you, the reader, so they can be rich; they do it primarily to pay their employees and to have money to pay advances to up-and-coming authors. The industry has been bleeding immensely over the past ten years mostly because roughly a third to half of all sales are from self-publishers and Indies (something that was more or less non-existent about 15 years ago). Hugh Howey has done some great analysis on this subject.
4. Amazon offers a 35% royalty option and a 70% royalty option to those who self-publish. The 35% option gives some extra flexibility and some extra money for international sales. Most choose the 70% option. I scratch my head wondering why Amazon can't extend this to Hachette and I can only infer that I don't have all the details.
5. Amazon is really upsetting a lot of non-Hachette people out there because of the end result of what we see so far. One can only reason that Hachette had some kind of distribution agreement in place with Amazon that seemed to cost Amazon more money in the long run. Or that Jeff Bezos really needs that extra house on the moon.
6. I wonder what Amazon will do to me (and I refer to any author). I don't have to sell on Amazon, but the reality is that 41% of all new books on the planet are sold there. It is estimated that 90% of all book purchases originate with checking Amazon's prices at some point.
The upshot to all of this is that both Amazon and the publishers will have to streamline their processes even further. There is a vast over-supply of book titles out there given the demand of readers; you can't afford to lose fans. Fans are what drive consistent sales. As a reader, how many times do you try a new author and deeply regret wasting your weekend reading their book?
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Blogging Hiatus
I'm busy incorporating edits into POLARITY REVERSED at the moment. This, with the day job, are keeping me underwater. I'm also penning the draft for the third installment of POLARITY bit by bit. If I could only ditch the day job for writing...
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
How to Get the Most Out of Your Intuition
Louis Pasteur once said, “Chance favors only the prepared mind."
Some people seem to be born to recognize opportunities long before anyone else even blinks (e.g., Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison). Many people pass by opportunity even when it hits them in the face. Opportunity is frequently driven by the phenomenon known as 'luck'.
I really dislike the word 'luck'. It's a cop out for trying to figure out what, exactly, happened. How did I end up in this? It must be luck - as if luck was some kind of magical force. At the risk of making this blog entry a rant about luck, I will shift the focus somewhat to simply say that all of us will experience this thing, luck, at some point in our life - many times. If not today, it could happen tomorrow.
What are you doing about it?
This question should elicit a question from you - usually, "What can you do about it?" If it's a good luck situation, then you should take advantage of it before anyone else does. If it's a bad luck situation, then you should have an exit strategy. Either way, both of these scenarios will require you to be prepared to act, to have a prepared mind.
The prepared mind has two qualities. First, it isn't distracted. This means you should give yourself a chance to focus and be observant. Inevitably this means less day-dreaming, less obsessing, less TV, and less <any activity that requires whole commitment, no interaction, and is a time vampire>. Second, embrace diversity. This is an overused term that usually doesn't come with anything more than a "because it's good for us". I'm not suggesting that you like whatever form of diversity you experience, but rather you should at least experience life from a different perspective.
Regarding diversity, try a simple experiment: Get a ladder out and put it inside your home. Go up the ladder a few feet off the floor. Now imagine yourself walking through your home trying to go about your day. All of the sudden, a new world is opened up within your existing world - going through doorways is difficult, leaning underneath the sink is difficult, seeing just how dusty the top of the refrigerator is... is disturbing, seeing all of the dust up high is disturbing, try taking a shower, try fitting in the bathtub, etc. You've forced yourself into a new, diverse world and you're instantly seeing challenges.
By minimizing distractions and embracing diversity, you will be able to recognize new challenges, opportunities, and solutions much faster and much more effectively. The next time luck - good or bad - hits, you will be able to instantly evaluate much more than you could before. Why? Because you've prepared your mind. And, most importantly, your intuition will be more attune to your needs because of this.
Some people seem to be born to recognize opportunities long before anyone else even blinks (e.g., Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison). Many people pass by opportunity even when it hits them in the face. Opportunity is frequently driven by the phenomenon known as 'luck'.
I really dislike the word 'luck'. It's a cop out for trying to figure out what, exactly, happened. How did I end up in this? It must be luck - as if luck was some kind of magical force. At the risk of making this blog entry a rant about luck, I will shift the focus somewhat to simply say that all of us will experience this thing, luck, at some point in our life - many times. If not today, it could happen tomorrow.
What are you doing about it?
This question should elicit a question from you - usually, "What can you do about it?" If it's a good luck situation, then you should take advantage of it before anyone else does. If it's a bad luck situation, then you should have an exit strategy. Either way, both of these scenarios will require you to be prepared to act, to have a prepared mind.
The prepared mind has two qualities. First, it isn't distracted. This means you should give yourself a chance to focus and be observant. Inevitably this means less day-dreaming, less obsessing, less TV, and less <any activity that requires whole commitment, no interaction, and is a time vampire>. Second, embrace diversity. This is an overused term that usually doesn't come with anything more than a "because it's good for us". I'm not suggesting that you like whatever form of diversity you experience, but rather you should at least experience life from a different perspective.
Regarding diversity, try a simple experiment: Get a ladder out and put it inside your home. Go up the ladder a few feet off the floor. Now imagine yourself walking through your home trying to go about your day. All of the sudden, a new world is opened up within your existing world - going through doorways is difficult, leaning underneath the sink is difficult, seeing just how dusty the top of the refrigerator is... is disturbing, seeing all of the dust up high is disturbing, try taking a shower, try fitting in the bathtub, etc. You've forced yourself into a new, diverse world and you're instantly seeing challenges.
By minimizing distractions and embracing diversity, you will be able to recognize new challenges, opportunities, and solutions much faster and much more effectively. The next time luck - good or bad - hits, you will be able to instantly evaluate much more than you could before. Why? Because you've prepared your mind. And, most importantly, your intuition will be more attune to your needs because of this.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Why You May Not Click With Someone
Inevitably we all come across that person - the person that we don't click with. It seems that from the moment we met him or her, it wasn't going to fly. Sometimes it's pretty obvious. I once had a boss who, upon meeting her, held out one hand and said, "This is me." She then circled her other hand around the hand that was held out and then said, "This is the universe."
So... the universe revolves around you. Got it.
Sometimes it isn't as obvious. I met a husband and wife who lived in downtown Boston. The husband was a smart, funny, and overall nice guy. He gave off that creepy feeling and I didn't know why. If you're waiting for me to say that he was later caught doing something highly illegal then you'll be disappointed. I hold the belief that the creepy feeling that we get isn't necessarily a sign of imminent danger - rather it's a part of a higher level of chemistry. I really don't think I could be at my best being around the guy and I'm not sure why. I am certain that I wasn't at my best around my ex-boss who insisted she was the center of the universe. I stress the 'ex' part of that.
