Your cleverly casual profile picture is totally unhelpful. Seriously.

I'm not one to lecture people away from being "down to earth" or "casual and friendly," but lately I've been itching to tell people who have "cutesie" profile pictures that it's probably not a good idea. You know, the picture of them and their wife, or their boyfriend, or dog, or the college rugby team. 

Such a small thing, you say. What is the problem with this?

Nothing at all, if the profile picture was going to be viewed only by people who already know them. But it's not. These days you have to account for the following harsh truth: something you put out there for one group, and with one purpose, will probably be seen by an entirely different set of people, and used in a way you hadn't contemplated.

Let me give you an example.

My iPhone's contact list pulls data from, among other places, Facebook. The profile pictures that accompany most of the people in my address book come, in many cases, from Facebook. I can't say for sure where they come from exactly, but I know that the pictures are chosen by the contact person themselves and not by me.

Let's say I need to send contact information from my contact list to a new business prospect. My usual routine is to send a vCard by email from my iPhone. I tend to do that very quickly without thinking much about it. So I probably wouldn't notice that my old friend has a weird profile picture. Which means that's what might show up when I send the business prospect the vCard.

Maybe it won't matter you say, if you're one of those who wants to keep your cute profile picture. Maybe it won't. But maybe you haven't thought about all the ways that your profile picture will be used in scenarios you hadn't contemplated.

I like to keep things simple. A profile picture should let people know what you look like so they can remember you, or know who to look for when you meet for the first time in a coffee shop or other public place. A profile picture shouldn't be stuffy and formal, but it shouldn't be so casual that it sacrifices some other desirable aspect. There is nothing wrong with a nice close up of your face, taken in a casual setting. 

But a profile picture of you with your four best friends from high school isn't going to help me remember you or find you in a crowded coffee shop. Just saying'...

How can we improve social media reviews of hotels?

I came to New York to help my daughter get set up in Brooklyn, where she’ll be going to college for her last year. I decided to stay at a Hotel Indigo, which is not “officially open” but got pretty good Yelp reviews. I have been taking notes so that I can post my own Yelp review, and at the same time I’ve been pondering what would I like to see in a Yelp review?

Many reviewers simply provide a narrative of their bad or good experiences, without any attempt at a coherent overview. Since I’ve been thinking about it in a deeper-than-usual way, here are some things I think belong in a hotel review:

  • What is the signal strength of your cell carrier like? For example, I get great LTE coverage at my hotel when I’m in my 14 floor room, but no LTE coverage in the 2nd floor lounge. My carrier is Verizon; others would want to know what AT&T’s signal is like (ditto T-Mobile etc.)
  • What’s the exercise room like (what equipment etc)? I have taken a couple of pictures of the exercise room on my iPhone and will post those with my review. I took pictures not just of the equipment, but also the bookcase that has yoga mats, hand weights and towels, so that people can get an idea of those small amenities.
  • What are the other common areas like? Is the Wi-Fi good? Is the lounge area enjoyable to hang out in, or are there TVs blaring noise and kids running amok?
  • What was room rate did you pay? I am paying $109/night because I’m staying at the Indigo for 4 nights. Perhaps the fact that it’s not “officially open” is a factor. It’s January and not a busy time, so that’s definitely a factor. So it’d be nice if people said (1) what rate they paid; (2) how they got that rate, and if it was a busy time for the property.
  • Do the rooms have convenient electrical outlets for charging phones, computers, tablets etc? What features show that the hotel operators have upgraded to make the place “tech-friendly”? The Indigo, for example, has an alarm clock that lets you charge your iPhone or iPod and play music through the speaker. They also have really crisp HD channels on their ultra-sleek flat screen TVs.

Things I don’t really want to hear much about are problems that aren’t likely to come up often, like your room wasn’t ready on time and you had to wait 30 minutes. It’s fine if people mention those things in passing because it is a flag that can be compared with other reviewers who mention the same thing. But making small annoyances the centerpiece of a hotel review are low value to others.

Bottom line: we can all probably do a better job of reviewing places if we think about things more from the perspective of what future visitors might appreciate knowing. What kinds of things might those be? I don’t have a definitive answer. Perhaps your comments below would be helpful in figuring that out.

What's harder to cover: politics or sports?

Nate Silver is a sensible guy, and his analysis of political polls is now pretty much legendary. His 538 blog is now part of the New York Times, and focusing mostly on political polls and trends. But Silver knows a lot about gambling and sports betting in general, having made lots of money in poker tournaments and also having been a Baseball Sabermetrics aficionado.

In a recent Reddit interview (by anyone who logged in and asked him questions) the following wonderful Q&A occurred.