There are those that you may not click with immediately, but you find yourself warming up to over time. Perhaps it's part of that higher-level chemistry that has finally found a working alignment. Now I'm not going to spout off on an unseen force guiding these dynamics. I will just say that we all experience it and we struggle to explain it.
I, for one, get disappointed with myself for having unwarranted, negative feelings towards someone I just met. Then it hits me - maybe I'm the one who's not aligned with this person. Maybe I'm the one that's causing this negative backlash. A bad day can easily be the culprit for feeling negative but I've found that far too often it's simply because that person reminds me of someone else from my past that I didn't get along with.
Before you avoid someone forever, ask yourself if you've given that person a fair chance. Ask yourself if it's not them and it's actually you causing that creepy feeling.
So... the universe revolves around you. Got it.
Sometimes it isn't as obvious. I met a husband and wife who lived in downtown Boston. The husband was a smart, funny, and overall nice guy. He gave off that creepy feeling and I didn't know why. If you're waiting for me to say that he was later caught doing something highly illegal then you'll be disappointed. I hold the belief that the creepy feeling that we get isn't necessarily a sign of imminent danger - rather it's a part of a higher level of chemistry. I really don't think I could be at my best being around the guy and I'm not sure why. I am certain that I wasn't at my best around my ex-boss who insisted she was the center of the universe. I stress the 'ex' part of that.
There are those that you may not click with immediately, but you find yourself warming up to over time. Perhaps it's part of that higher-level chemistry that has finally found a working alignment. Now I'm not going to spout off on an unseen force guiding these dynamics. I will just say that we all experience it and we struggle to explain it.
I, for one, get disappointed with myself for having unwarranted, negative feelings towards someone I just met. Then it hits me - maybe I'm the one who's not aligned with this person. Maybe I'm the one that's causing this negative backlash. A bad day can easily be the culprit for feeling negative but I've found that far too often it's simply because that person reminds me of someone else from my past that I didn't get along with.
Before you avoid someone forever, ask yourself if you've given that person a fair chance. Ask yourself if it's not them and it's actually you causing that creepy feeling.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
The Politics of 50-50
With few exceptions, most industrialized, modern nations have significant political opposition groups. In the United States its Democrats and Republicans. It seems that every election that comes along somehow keeps enough of a split vote that nearly anything can happen in the next election cycle. The House, the Senate, and the Presidency switch hands have rarely had all three ran by the same party during the nation's history.
One could reason that the arguing gets the country nowhere - or any country that has the same kind of odds of political swapping that the U.S. has (name a country in Western Europe). One could argue that China is an exception to this rule, but those living in China would tell you that poverty is rampant - about 3/4ths of the population lives on less than $5 per day. The fancy pictures we see about China are usually those in urban areas - far away from the rural, poor areas. China is an enigma because of its vast exploited population and natural resources.
For those who remember the 2000 presidential election and called it close, you should look into the election of 1876. I won't spoil the details except to say that the president was decided by a committee of 15 men - not by the popular vote or the electoral college. One could argue that the 2000 election was decided by judges but in the case of the 1876 election even the judges agreed that the 15-man committee was the right answer. The nation survived and thrived.
The ebb and flow of politics - however painful - is what makes countries successful. It forces both sides to be held accountable; if you don't agree with that then go live in a dictatorship (there are plenty to choose from) and re-assess your opinion.
In some ways, it literally is Us versus Them. It appears to work.
One could reason that the arguing gets the country nowhere - or any country that has the same kind of odds of political swapping that the U.S. has (name a country in Western Europe). One could argue that China is an exception to this rule, but those living in China would tell you that poverty is rampant - about 3/4ths of the population lives on less than $5 per day. The fancy pictures we see about China are usually those in urban areas - far away from the rural, poor areas. China is an enigma because of its vast exploited population and natural resources.
For those who remember the 2000 presidential election and called it close, you should look into the election of 1876. I won't spoil the details except to say that the president was decided by a committee of 15 men - not by the popular vote or the electoral college. One could argue that the 2000 election was decided by judges but in the case of the 1876 election even the judges agreed that the 15-man committee was the right answer. The nation survived and thrived.
The ebb and flow of politics - however painful - is what makes countries successful. It forces both sides to be held accountable; if you don't agree with that then go live in a dictatorship (there are plenty to choose from) and re-assess your opinion.
In some ways, it literally is Us versus Them. It appears to work.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
For Aspiring Authors - Rogue Waves
Perhaps the most common question I get from people is along the lines of "What does it take to write a book?" I follow that question with another one, "Do you want to do this for a living?"
As a writer, I am constantly amazed at the quality of books that are available - amazing stories and amazing writing. It pains me to see a wonderful book get published and not go anywhere (not just my own). There are people who will tell me how terrible the Twilight Series is and how wonderful Harry Potter is. They tell me that book X is much better than these books. So, why hasn't book X taken off?
Each published book begins as a ripple that is competing with other ripples to become the next rogue wave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave
Do books compete? Yes. If a reader buys your book, then you are most likely on a stack of other books that the reader has on his/her nightstand (literally or figuratively in ebook). How do authors get their book to be a rogue wave? There are three approaches.
The first comes with the BAM! debut novel - the one that everyone has to read. This is the one that everyone has to read now. DIVERGENT is a great example of this. With so many other YA dystopians out there, how did this one make it to the top? It's a great book; there are many other great books. It has high ratings on Amazon and Goodreads; there are many debut novels with high ratings. It's by a Big 5 publisher; there are lots of Big 5 books that are great, highly rated, but don't take off. I'm not sure if anyone knows exactly how these books make it big while others do not.
The second comes with writing a bunch of stuff (and I use 'stuff' to cover the gamut of writing novels, fan fiction, short stories, etc.), building a fan base, and finally releasing that mega-best-seller. Hugh Howey and Jennifer Armentrout are great examples of writers who can churn out a ton of great stories/great writing in a short amount of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Howey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Armentrout
Looking at the dates of their respective publications makes my head spin. They are gifted in that they can write great material and, in effect, build ripples that are so close to each other that they make a rogue wave. Honestly, even if I didn't have to have a day job, I would find it very difficult (okay, impossible) to keep such an output. In my opinion, this is the most reliable way to create the rogue wave - albeit very tasking.
The third approach is very similar to the second approach except the fan base is built slowly over time. Suzanne Collins is a great example of this. Most don't know that she wrote a five-book series before The Hunger Games. The approach here is to steadily build up a large enough base of fans that once your new book comes out that they all buy it, read it, and tell their friends about it at the same time.
There are those who don't fit in the above categories (e.g., E.L. James) but the point is that there isn't a magic formula for creating your own rogue wave. As the name implies, the wave is unexpected and surprising. If you want to be a writer, don't count on the rogue wave. You can increase your chances by putting a lot of work into it but manage your expectations.