Q.  Which do you find more frustrating to analyze, politics or sports?

A.  Politics. I don't think its close. Between the pundits and the partisans, you're dealing with a lot of very delusional people. And sports provides for much more frequent reality checks. If you were touting how awesome Notre Dame was, for example*, you got very much slapped back into reality last night. In politics, you can go on being delusional for years at a time.

Full disclosure: I said in a NYT video yesterday that I'd bet Notre Dame against the spread.

Yeah, that is pretty much how I feel too. It's sad when you have to confront the basic limitations of humans operating in a so-called "civilized world."

Is social media useful in negotiations?

 

I often try to persuade lawyers and business professionals that social media is useful. I downplay the fact that social media is mostly used for random daily life observations; I emphasize that it’s a great research tool for investigative purposes.

Turns out, the trivial discussions can be helpful in negotiations. And this is a scientifically proven principle.

First, let’s review Twitter. Watch this excellent explanation of Twitter in Plain English by Lee Lefever of CommonCraft. He emphasizes the part that I’ve long downplayed—namely, that Twitter is a way to learn more about the people you know.

In the 2 minute video we are told that Carla didn’t know, until she started using Twitter, that her friend Steve in Seattle was a baseball fan. She didn’t know that Julia in London was reading a new investment book. And, until she started posting to Twitter, most of her friends didn’t know she had developed a passion for the music of Van Halen.

So what in the hell does this have to do with negotiation? The specifics of what Carla, Steve and Julia like has nothing to do with negotiation. But what if Carla and Steve didn’t know each other? And what if they were able to uncover a little about each other via social media tools like LinkedIn or Twitter?

How might that influence their email negotiation if they had to hammer out a deal? According to the principles of persuasion identified by Robert Cialdini, it might lower the chances of a deadlock from 30% to 6%. Cialdini is the Regents’ Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Marketing at Arizona State University. He is also the author of the book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, a best-selling book that scientifically identified core principles of persuasion.

I recently had the chance to listen to him on a podcast with Dan Pink (author of To Sell is Human). In the podcast he cited a study that showed the importance of making small talk before engaging in a negotiation. Westerns tend to think this is unnecessary and inefficient (I would have been one of them). In fact, small talk not only helps build rapport, but also helps the participants identify similarities and common interests.

The study showed that email negotiations resulted in only 6% deadlocked situations when small talk and trivial information exchange happened first. That’s down from 30% without the trivial preliminaries.

The study didn’t involve social media. But obviously social media helps you understand (via seemingly unimportant trivia) what other people are interested in. And, if Cialdini is right (and he’s got data to back up his claims, so odds are he is) then it’s easy to see how social media can help fuel the kind of preliminary discussion that, in turn, leads to successful negotiations.

A surprisingly easy way eat healthy and lose excess weight

Two years ago [I wrote about my experiment][eta] with trying [The Master Cleanse][master], which is a radical way to lose weight and/or cleanse your digestive system. As I said back then, I did it on a whim but learned a few useful things. Such as:

* Most of my unhealthy eating habits were based on mental cravings.
* My body knows what it needs, and if I supply it then the cravings go away.
* Eating healthy foods requires more thought because there are less "fast food" options for healthy food, and 99% of the advertising and marketing is for crappy food.

The problem for me was that, while I learned those lessons on the Master Cleanse diet, I didn’t learn how to incorporate healthy eating into my life. So I quickly returned to my bad habits. And my weight kept creeping upwards.

I happened upon Kathy Freston’s interview on Charlie Rose a few weeks ago, and heard her talk about her book The Lean. The idea is that to make a real shift towards healthy eating you have to “lean” into it. The name of the book is based on that principle. I got the book and started applying the principles, and found it incredibly easy to do (unlike The Master Cleanse).

Every day you do something new and healthy, only after reading Freston’s explanation of why the new thing is healthy and helpful. Freston is an excellent writer; the book is devoid of the usual stern finger-wagging. She imparts good information that’s easy to incorporate and she’s often funny in describing the process.

For example, Day 1 is about drinking 8 glasses of water. Day 2 inspires you to eat a hearty breakfast (something like steel cut oats with walnuts). Day 3 is about learning to eat one apple every day. Then Day 4 you learn to snack on nuts instead of junk food. Those four things were enough for me to make the shift.

After a week of basically doing those four things I lost my cravings for junk food and sodas. I don’t even crave meat, which is weird because I loved meat and couldn’t imagine ever giving it up completely. My weight is dropping, but not quickly. Which is fine since I can see that I’m learning how to keep it off, so once it’s down to the right level it’s likely to stay there.

In addition to reading The Lean, I also read The China Study. This book was brought to my attention by a Wall St. executive whose youngest daughter read it. She became a vegan after learning about the importance of nutrition in avoiding major health problems such as heart disease and cancer. The Wall St. dad is not the sort of fellow to lightly take up the vegan lifestyle, but the book convinced him to go vegan. So, I was curious enough to read it (it was referenced once or twice in Kathy Freston’s book). The book is easy to read, but will shock you. Fortunately, I had already made significant changes to my food intake. If I hadn’t read The China Study I’d probably be tempted to go back to eating meat once in awhile.

Some people will dismiss these books and the information that they put forth. I probably would have too, except that having done The Master Cleanse I was made aware of what it feels like to be free of mental food cravings. Our minds are the ultimate gate-keeper when it comes to new information. Right now, my body is telling me what it likes. Weirdly, meat and cheese aren’t on the list.

I have no doubt that nutrition plays a pivotal role in personal health, more so than genetics and environmental factors. Food is our staple fuel, and if you put bad fuel into your engine for twenty or forty years, it’s going to have a corrosive effect. The number of overweight Americans is staggering (66%), and steadily rising. Obesity is at 33% of the population, and that’s rising too.

I was bordering on being overweight. And this despite doing yoga regularly. Why? Because I was steadily consuming a lot of bad fuel. That’s changed without a lot of effort and in a very short time.

Now, I feel as good as I’ve ever felt in my life. And the only thing I’ve had to do is pay attention to what I eat and make strategic shifts towards different foods. The shift isn’t hard because there are lots of good foods that are healthy and taste good. Will I never again eat a piece of meat or partake of dairy products? No, but it won’t be a common occurrence. I don’t crave things any more, so it’s been amazingly easy to drop the unhealthy stuff.

What I crave is being healthy and feeling good. And now I’ve found a way to satisfy that craving.

Are you suffering from too much information? Here's a quick, simple cure

Everyone talks about "information overload" as though it's an unavoidable problem of our modern society. Too much information is out there and it's coming at us faster than we can digest it. Few people ask: how much of that information is meaningful to me, and how can I filter out the stuff I don't find useful?

Clay Shirky astutely points out that what have have isn't "information overload," but rather "filter failure." We've had more information being produced than any one human could consume in a lifetime for centuries. So, the question isn't "how much information is out there?" but instead: how much of it do we want (or need) to consume?

If you don't want meaningless information to cloud your life then learn how to filter. Start by examining all of the information sources you access (e.g. TV, radio, print media, Internet etc.). Which programs and information sources are you accessing out of mindless habit? Which ones are delivering interesting and useful information that you tend to act on?

Next time you watch a local TV news broadcast and they're blabbering about some misfortune that happened to someone who lives across town that you don't know, ask yourself: is this information actionable? That is, how will it help you in a specific way?

The answer is it probably won't. Most news is really just mindless gossip. And the weird thing is many of us pay attention to this gossip even though we don't know the people involved. It's like that experiment where they put soap operas on a TV in a cage full of monkeys and guess what? Yeah, the monkeys started watching the soap operas.

Do monkeys need to watch soap operas about another species? Is this relevant to their lives? Will it help them forage for food? No, but if you are stuck in a cage and bored you'll watch anything.

You're probably not stuck in a cage, and yet you might be letting a lot of useless information into your life. If so, then don't complain that you are suffering from information overload. Filter out the useless junk. You'd be surprised how much of it there is.

Eating healthier (and losing weight) the easy way

About two years ago I tried a radical "diet" called The Master Cleanse, which was, indeed, quite radical. Somehow I managed to complete the 10 day program, and that led to some major insights about my food intake, and how compulsive most of it was.

The Master Cleanse is interesting, and I'm glad I did it, but I'll never do it again and I can't recommend it to anyone who wants to make a lasting healthy change in their diet. It's too radical, and too hard.

The other day I saw Kathy Freston on Charlie Rose, and she was talking about her new book The Lean, which is about how to make a gradual shift into healthier food choices. I liked what she had to say, and I was already aware (from my Master Cleanse experience) that my body doesn't really want most of the junk that I tend to feed it.

So I bought the book and have started her 30 day program, which is easy and already is making me feel better. The first step is so easy, and yet so powerful. Weird how giving your body most of what it needs restores balance quickly.

I'll let you know how I fare with the whole 30 day program, but I can see that if you just do the first 3 things over 3 days you'll be making a significant shift. Did I mention how easy this program is? I'm all about making a good change that's easy.

The insidious harm of human habit

We’re all creatures of habit, not just in the way we act. Our thoughts are shaped heavily by habit as well, and there are studies that show that more than 50% of our thoughts (which means our problem-solving) are shaped by deeply ingrained patterns. So when we encounter a new problem we’re almost always trying to find the solution based on a pattern we already know.

Thinking in new ways is hard for us, or so say the psychologists and cognitive scientists who study the human brain.