As a writer, I am constantly amazed at the quality of books that are available - amazing stories and amazing writing. It pains me to see a wonderful book get published and not go anywhere (not just my own). There are people who will tell me how terrible the Twilight Series is and how wonderful Harry Potter is. They tell me that book X is much better than these books. So, why hasn't book X taken off?
Each published book begins as a ripple that is competing with other ripples to become the next rogue wave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave
Do books compete? Yes. If a reader buys your book, then you are most likely on a stack of other books that the reader has on his/her nightstand (literally or figuratively in ebook). How do authors get their book to be a rogue wave? There are three approaches.
The first comes with the BAM! debut novel - the one that everyone has to read. This is the one that everyone has to read now. DIVERGENT is a great example of this. With so many other YA dystopians out there, how did this one make it to the top? It's a great book; there are many other great books. It has high ratings on Amazon and Goodreads; there are many debut novels with high ratings. It's by a Big 5 publisher; there are lots of Big 5 books that are great, highly rated, but don't take off. I'm not sure if anyone knows exactly how these books make it big while others do not.
The second comes with writing a bunch of stuff (and I use 'stuff' to cover the gamut of writing novels, fan fiction, short stories, etc.), building a fan base, and finally releasing that mega-best-seller. Hugh Howey and Jennifer Armentrout are great examples of writers who can churn out a ton of great stories/great writing in a short amount of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Howey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Armentrout
Looking at the dates of their respective publications makes my head spin. They are gifted in that they can write great material and, in effect, build ripples that are so close to each other that they make a rogue wave. Honestly, even if I didn't have to have a day job, I would find it very difficult (okay, impossible) to keep such an output. In my opinion, this is the most reliable way to create the rogue wave - albeit very tasking.
The third approach is very similar to the second approach except the fan base is built slowly over time. Suzanne Collins is a great example of this. Most don't know that she wrote a five-book series before The Hunger Games. The approach here is to steadily build up a large enough base of fans that once your new book comes out that they all buy it, read it, and tell their friends about it at the same time.
There are those who don't fit in the above categories (e.g., E.L. James) but the point is that there isn't a magic formula for creating your own rogue wave. As the name implies, the wave is unexpected and surprising. If you want to be a writer, don't count on the rogue wave. You can increase your chances by putting a lot of work into it but manage your expectations.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Create Your Own Butterfly Effect
Spend less time day-dreaming and more time day-doing. It sounds like a motivational pitch from a motivational speaker, but let's suppose that this is truth. Let's consider two people - one who has good will in mind and the other who doesn't.
The one with good will spends his/her days dreaming about the virtues and goodness that will come with his/her ideas. The one with bad will spends one hour thinking about the hell on earth he/she can bring and then spends the rest of his/her time actually doing it. Which person will the butterfly effect be most profound?
It's always easier to dream; it's like watching a custom movie in your head and - the best part - you're the hero. Taking action requires time, effort, and (possibly) money; however, the largest road block for most people is the fear of failure. Doing nothing means that you won't fail, but it also means that you won't be successful.
Back to the person with bad will: He/She fails 99 times out of 100. He/She is successful once and you (the assumed good guy) has never been successful, although has never failed either. 99 times is a lot of failure, a lot of time, a lot of <insert negativity here>. One of the biggest regrets that people have on their death bed was that they felt they didn't do enough with their lives. Granted, not everyone is in a situation suited to help carry out their dreams. Are you? Can a dream be scaled back a little bit so it has a chance to take off?
You will have friends that won't support you. You will have friends that will mock you behind your back. Keep in mind that misery loves company - these people don't want you to succeed because it validates their stance that doing nothing is okay (because that's what they're doing: nothing). If you do nothing then they won't feel any pressure to do anything. As an aside, this also tells you who your true friends are.
Make your own butterfly effect. Make it on your terms. Spend 5% dreaming and 95% doing. Remember that there are motivated people out there that are up to no good. Do something.
The one with good will spends his/her days dreaming about the virtues and goodness that will come with his/her ideas. The one with bad will spends one hour thinking about the hell on earth he/she can bring and then spends the rest of his/her time actually doing it. Which person will the butterfly effect be most profound?
It's always easier to dream; it's like watching a custom movie in your head and - the best part - you're the hero. Taking action requires time, effort, and (possibly) money; however, the largest road block for most people is the fear of failure. Doing nothing means that you won't fail, but it also means that you won't be successful.
Back to the person with bad will: He/She fails 99 times out of 100. He/She is successful once and you (the assumed good guy) has never been successful, although has never failed either. 99 times is a lot of failure, a lot of time, a lot of <insert negativity here>. One of the biggest regrets that people have on their death bed was that they felt they didn't do enough with their lives. Granted, not everyone is in a situation suited to help carry out their dreams. Are you? Can a dream be scaled back a little bit so it has a chance to take off?
You will have friends that won't support you. You will have friends that will mock you behind your back. Keep in mind that misery loves company - these people don't want you to succeed because it validates their stance that doing nothing is okay (because that's what they're doing: nothing). If you do nothing then they won't feel any pressure to do anything. As an aside, this also tells you who your true friends are.
Make your own butterfly effect. Make it on your terms. Spend 5% dreaming and 95% doing. Remember that there are motivated people out there that are up to no good. Do something.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
When Bad Luck is Good Luck
“Las Vegas exists because of a bunch of people who get
overly excited about bad math.”
-
Penn
Gillette
Through my day job I’ve had to fly into Las Vegas several
times – much of what I do (without getting into specifics) deals with remote
work. In this case, I was headed to a small spec in the middle of the desert
and Las Vegas was the closest airport – and it was still another 3+ hour drive.
I ran into some friends during an overnight layover once and
we decided to hit the town; our definition of “hitting the town” didn’t involve
any gambling for me as I adhere to Penn Gillette’s take.
One of my friends has some of the most astounding luck –
both good and bad – that I’ve ever seen. He doesn’t require Las Vegas to show
it – it just follows him there. It’s always fun to see what luck is in store
for him wherever we went.
We’d scheduled to see a comedian that night. We had great
tickets – front row, dead center. To kill some time my friend entered a poker
tournament that had a $200 buy-in. I watched him from the peanut gallery. Early
on, he went all-in (betting all of his chips) based on the two cards he had on
his hand – and nothing else. For those of you not familiar with poker – Texas
Hold ‘Em in particular – you begin with these two cards and there are
subsequent cards that come out, each giving remaining players opportunities to
raise the pot of chips. One person called him and they both showed their cards.
My friend had two kings – the second highest possible hand you can begin with.