My sense is that this ingrained “pattern thinking” was fine when we were hunter-gatherers and the world was less chaotic than it is now that we’ve got technology spewing out all over the place. Technology is making everything different at a much faster pace. Using old thought patterns for problems created by technology isn’t a trivial issue. Especially, since our social groups are much larger and the nation-states that these groups identify with.

I’ve been reading a lot about how habits constrain human thought, and it explains a lot of our struggles. What’s weird is how oblivious the majority of us are to this insidious problem. It could make for a really interesting (and enlightening) TV news feature. But mass media is the beneficiary of some of the most useless mind-habits, so I’m not sure they’ll really probe very far when they do stories on this.

Changing any kind of habit is challenging. You have to make a dedicated and continuous effort for at least 21 days, which sounds easy, but apparently isn’t. Changing your mental habits probably doesn’t take any longer, but it involves using the mechanism that makes decisions to do it.

Is it possible to change one’s self-image for example? If you think of yourself as weak and unattractive, can you alter that self-image in 21 days? Most people would say no, or be very skeptical. And most people would not even try. The problem with self-defeating mental habits is that you have to ignore all the thoughts that plant seeds of doubt; and the hardest ones to ignore are the ones you create internally.

Meditation is one way to create some “space” where you can begin to take control of your thoughts, but there are other ways too. I’ve read first hand accounts of famous people who say they’ve done it, and that it changed their lives. I’ve known non-famous people who’ve said they were able to do it.

Is it possible for you? You can either trust the doubters or you can strive to create a belief that something that “seems” unlikely is actually quite possible. Which word do you like better? Yes or no.

Backing away (slightly) from being paperless

Handwritten stuff is helpful (and I say this despite being a “paperless fanatic”

I’ve been completely paperless for a really long time? How long? Since roughly 11110101001 or since about 1984 if you don’t speak digital. My life is almost completely devoid of paper. I reached a point where the only paper that came into my life was mail delivered through a door slot (where my terrier Buddy would then promptly shred it with his teeth).

Recently, however, I’ve taken to purchasing paper and writing on paper notebooks. I embarked on this process somewhat tentatively, mostly experimenting to see if it was helpful or detrimental. Short answer: it helps greatly in certain kinds of thinking and task management.

I first became curious about revisiting paper when I noticed that several serious techies that I read (follow or otherwise pay attention to) were talking about their Moleskines or their Field Notes. It was hard to get used to the idea of using paper for important ideas, but eventually it clicked. Once I “got it” things started to tumble into place.

I found that incubating ideas was easier, and more productive, when I used paper. Reviewing those ideas (at least the embryonic ones) seemed easier by using paper. There just seems to be something about putting pen to paper that lets ideas come out more readily. Is it because that’s our brains work? Or is it because that’s how the brains of people like me work (e.g. those who learned to write in cursive and have done so for many years)?

This article sheds some light I suppose, but the main proof for me is that using paper seems to enable a certain kind of expressiveness. True, I quickly get nervous if I accumulate too much paper. But I know how to deal with that problem easily, so I am keenly aware of when to shift things over to the digital realm.

One thing that I’ve found works best with paper is planning my day, and keeping track of things. I use Omnifocus to organize my to-dos, and other tools to capture general information (e.g. Notational Velocity and Evernote). Omnifocus is my “can’t live without it” resource for managing my tasks, and it syncs to all my devices. But I’ve learned to shift away from it in the daily planning.

I use Omnifocus to quickly review my list, but when it comes to planning my day I use a plain old to-do list. At first I used a simple notebook, but I recently discovered these tools and they’re even better. Bottom line: for me, writing things down and then keeping track of my daily list is more satisfying when done with paper.

I wonder if that’s true for other digirati who have managed to become largely paperless?

Louisiana's rule re: service of process on attorneys is proof that alien invaders would kick our butts

The other day I got a call from a civil sheriff who wants to serve me with some papers. These are motion papers I received in PDF form weeks ago. What’s more, the papers don’t directly involve my client. It’s nice to keep informed of these ancillary proceedings, but I don’t need the sheriff’s office to deploy men to help me do this. Remember: I already have the PDF copy of the motion, which came to me via The Internet.

The problem I’m describing is required by Louisiana rules of procedure. The rule made sense before the wide-spread adoption of fax machines, email, and the Internet. We may still need sheriffs to serve subpoenas on non-attorneys. But attorneys are officers of the court and requiring sheriffs to serve pleadings on them is needlessly cumbersome and expensive.

Why do we keep doing it?

Answer: because it creates work for sheriffs. And the sheriffs know how to lobby their local legislators to make sure that work doesn’t dry up. If it weren’t for that the rule would have been changed a long time ago. Remember this the next time you hear someone say we live in a “civilized society.” Truth is, many people like things the old fashioned way: inefficient is fine as long as it helps them.