The other guy showed his cards – a kind and six – and merely commented, “Oh, I
guess I shouldn’t have done that.” My friend had a 94%+ chance of winning the
hand by the time all subsequent cards would show; however, his opponent got two
sixes and bucked the odds. My friend was done. He got up and left the table in
a pretty foul mood. Admittedly, I would, too. The sourness is a combination of
someone winning when they clearly made the wrong decision – and then cheering
that luck is one their side. In poker, pretty much anything can happen… it’s
just when it does luck appears to be a cruel mistress.
Now here’s the insult to injury…
Later that night we went to see the comedian. My friend was
looking forward to some laughs to shake off the bad beat he took earlier. The
headlining comedian had an opening act: It was the same guy that beat my friend
at poker. For the next 20 minutes, my friend sat there clinching his fists. You
see, not only did luck want my friend to lose at poker, but luck also wanted my
friend to be forced to sit listening to him for 20 minutes. Needlessly to say,
the night didn’t improve. My friend wanted to gamble roughly $2,000 that night
but wasn’t in the mood.
That $2,000 would have surely ended up in the coffers of Las
Vegas. Losing $200 and the forced watching of the guy who beat him made me
wonder if something else was set up for my friend – to keep his money. It’s not
statistically impossible for these events to happen, but these are things that
are usually reserved for the impossibilities found in movies.
The next time you get a “bad beat” with luck, consider that
it was actually good luck saving you from something far worse.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
"Correlative Causes"
Sugar intake in our diets has increased by nearly 50% over the past 50 years or so. At the same time, our life expectancy has increased with it. Thus, eating sugar makes you live longer.
<end asinine assertion>
All too often we fall prey to studies and news reports that try to portray causes because of correlation: If A happened when B happened then somehow A and B have a dependency. We as a populous react on these assertions - usually without much thought. After all, we aren't all scientists. We don't have access to the data, but it sounds right... right?
There are many complexities that are out there and these "correlative causes" are designed to simplify understanding - they intend well, but they sometimes over-extend themselves. For example, not too many people would disagree that smoking greatly increases your chances of health problems.
It doesn't take one too long to scour the Internet to find some pretty interesting assertions through "correlative causes". Pets make us live longer. A glass of wine a day will make you live longer. Omega-3 fatty acids will make you live longer. If there ever was a correlation to be found from any of these things it would be that they're all focused on allowing you to live longer.
Without getting too deep into politics - we've seen enough "correlative causes" from politicians, "A happened because B was happening."
If you took away the promise of living longer and the antics that come along with politics, how many "correlative causes" would actually appear? Probably very few.
If you were to look into the unfathomable chain of events that guides your life, you would find a near-infinite number of "correlative causes" that will cause you to meet your doom and prove that you've been voting incorrectly.
In summary, do your best to separate what is truly a cause and not just a correlation - the world isn't so doom and gloom after all.
<end asinine assertion>
All too often we fall prey to studies and news reports that try to portray causes because of correlation: If A happened when B happened then somehow A and B have a dependency. We as a populous react on these assertions - usually without much thought. After all, we aren't all scientists. We don't have access to the data, but it sounds right... right?
There are many complexities that are out there and these "correlative causes" are designed to simplify understanding - they intend well, but they sometimes over-extend themselves. For example, not too many people would disagree that smoking greatly increases your chances of health problems.
It doesn't take one too long to scour the Internet to find some pretty interesting assertions through "correlative causes". Pets make us live longer. A glass of wine a day will make you live longer. Omega-3 fatty acids will make you live longer. If there ever was a correlation to be found from any of these things it would be that they're all focused on allowing you to live longer.
Without getting too deep into politics - we've seen enough "correlative causes" from politicians, "A happened because B was happening."
If you took away the promise of living longer and the antics that come along with politics, how many "correlative causes" would actually appear? Probably very few.
If you were to look into the unfathomable chain of events that guides your life, you would find a near-infinite number of "correlative causes" that will cause you to meet your doom and prove that you've been voting incorrectly.
In summary, do your best to separate what is truly a cause and not just a correlation - the world isn't so doom and gloom after all.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
The Curious Thing About Curious George - A Child's Insight
Chances are that if you're on Facebook - or even email - you've seen a regular feed of kids being ruthlessly cute through honesty. Kids will ask people why they're fat, why they're ugly, and why <insert insult here>. Kids will also come up with funny names for things - a child once called highway rest areas 'Pee Pee Stores'. Kids will also cry for no apparent reason... or so it seems.
If you've been around children regularly, you will see that they may cower quickly at things they don't understand, things that may scare them. They will seek shelter through an adult they trust. Kids will do this during movies at parts that aren't scary at all for adults. You will find that kids will instantly warm up to complete strangers when, most of the time, they're hopelessly shy. They are born with being highly sensitive to things they don't understand - in other words, they don't use logic at all; they simply react.
Because they do surprise parents by, for example, warming up to a select few strangers it makes one wonder if children are operating wholly on their intuition. As adults we use our intuition in situations that we don't fully understand. We let our gut tell us what to do - in part or in whole. Children are no different except they don't understand MANY situations. It would be easy to say that children are born being scared but if you've been around children you will see that they are not scared 100% of the time. Something is telling them not to be scared.
I was recently spending time with some children. We were watching Curious George (the newer series produced by Ron Howard). A three-year-old asked me if Curious George was a monkey. I said he was because everyone on the show calls him one and he looks like one. The child retorted, "But monkeys have tails. Curious George doesn't have a tail." And how about that? Curious George doesn't have a tail and monkeys, by definition, have tails. A three-year-old was able to put the pieces together that me, an adult, didn't notice.
The next time a child cowers, take note - there could be more to his/her reasoning than just being scared.
(for the record apes do not have tails and if you really want to split hairs one can point to macaques as being monkeys without tails... George doesn't resemble a macaque)
If you've been around children regularly, you will see that they may cower quickly at things they don't understand, things that may scare them. They will seek shelter through an adult they trust. Kids will do this during movies at parts that aren't scary at all for adults. You will find that kids will instantly warm up to complete strangers when, most of the time, they're hopelessly shy. They are born with being highly sensitive to things they don't understand - in other words, they don't use logic at all; they simply react.
Because they do surprise parents by, for example, warming up to a select few strangers it makes one wonder if children are operating wholly on their intuition. As adults we use our intuition in situations that we don't fully understand. We let our gut tell us what to do - in part or in whole. Children are no different except they don't understand MANY situations. It would be easy to say that children are born being scared but if you've been around children you will see that they are not scared 100% of the time. Something is telling them not to be scared.
I was recently spending time with some children. We were watching Curious George (the newer series produced by Ron Howard). A three-year-old asked me if Curious George was a monkey. I said he was because everyone on the show calls him one and he looks like one. The child retorted, "But monkeys have tails. Curious George doesn't have a tail." And how about that? Curious George doesn't have a tail and monkeys, by definition, have tails. A three-year-old was able to put the pieces together that me, an adult, didn't notice.
The next time a child cowers, take note - there could be more to his/her reasoning than just being scared.
(for the record apes do not have tails and if you really want to split hairs one can point to macaques as being monkeys without tails... George doesn't resemble a macaque)
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Blog Schedule Changes
Due to recent demands for the sequel to POLARITY, I will only have one entry per week - mostly on Wednesdays.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Goodreads.com - The Social Medium that's Here to Stay
Today's entry is found here:
https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/5848723-why-goodreads-is-a-social-medium-that-won-t-go-away
This is a little off-topic for this blog, but I felt it necessary to point all readers (and chances are that you're a reader if you read blogs) to Goodreads.com.
https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/5848723-why-goodreads-is-a-social-medium-that-won-t-go-away
This is a little off-topic for this blog, but I felt it necessary to point all readers (and chances are that you're a reader if you read blogs) to Goodreads.com.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
The Flight Attendant Who Took Down The Dictator
Vesna Vulović isn't a household name anywhere outside of the country of Serbia. She should be for two reasons.
First, in late 2000 her home country of Serbia had some serious problems - most notably with their reviled president Slobodan Milošević. After soundly losing his presidential re-election, he refused to step down. He had good reason to - he wasn't a very nice guy to say the least. He was later indicted by the UN's International Criminal Tribunal for these atrocities:
Well, that's the second reason she should be a household name. In 1972, she was a flight attendant on an airplane that disintegrated 6 miles (10 kilometers) in the air. She fell (without a parachute), landed, and sustained some serious injuries. She made a full recovery and was instantly a household name in her home country.
How did she survive? Was it a hoax? At the end of the day, the only thing that the people in Serbia would care about was that she made their lives better. She could have chosen to stay out of the public spotlight, but she didn't. It still makes one wonder how serendipitous these two amazing events were and just how much "luck" was involved.
First, in late 2000 her home country of Serbia had some serious problems - most notably with their reviled president Slobodan Milošević. After soundly losing his presidential re-election, he refused to step down. He had good reason to - he wasn't a very nice guy to say the least. He was later indicted by the UN's International Criminal Tribunal for these atrocities:
- genocide;
- complicity in genocide;
- deportation;
- murder;
- persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds;
- inhumane acts/forcible transfer;
- extermination;
- imprisonment;
- torture;
- willful killing;
- unlawful confinement;
- willfully causing great suffering;
- unlawful deportation or transfer;
- extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
- cruel treatment;
- plunder of public or private property;
- attacks on civilians;
- destruction or willful damage done to historic monuments and institutions dedicated to education or religion;
- unlawful attacks on civilian objects
Well, that's the second reason she should be a household name. In 1972, she was a flight attendant on an airplane that disintegrated 6 miles (10 kilometers) in the air. She fell (without a parachute), landed, and sustained some serious injuries. She made a full recovery and was instantly a household name in her home country.
How did she survive? Was it a hoax? At the end of the day, the only thing that the people in Serbia would care about was that she made their lives better. She could have chosen to stay out of the public spotlight, but she didn't. It still makes one wonder how serendipitous these two amazing events were and just how much "luck" was involved.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Don't Believe Everything You See... Hear... Wait, What?
Watch the following 4 second video and pay close attention to the man's mouth.
http://youtu.be/HYgIiGaJ9_g
You heard Dah Dah... Dah Dah... Dah Dah... right?
Play it again, but this time turn your head away from the screen and just listen. What did you hear?
You heard Bah Bah... Bah Bah... Bah Bah... right?
How can this be? Without going too deep into science, let's first accept the fact that this happens (well, to most people). The theory behind it is that your hearing is actually dependent upon what you see and not solely on what you hear. This is called an auditory illusion - similar to an optical illusion except the illusion is centered on what you hear. This particular illusion is called the McGurk effect. It was discovered - completely by accident - in 1976 by Harry McGurk.
1976 wasn't too long ago in the grand scheme of things. This means that mankind has been unknowingly sitting on this for thousands of years and it was right in front our faces the entire time. It makes one think: How many other illusions do we experience continuously but don't know it? This accentuates the point that you should listen to your other senses even if it isn't obvious at the time.
http://youtu.be/HYgIiGaJ9_g
 |
| http://youtu.be/HYgIiGaJ9_g |
You heard Dah Dah... Dah Dah... Dah Dah... right?
Play it again, but this time turn your head away from the screen and just listen. What did you hear?
You heard Bah Bah... Bah Bah... Bah Bah... right?
How can this be? Without going too deep into science, let's first accept the fact that this happens (well, to most people). The theory behind it is that your hearing is actually dependent upon what you see and not solely on what you hear. This is called an auditory illusion - similar to an optical illusion except the illusion is centered on what you hear. This particular illusion is called the McGurk effect. It was discovered - completely by accident - in 1976 by Harry McGurk.
1976 wasn't too long ago in the grand scheme of things. This means that mankind has been unknowingly sitting on this for thousands of years and it was right in front our faces the entire time. It makes one think: How many other illusions do we experience continuously but don't know it? This accentuates the point that you should listen to your other senses even if it isn't obvious at the time.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Do As The Animals Say And No One Will Get Hurt
Animals sense disaster, right? We've heard of all the stories of dogs barking before earthquakes, tornadoes, and the like. Are these stories true?
Here is National Geographic's take on it.
To save you some time from reading the article: Scientists don't know and they've given up on finding out.
Many animals have more keen senses than humans do. Dogs have better smell and hearing. Cats have superior night vision. Humans are better than animals at other senses (e.g., we can see better than dogs in plain light).
If you've owned pets, you may notice that sometimes they will go berserk for no apparent reason. Your dog will start barking at seemingly nothing and, more often than not, you will find whatever it was they were barking at. However over-sensitive they may appear, consider how many times that they've ever been wrong in reacting to something you didn't see, hear, or notice in any fashion? Not very often and most likely they've never been wrong - simply because we find whatever it was that bent them out of shape.
Smoke alarms alert you of fire. Carbon monoxide alarms alert you of carbon monoxide. Animals are danger alarms and they've been historically really good at it. Don't over-think it, rather, look at the results.
Here is National Geographic's take on it.
To save you some time from reading the article: Scientists don't know and they've given up on finding out.
Many animals have more keen senses than humans do. Dogs have better smell and hearing. Cats have superior night vision. Humans are better than animals at other senses (e.g., we can see better than dogs in plain light).
If you've owned pets, you may notice that sometimes they will go berserk for no apparent reason. Your dog will start barking at seemingly nothing and, more often than not, you will find whatever it was they were barking at. However over-sensitive they may appear, consider how many times that they've ever been wrong in reacting to something you didn't see, hear, or notice in any fashion? Not very often and most likely they've never been wrong - simply because we find whatever it was that bent them out of shape.