And the next time you see a movie about aliens invading the earth to do us harm remember this: if this ever really happened we’d have no shot. We aren’t even trying solving the obvious problems that technology can help us with. What chance would we have against an advanced race that has solved the mind-boggling problem of inter-stellar travel?

None. Zero. Zilch.

George Carlin on humans & agendas

George Carlin was not only funny, but also keenly incisive about human nature:

"I love human beings one at a time. Individuals are fine, but then they get into groups. And then they have an agenda—which is usually to do something to other people."

Politicians are mildly bearable one at time. But when they get into groups (e.g. legislatures, or Congress) and the mischief starts. Dangle money, power and fame in front of them and it gets horrible. I recommend you get this book and read pages 61 and 62 if you want to eavesdrop on how it works.

3 tips to reduce noise & simplify a complex world

  1. Look for simple, but valuable, information inputs. If you want to improve your eating habits easily read Michael Pollan’s book Food Rules. If you want to learn how to communicate better (and get tuned into marketing in the social media world) read Seth Godin’s weblog. Find more books and websites like these.
  2. Filter out the simplistic and low-value information sources: mainstream media such as network news or CNN. Try watching Charlie Rose and The Daily Show for a week instead of watching any traditional news and see how that feels. Notice how many interesting new books you’ll learn of by watching these shows (one of which is a “comedy show”).
  3. Learn to communicate in new, more effective ways: read Dan Roam’s book The Back of The Napkin, or Guy Kawasaki’s Enchantment.

What did my dad do for a living? For a long time it was a big mystery

When I was six years old the teacher made the kids in the class all stand up and say what our dads did for a living. I remember the moment because it was deeply embarrassing: I didn’t know. I knew that no one else’s dad did anything like what my dad did, and that my dad wasn’t allowed to talk about what he did. If I had known what I spy was I would have guessed that.

Turns out he was a psychoanalyst.

My friends were dying to know what he did, and they asked lots of questions. I had no answers. There were no TV shows with psychoanalysts, and psychoanalysis wasn’t ever even mentioned in passing. So without popular culture to help, I was forced to gather my own clues.

On weekends my dad would take me to his office when he did paperwork. The office was weirdly dark, and it had a couch that was more like a bed. There was a large box of Kleenex on the table next to it. I was afraid to ask why the couch was there. Who had sleeping couches in their offices?

Around the time I was ten I started scanning the books on my dad’s library for more clues; there were some blue bound volumes by Sigmund Freud that caught my eye. I hated reading most of what was assigned to me in school, and this looked much more daunting, but I was obsessed with figuring out what my dad was doing. One book had the word “jokes” in the title, so I grabbed it and started skimming. The jokes weren't that funny, and Freud took too long to explain them. But I was amazed by one thing: Freud was sort of comprehensible.

My dad obviously wasn’t telling his patients jokes, so I opened another volume. I discovered that Freud seemed fixated on sex. Why would anyone write about sex in a medical book? Freud's discussions of sex (and sexual fantasies) were even more tedious than his explanation of jokes. So, I gave up; the search for useful information about my dad came to a dead end.

A year later, when I was about eleven years old, I caught a lucky break. My dad left some folders on the foyer table. One folder was labelled “A patient case study.” Inside the folder was a name of a person and then an initial. Freud had written about patients without giving their full name, and my dad’s notes apparently followed the same convention.

Finally, something written by my dad. No drawn out explanations of theory. Just simple words, which hopefully told a story I could understand.

The case report was about a 30 year old mom who was having marital problems. Since my parents had gotten divorce when I was five years old this keenly interested me. My dad wrote that she loved her husband but was having fantasies about having sex with other men. She loved her children, but felt trapped by them and sometimes dreamed of running away. I continued reading every word of the report, and then put it back in the folder. I walked away completely dumbfounded.

I finally had something very specific, and yet totally confusing. I thought that more information would help, but it made things worse.

Obviously, I couldn’t ask my dad to explain. And there was no one else I could ask either. I had been told that dad’s patient’s were “normal people.” Not people with major psychological problems, and certainly not the kind that would land you in a hospital ward.

In the coming weeks I struggled to reconcile two conflicting ideas: “normal people” (as portrayed by everything I’d been exposed to growing up) didn’t have weird sexual fantasies or dream of abandoning their kids, right? And yet my dad’s patients were supposed to be more or less “normal.”

Eventually, I learned a lot more about what my dad’s profession was all about. I learned that “normal” isn’t really what most people think it is, and that, even by most people’s definition of the word, most people aren’t normal. We’re all different, and the only thing that matters is how we feel about ourselves and how we adapt to our society and circumstances. We’re complex creatures, and yet we follow some pretty simple patterns most of the time. Those are a couple of things I learned.