Smoke alarms alert you of fire. Carbon monoxide alarms alert you of carbon monoxide. Animals are danger alarms and they've been historically really good at it. Don't over-think it, rather, look at the results.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Your Daily Butterfly Effect
Admittedly, I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning... Or was it that I need my cup of coffee? Or I'm having a case of 'The Mondays' on a Tuesday?
Something happened this morning that is setting my backdrop for the rest of my day and it's pretty negative. What was it? I forgot something I had to mail and I didn't realize it until I got to the post office. Of course there are a multitude of other things that could have happened that are equally (or greater) annoying. It's easy to say that attitude is everything but in practice it's much harder to do. The reality is that very few of us are capable of just pressing an internal button and just letting go.
There's a bigger problem with this scenario: Most people are NOT morning people. Most people start their day with a negative disposition; they don't mean to - it's a prominent side effect of being forced to do something (i.e., get up and re-enter the daily grind) that you really don't want to. If anything - however slight - disrupts your morning process you find that you're hypersensitive to its effects.
The downside to these disruptions is that you won't be yourself until you can decompress and if something else negative happens you have a compounding effect. Your negative attitude will inevitably spread to others who, just like you, may have had a stressful morning. Finding a way to remove these stressful mornings will mean that you will be able to listen to your other senses, like intuition, more clearly - you won't have a phantom negative emotional attachment to it.
Try this: Have a plan as to how you can generically cope with negative stress in the morning. For example, if you get stuck in traffic unexpectedly have your favorite songs ready to go OR make it a plan to take a longer lunch to have some alone time OR make it a plan to find some funny videos on YouTube. You know yourself best. You know that stressful mornings will hit. Find your own way to cope with them before they hit, before it is a crisis.
Something happened this morning that is setting my backdrop for the rest of my day and it's pretty negative. What was it? I forgot something I had to mail and I didn't realize it until I got to the post office. Of course there are a multitude of other things that could have happened that are equally (or greater) annoying. It's easy to say that attitude is everything but in practice it's much harder to do. The reality is that very few of us are capable of just pressing an internal button and just letting go.
There's a bigger problem with this scenario: Most people are NOT morning people. Most people start their day with a negative disposition; they don't mean to - it's a prominent side effect of being forced to do something (i.e., get up and re-enter the daily grind) that you really don't want to. If anything - however slight - disrupts your morning process you find that you're hypersensitive to its effects.
The downside to these disruptions is that you won't be yourself until you can decompress and if something else negative happens you have a compounding effect. Your negative attitude will inevitably spread to others who, just like you, may have had a stressful morning. Finding a way to remove these stressful mornings will mean that you will be able to listen to your other senses, like intuition, more clearly - you won't have a phantom negative emotional attachment to it.
Try this: Have a plan as to how you can generically cope with negative stress in the morning. For example, if you get stuck in traffic unexpectedly have your favorite songs ready to go OR make it a plan to take a longer lunch to have some alone time OR make it a plan to find some funny videos on YouTube. You know yourself best. You know that stressful mornings will hit. Find your own way to cope with them before they hit, before it is a crisis.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Do You Really Believe Everything You See?
Optical illusions are fun but they also have an indirect, yet deep philosophical point to make: Don't always trust what you see. Perhaps the most common - and unintentional - fact that humans ignore is that optical illusions occur in our everyday lives. The optical illusions that you see in print have two important aspects. First, you are told it is an optical illusion. Second, the optical illusion is optimized to demonstrate its illusion.
Who is holding who? If I didn't tell you this was an optical illusion, what would you think of it? There has to be some trickery, right? Below is the same picture, but I've traced where the child's face is; he's being held by a man whose face is on the right side of the red line, serving as a well-blended backdrop for the child's face. The child's face also traces out as if it was a shadow on the man's face.
.jpg)
The point is that you have very valuable senses, such as sight; however, those sense aren't always telling the truth and there's nothing you can do about it. You will experience optical illusions like this all of the time and most of the time you won't even know about. The next time your "intuition" tells you something different than what another sense is telling you, consider listening to it.
Source (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Scintillating_grid.jpg)
The graphic above is an optical illusion; there are white dots at every intersection but you can only see the white dots that you're looking directly at. What if you weren't told that you were looking at an illusion? What about the photo below?
Source (http://www.moillusions.com/oldboy-optical-illusion.html/kid-dad-op-ill/)
Who is holding who? If I didn't tell you this was an optical illusion, what would you think of it? There has to be some trickery, right? Below is the same picture, but I've traced where the child's face is; he's being held by a man whose face is on the right side of the red line, serving as a well-blended backdrop for the child's face. The child's face also traces out as if it was a shadow on the man's face.
The point is that you have very valuable senses, such as sight; however, those sense aren't always telling the truth and there's nothing you can do about it. You will experience optical illusions like this all of the time and most of the time you won't even know about. The next time your "intuition" tells you something different than what another sense is telling you, consider listening to it.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Be Careless Or Paranoid?
How many times have you left home without locking your front door? The odds are typically very low that someone will try to open it, so why would you do it? You could probably go for the rest of your life without ever locking your front door and never have your home entered by an unwanted person. The odds are so low that you could be labeled paranoid for locking your front door. However, the label of 'paranoid' quickly shifts to 'careless' once someone does. Imagine just how extreme the label of paranoid goes for those with uber security systems...
We are frequently faced with decisions in life that have extraordinary low probabilities of ever happening BUT have dire consequences if they do. You have a decision of being labeled as paranoid or careless. And, if your paranoia pays off, then you can also be upgraded to 'smart' or even 'genius' - consider a neighbor saying they saw someone trying to enter your home... especially if you had that uber security system. Hindsight has the amazing power to make paranoia become wisdom.
I carry band-aids with me whenever I travel. Once, while on travel, a colleague of mine noticed the band-aids. He thought it was a little over-the-top. He poked fun at me for an hour straight; he had time because we were on a three hour drive. Just when it was starting to get really really really old, he reached to scratch his ankle. His arm brushed against a sharp edge on the center console, causing a three-inch long gash. All of my band-aids were used. He was quiet for about 20 minutes - upon which he said, "I deserved that."
It is always better to be labeled paranoid before the fact than careless after the fact.
We are frequently faced with decisions in life that have extraordinary low probabilities of ever happening BUT have dire consequences if they do. You have a decision of being labeled as paranoid or careless. And, if your paranoia pays off, then you can also be upgraded to 'smart' or even 'genius' - consider a neighbor saying they saw someone trying to enter your home... especially if you had that uber security system. Hindsight has the amazing power to make paranoia become wisdom.