Most of all I learned (at an early age) not to probe into people’s private lives without a really good reason (and there are rarely good reasons). When you spy on someone, or read their anonymous case report, you always come away with more questions than answers. The people who came to my dad needed to tell someone their secrets, but they wouldn’t reveal them if they were asked.

That's why he needed a couch. They could be comfortable and look off in a different direction than my dad. My dad sat in his chair with his yellow notepad, waiting for them to say something. Waiting, mostly, for them to receive a useful insight.

People criticize psychoanalysis and say analysts don't do anything except sit in a chair and listen. I understand that criticism, and I'm sure my dad heard it a lot. But most people in modern society don’t understand the value of silence, and how it can often lead to insight. Anyone has the physical ability to sit in a room, close their eyes, and await insight. But not many people have the inclination to do that on their own.

I doubt that many people ever will.

Does Mass Media Inhibit Critical Thinking Skills?

On TV the other day there was a story about whether doctors in the United States over diagnose ADD and ADHD in children. The number of kids who are on Ritalin and Adderall has climbed in the past decade or so, and so the question is whether that's because more kids have ADD these days, or because it's being more readily prescribed.

The story began by profiling a doctor (I forget his name) who said there definitely is over diagnosis of ADD and ADHD. He was quoted as saying "I'm not saying that there are no valid cases of ADD, but just that some of the kids receiving this diagnosis aren't truly in need of medication." I was paying close attention to how he phrased his statement because I knew what was going to happen next.

Then the story shifted to B-roll footage of a small kid playing peacefully with some blocks. The voiceover was from his mom who described how her son used to be incapable of concentrating, but now that he was taking Ritalin he was fine. Then the dad came in and confirmed this. Finally, the mom was shown on camera emphasizing that, for her son, medication was the only solution.

The segment then cut over to the network anchor and the chief medical correspondent, who confirmed that some kids truly need medication. There was no attempt to address the issue of whether some kids might be taking medication unncessarily.

If you weren't paying close attention (and most people don't when they watch TV), you'd come away with the impression that the question about over diagnosis had been answered, and the answer was that ADD is not over diagnosed.

The mainstream media is not purposefully trying to retard our critical thinking skills, but that's the outcome. Creating video stories is time-consuming. And they want to "tell both sides of the story." Maybe if they had more time they'd find a case of a child that arguably didn't need ADD medication, but then that would imply the parents weren't doing their job. Even if they did spotlight a child with marginal ADD, they'd still need to establish that maybe some doctors don't think that ADD is over diagnosed.

It follows the classic TV story formula: make the story easy to tell, and easy to understand, and don't sweat small disconnect that inhibits critical reasoning skills.

Law school, and 20 plus years as an attorney, have made me hyper-vigilant about information I receive from other people. If someone is making a point I automatically start assessing the way they make the point, and the data that they use to back it up. It's too bad that more people aren't subjected to the training that law students receive.

Here's a test of reasoning that comes from the excellent book by Daniel Kahneman, Thinking Fast and Slow:

Consider this: A study of the incidence of kidney cancer in the 3,141 counties of the United States reveals a remarkable pattern. The counties in which the incidence of kidney cancer are the lowest are mostly rural, sparsely populated, and located in traditional Republican states in the Midwest, the South and the West. Now, what do you make of this information?

Most people (but sadly, I would argue, not all) quickly figure out that the fact the counties in question are "traditional Republican" has nothing to do with the incidence of kidney cancer. The thing that people tend not to focus on is that the incidence of kidney cancer will be lower in sparsely populated areas.

Kahneman argues that we have two modes of thinking: fast and slow. The fast mode gets fooled easily by "merely statistical facts," that is, "facts, which change the probability of outcomes but do not cause them to happen." And which mode of thinking would you guess that television tends to engage?

One final thought: I was watching the Charlie Rose show the other night and he had a roundtable panel of political analysts talking about Newt Gingrich's recent fall in South Carolina and the likley implications going forward. The panel was pretty diverse, and a few of the members were folks you'd see on Meet The Press or CNN. What was interesting was that the level of discourse on Charlie Rose's show was very civil and moved towards a strong consensus: i.e. Newt Gingrich was not likely to get the nomination for various reasons.

If this question were posed on CNN or MSNBC there would be no consensus, and the level of discourse would be contentious. Watching the Charlie Rose panel I was struck by the realization that, even when there is a consensus among rational people of differing views, it rarely gets revealed on mainstream TV shows. Again, I'm not saying that CNN deliberately misleads its viewers. Maybe they don't understand how their approach degrades critical thinking skills.

You'd think that being in the business of "investigating news and important social topics" that they'd move toward understanding their influence on poor reasoning skills. But, as Upton Sinclair once said, "it's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

So the last question for analysis is this: does the media make more money from letting people argue about things that don't need as much debate if they could be explained better?

Recommended blog: human psychology

When my friend Al Robert says that a blog is on his “must read” list I automatically add it to mine. Hence I have added Farnham Street, a site that posts posts interesting articles on “psychology, behavioral economics, human misjudgment, persuasion, and other subjects of intellectual interest.” They had me at “human misjudgment.”

Is college worth it anymore? What would a cartoonist say?

Why go to college?

The most successful people in life are the ones who persistently create very specific goals, and then keep refining attempts to achieve those goals.

If you want to write for a living the best thing you can do is to practice writing, and create goals for getting your work published.

Wanna be a photographer? Same process, except you’ll be crafting pictures instead of words. But the process of achieving success is the same. Chase Jarvis is very successful photographer and, in this interview with author Tim Ferris, he reveals that he didn’t study photography in any formal sense. He just learned it on his own.

If you’re motivated to do something, and you’re not afraid to actually do that thing until you get really good at it, you can succeed. The most critical investment you can make to achieve success is lots of time doing the thing you want to get good at. Malcom Gladwell says in his book, Outliers, that the the magic number is 10,000 hours.

If time-investment in doing the thing you want to be successful at is the key component, then why go to college? You’ll spend a lot of valuable time there, and a ghastly amount of money. Steve Jobs wasn’t willing to make that investment, and he’s not alone in the pantheon of highly successful folks who didn’t attend college.

One of my new favorite bloggers, Penelope Trunk, puts it bluntly : “the degrees cost you too much money, require too long of a commitment, and do not teach you the real-life skills they promise.” James Altucher, a financial guy, agrees and analyzes the question from a business perspective . On his blog he offers 8 alternatives to college .

Both Trunk and Altucher have written about how hysterical people get when they point out college is not indispensable. We’re used to religious zealots who blindly follow the proscriptions of others, but now we see the same phenomenon arise in discussions about education. Even when Trunk, for example, makes it clear that she’s talking about non-science studies like business.

Charlie Munger is a businessman (partner of the richest man in the world). He’ll tell you there are very important things he didn’t learn in the academic world:

“the most useful and practical part of psychology—which I personally think can be taught to any intelligent person in a week—is ungodly important. And nobody taught it to me by the way. I had to learn it later in life, one piece at a time. And it was fairly laborious. It’s so elementary though that, when it was all over, I felt like a fool.

And yeah, I’d been educated at Cal Tech and the Harvard Law School and so forth. So very eminent places miseducated people like you and me.”

How controversial can it be to question the idea that, if you want to learn business, then the best way is to actually work in a business, or –better yet– start one yourself? Apparently, asking that question is a lightening rod.

Teachers and educators tend to have the most shrill objections to people who question the sanctimony of college. Say, didn’t we give teachers tenure so that they’d be free to purpose novel ideas that are controversial, but which deserve to at least be considered?

Is tenure really stimulating lots of useful new ideas that are helpful in society? Or is it stifling such ideas?

It’s strange and ironic that so many smart people are unable to even consider the merits of this idea. But, as we’ve learned, that’s how it is in a bubble. Remember that other bubble? The one based on the sacrosanct notion that housing prices would never go down.

Maybe we should stop listening to ‘educators’ and pay attention to what a cartoonist has to say.

Poor reasoning: lifeblood of the powerful & lazy

Let’s face it: most of us are a little lazy when it comes to challenging propositions that we read in magazines and newspapers. Of course, this plays right into the even lazier mindset of the journalists who write these articles.

Bottom line: it doesn’t take much to manipulate the average American into accepting propositions with weak, or little, support. Politicians use this to their advantage too, but most of our pablum diet comes from journalists.

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about. In a recent article in The Week (link to PDF copy) I read a story about the supposedly emerging trend of not allowing young kids in certain restaurants. Obviously, not all restaurants are on the brink of banning kids. I say “obviously,” but that point is only obvious if you use your common sense and powers of observation.

So here’s a quote from the article, which is designed to take you from the idea that there (1) is an emerging trend to ban kids, to (2) the reaction to that trend.

“As a parent myself, said Mary Elizabeth Williams in Salon.com, I have to question whether it’s really fair to sentence all moms and dads to a decade of eating at McDonald’s.”

Note how quickly we jump to the assumption that (1) because some restaurants have started banning kids (2) all restaurants will soon ban kids and (3) soon parents will only be able to bring their kids to fast food restaurants.