I carry band-aids with me whenever I travel. Once, while on travel, a colleague of mine noticed the band-aids. He thought it was a little over-the-top. He poked fun at me for an hour straight; he had time because we were on a three hour drive. Just when it was starting to get really really really old, he reached to scratch his ankle. His arm brushed against a sharp edge on the center console, causing a three-inch long gash. All of my band-aids were used. He was quiet for about 20 minutes - upon which he said, "I deserved that."
It is always better to be labeled paranoid before the fact than careless after the fact.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Can't Remember What Happened Yesterday?
It seems that whatever we want to remember we aren't very good at and whatever we don't want to remember (or don't intend to) we seem to be very good at. Your most intense memories are usually those of when you were growing up - a special birthday, your first date, your bully, your first broken bone, etc. Once we hit adulthood it seems the days go by slow and the years go by fast. If you are an adult reading this blog, what do you remember most about the last 100 days? Last 10 days? Yesterday? Don't make a list of things you probably did, rather, what specifically - in detail - do you remember?
If you were given a list of a hundred random numbers, how many could you remember if you had an hour to memorize them? That would be a chore... a very boring chore.
We remember most things - without trying - when there are more senses involved (i.e., sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell). Memorizing a list of numbers is just using sight whereas your first date would involve the sight of your date, the sound of their voice, the touch of holding hands, the smell of perfume/cologne, and the taste of dinner. This is true for things we don't want to remember; for example, a bloody car accident. This would involve the sight of the horror, the sound of the pains, perhaps the smell of fuel, and the touch of trying to help someone who's hurt. The retention of a memory is stronger when it is new because it hits these senses in a more profound way.
There are other senses beyond the traditional five that could be involved - such as a sense of humor. Things that are funny tend to stick in our memories better. A sense of danger is another one. How many times can you recall getting an eerie feeling about NOT doing something?
The next time that you wonder where all of the years went, why not try to make memories of future years instead? Make it a point to immerse yourself in situations that would involve stroking as many senses as possible in new ways. The old advice of find a hobby or try new things is absolutely true - and it isn't a matter of finding a new way to be bored. It is true that you have to find ways to mix it up. When you were younger everything was new. As you get older that slows down dramatically, but it's up to you to do something about it.
If you were given a list of a hundred random numbers, how many could you remember if you had an hour to memorize them? That would be a chore... a very boring chore.
We remember most things - without trying - when there are more senses involved (i.e., sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell). Memorizing a list of numbers is just using sight whereas your first date would involve the sight of your date, the sound of their voice, the touch of holding hands, the smell of perfume/cologne, and the taste of dinner. This is true for things we don't want to remember; for example, a bloody car accident. This would involve the sight of the horror, the sound of the pains, perhaps the smell of fuel, and the touch of trying to help someone who's hurt. The retention of a memory is stronger when it is new because it hits these senses in a more profound way.
There are other senses beyond the traditional five that could be involved - such as a sense of humor. Things that are funny tend to stick in our memories better. A sense of danger is another one. How many times can you recall getting an eerie feeling about NOT doing something?
The next time that you wonder where all of the years went, why not try to make memories of future years instead? Make it a point to immerse yourself in situations that would involve stroking as many senses as possible in new ways. The old advice of find a hobby or try new things is absolutely true - and it isn't a matter of finding a new way to be bored. It is true that you have to find ways to mix it up. When you were younger everything was new. As you get older that slows down dramatically, but it's up to you to do something about it.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Head or Tails? It Depends...
We've all gone through school or have heard somewhere that flipping a coin gives an equal chance to land on heads or tails. Many sport matches begin with a coin flip. Some elections are decided by a coin flip. If you flipped a coin and got heads ten times in row, that would be very luck; the math would actually say you'd have a 1 in 1023 chance of making that happen.
There are many things in life that you can attribute to luck, to chance. When it comes to flipping coins, don't count on it. The weight of coins isn't distributed equally - most notably is the U.S. penny. When it comes to flipping a penny, studies have shown that heads does come up more often. Moreover, if you were to spin the penny on a table, it would rest with its tails-side up about 80% of the time.
http://mathtourist.blogspot.com/2011/02/penny-bias.html
There are many lucky instances in life that are difficult to attribute to a line of logic. Flipping coins isn't one of them. It wasn't luck. It was simple physics.
If you wanted to see an example of an election decided by a coin flip:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/oddnews/town%E2%80%99s-mayoral-election-decided-by-coin-toss-223602840.html
There are many things in life that you can attribute to luck, to chance. When it comes to flipping coins, don't count on it. The weight of coins isn't distributed equally - most notably is the U.S. penny. When it comes to flipping a penny, studies have shown that heads does come up more often. Moreover, if you were to spin the penny on a table, it would rest with its tails-side up about 80% of the time.
http://mathtourist.blogspot.com/2011/02/penny-bias.html
There are many lucky instances in life that are difficult to attribute to a line of logic. Flipping coins isn't one of them. It wasn't luck. It was simple physics.
If you wanted to see an example of an election decided by a coin flip:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/oddnews/town%E2%80%99s-mayoral-election-decided-by-coin-toss-223602840.html
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Beyond the Sixth Sense
Sight, touch, taste, hearing, smell, and that "ability to see dead people thanks to that 1999 movie starring Bruce Willis and Haley Joel Osment" - these are the senses we are most familiar with. It's interesting to note that after all of these years in existence mankind can only come up with five senses that are found in textbooks. After all, we all have a sense of humor, a sense of reason, a sense of romance, and so on. Some of us make no sense at all.
Why do we only acknowledge five? The short answer is because sight, touch, taste, hearing, and smell have three qualities. First, they can be measured by scientists. Yes, each of those sense have some unit of measurement. Second, they are repeatable - scientists can reliably give a stimulus for the sense and get a response. Third, they require no effort on your part; they just happen automatically. If a sense has those three qualities then it becomes an official sense. This why your sense of humor didn't make the cut: there isn't a unit of measure for it, not all jokes are funny, and if a joke requires too much thinking then it probably wasn't funny anyway.
Is this fair? We've all had that sense of foreboding, that sense that we shouldn't go somewhere or open a door. We've all had a sense of connecting with someone inexplicably. None of these senses require effort; they just happen. Reproducing that sense scientifically is nigh impossible (so far) and coming up with a unit of measure seems just as impossible - however, we all still have this sense. This sense does exist and it isn't acknowledged because science can't wrap its hands around it. Science has more homework to do.
Why do we only acknowledge five? The short answer is because sight, touch, taste, hearing, and smell have three qualities. First, they can be measured by scientists. Yes, each of those sense have some unit of measurement. Second, they are repeatable - scientists can reliably give a stimulus for the sense and get a response. Third, they require no effort on your part; they just happen automatically. If a sense has those three qualities then it becomes an official sense. This why your sense of humor didn't make the cut: there isn't a unit of measure for it, not all jokes are funny, and if a joke requires too much thinking then it probably wasn't funny anyway.
Is this fair? We've all had that sense of foreboding, that sense that we shouldn't go somewhere or open a door. We've all had a sense of connecting with someone inexplicably. None of these senses require effort; they just happen. Reproducing that sense scientifically is nigh impossible (so far) and coming up with a unit of measure seems just as impossible - however, we all still have this sense. This sense does exist and it isn't acknowledged because science can't wrap its hands around it. Science has more homework to do.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Déjà Vu is for the Blind, Too
Most of us have experienced déjà vu within the past year. It's generally described as seeing a small set of events unfold that you swear you've seen before. The events are usually insignificant, somewhat difficult to describe, and are very fleeting. It has been a long-standing belief that déjà vu is caused by a delay between the eyes and the brain - in other words, déjà vu hinges on being able to see.
Several years ago it was reported that the blind experience déjà vu as well: http://www.livescience.com/1160-blind-man-deja-vu-busting-myth.html
This effectively reset all previous research in déjà vu, causing it to start from scratch again. Quite literally years of research went out the door. What makes déjà vu interesting from a research point of view is that it's commonplace, but it's also very random. Researchers can't catch that moment when it happens. It makes one wonder that if the researchers themselves didn't experience déjà vu then they would probably label it as a minor psychotic episode.
Take that last sentence in for a moment. Real research on déjà vu exists solely because the researchers will experience it, too. The next time something amazing happens - that only you experience - don't write it off as something random or something that didn't happen. There are too many abilities that we have that no one fully understands.
Several years ago it was reported that the blind experience déjà vu as well: http://www.livescience.com/1160-blind-man-deja-vu-busting-myth.html
This effectively reset all previous research in déjà vu, causing it to start from scratch again. Quite literally years of research went out the door. What makes déjà vu interesting from a research point of view is that it's commonplace, but it's also very random. Researchers can't catch that moment when it happens. It makes one wonder that if the researchers themselves didn't experience déjà vu then they would probably label it as a minor psychotic episode.
Take that last sentence in for a moment. Real research on déjà vu exists solely because the researchers will experience it, too. The next time something amazing happens - that only you experience - don't write it off as something random or something that didn't happen. There are too many abilities that we have that no one fully understands.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
One in Nine Million
I was recently on travel to New York City to attend a conference. Determined to keep focus on my work, I vowed to keep to the conference and my hotel room. I kept to fast food to keep within my budget and to, well, make it fast.
At the end of a long day I stepped into a McDonald's to get a bite to eat. The line was hideously long so I went to the diner next door. I was seated in a small booth and perused the menu. Out of the corner of my eye I noticed a man standing nearby, looking down at me. I looked up and instantly recognized him: a childhood friend that I hadn't seen in at least twelve years. I knew he had moved to New York at some time in the past but that's about all I knew.
We spent the next few hours catching up. He revealed to me some tough times he was going through. Out of respect for his privacy I won't provide details. He needed to make some changes and he wasn't sure how to start. I recommended that he just simply... start; don't let the "cancer" grow another day. He did exactly that and turned his life around.
New York City has roughly nine million people living in its confines. To think that I randomly came across my friend among all of these people at a seemingly random point in time isastounding comforting.
At the end of a long day I stepped into a McDonald's to get a bite to eat. The line was hideously long so I went to the diner next door. I was seated in a small booth and perused the menu. Out of the corner of my eye I noticed a man standing nearby, looking down at me. I looked up and instantly recognized him: a childhood friend that I hadn't seen in at least twelve years. I knew he had moved to New York at some time in the past but that's about all I knew.
We spent the next few hours catching up. He revealed to me some tough times he was going through. Out of respect for his privacy I won't provide details. He needed to make some changes and he wasn't sure how to start. I recommended that he just simply... start; don't let the "cancer" grow another day. He did exactly that and turned his life around.
New York City has roughly nine million people living in its confines. To think that I randomly came across my friend among all of these people at a seemingly random point in time is
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
The (Near) Deadly Drive
A short time ago I was visiting friends in Orlando, Florida. One morning we decided to make a quick drive to Tampa - about 90 minutes on Interstate 4. As we were getting in the car to leave, a friend noticed a nickel on the ground. He swiped it up and joked about how rich it would make him. We all laughed for a few seconds and finally got in the car. We never thought that the nickel would save our lives.
Interstate 4 has three lanes in each direction. Traffic during this time of day was generally manageable and speeds would easily hit the 70 mph speed limit. We kept in the middle lane - we didn't want to speed in the left lane and we didn't want to go too slow in the right lane. Suddenly the left lane came to a stop.
"There's gonna be an accident," we all said in unison.
A minivan in the left lane slammed on its brakes, barely missing the car in front of it. A truck behind the minivan wasn't as fortunate; it slammed its brakes and turned hard to the left to miss the minivan in front of it. It ended up clipping the far left bumper of the minivan. This caused the minivan to shoot across the middle lane - literally right in front of us as we drove by - and into the far right lane. As soon as it made it to the right lane, it was broadsided by a tractor trailer. As we drove by I could see the face of the poor woman driving the minivan. Luckily the tractor trailer hit the back half of it. We didn't see any other passengers and no child seats.
If the nickel was not found then we wouldn't have paused to laugh for a couple of seconds. If the nickel was not found then the minivan would have collided with us and pushed us into the right lane where we would have been broad-sided. Our car would have been crushed.
The chains of events that occur around us, however small, are all important.
Interstate 4 has three lanes in each direction. Traffic during this time of day was generally manageable and speeds would easily hit the 70 mph speed limit. We kept in the middle lane - we didn't want to speed in the left lane and we didn't want to go too slow in the right lane. Suddenly the left lane came to a stop.
"There's gonna be an accident," we all said in unison.
A minivan in the left lane slammed on its brakes, barely missing the car in front of it. A truck behind the minivan wasn't as fortunate; it slammed its brakes and turned hard to the left to miss the minivan in front of it. It ended up clipping the far left bumper of the minivan. This caused the minivan to shoot across the middle lane - literally right in front of us as we drove by - and into the far right lane. As soon as it made it to the right lane, it was broadsided by a tractor trailer. As we drove by I could see the face of the poor woman driving the minivan. Luckily the tractor trailer hit the back half of it. We didn't see any other passengers and no child seats.
If the nickel was not found then we wouldn't have paused to laugh for a couple of seconds. If the nickel was not found then the minivan would have collided with us and pushed us into the right lane where we would have been broad-sided. Our car would have been crushed.
The chains of events that occur around us, however small, are all important.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)