According to the article, Ms. Mary Elizabeth Williams wants to make it seem as though parents are being denied a choice, with the result that their kids will suffer nutritionally. In fact, parents are not being denied a choice because they can always choose to go to a restaurant that allows kids. If we get to the point where the majority of restaurants somehow decide to ban parents from bringing kids than she might have a point. Of course, by the time that happens, there will no doubt be restaurants that cater to parents who want to bring their kids to non-fast food dining establishments.

What about the choice of restaurant owners? What about the choice of patrons who want to go to restaurants and know that they won’t be disturbed by children? Notice how Ms. Mary Elizabeth Williams elevates the “choice of parents” above all other interested parties. That's in addition to making the ridiculous assumption that soon parents will only be allowed to take their kids to fast food restaurants.

Why would a respectable periodical even present this sort of view as rational? Sadly, because if most people say things that lack rational foundation then newspapers can print these views as though they represent mainstream thought.

We live in a world where poor reasoning is common. Journalists don’t even try to filter it out; of course not, it leads to controversy and that leads to higher readership. Politicians appreciate this lack of reasoning as well. It's a lot easier to manipulate people who think poorly, especially if the press encourages them to remain ignorant.

If I were in charge of our educational system, I would devote at least a year to teaching high school students how to recognize spurious reasoning in everyday life. Of course, the educational system will never be changed in this way. Too many powerful (and lazy) self-interests would resist.

Their livelihood depends on poor reasoning, at least in the short run. And almost no one thinks about the long run anymore.

Update on July 30th: I received a comment from Mary Elizabeth Williams (see comments below) saying that I was lazy for not checking this link to an article on Salon.com, which doesn't contain the quote I included above. I have edited this post to provide a link to the article I read in The Week. Initially, I didn't say which publication I had read the article in, because I didn't think it mattered. Now that there's a possible dispute about the accuracy of Ms. Williams' quote I am referencing the article and providing a PDF copy.

I didn't check the Salon.com article because the article I read didn't reference a specific article, and I assumed that The Week wouldn't simply make up a quote. But if they did then shame on them. And shame on me for not checking more thoroughly. I guess you can't assume anything you read in a weekly publication is true. 

Either way, this new information still proves my point: the mainstream media is more interested in spurring mindless debates with quotes that either (1) demonstrate poor reasoning, or (2) demonstrate poor reasoning AND are entirely made up.

I apologize to Ms. Williams if I helped perpetuate the misattribution. I hope that she is able to provide additional information once she contacts The Week, so we can learn exactly what happened.

Read More

The economies of small

Further to my posts about being a “Little Big Firm” is this short blog post by Seth Godin entitled The Economies of Small. We are starting to see a tectonic shift in corporate power. It used to be that bigger was almost always better. Now we're starting to see erosion of that principle, and increasingly in many areas (not all, obviously) being the “right size” is better than being too big. Being bigger than you need to be leads to friction, higher costs, and inefficiency. And clients are starting to catch on.

It's better to be smart and strategic than large and robotic.

Read More

Who gives you the really important information?

I love this quote by George Bernard Shaw:

“Newspapers are unable, seemingly, to discriminate between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilization.”

By which he means: small events will be reported as more important and potentially catastrophic than they probably are. Unless, of course, it’s something that’s catastrophic but requires a lot of work to investigate and explain (e.g. the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, or excessive government budget deficits).

Don’t blame the newspapers for giving readers what most of them want. Tantalizing gossip and simplistic explanations are in high demand. If you want to avoid this kind of noise you have to do the heavy lifting yourself. Your mind can be a filter if you train it to be. Or you can just open the windows and let a torrent of ignorance waft in.

Read More

The tantalizing mysteries of antiquity

I've been enjoying listening to the Audible audiobook version of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. And since the audio file is over 40 hours long, I'll be enjoying it for quite awhile.

I'm now past the birth and death of Jesus, and all the way into the 2nd Century CE. I was supposedly raised Catholic, but was not as fervent in following the edicts of that church as its leaders might hope. So I'm really appreciating the chance to finally get a clearer sense of what actually happened way back when Jesus was preaching to his followers. Of course, it's impossible to get a completely accurate historical picture of many events, but the author does an admirable job of laying out the facts as best we can ascertain them.

As someone who works in a profession where the limits of truth are constantly evident, I'm fascinated with how much distortion has taken place as regards the whole Jesus thing. Notice I didn't say I was surprised.

All people are limited in their ability to perceive things, and in their ability to detect their own biases. People who belong to organized religion aren't immune from this tendency; usually, they intensify it. But people who disparage organized religion (as I often have) also have their biases, and tendencies to recast events in a way that serves their purposes.

As I said, I find the Christianity book very enlightening. It's like watching the world's longest (and most influential) game of telephone (also known as chinese whispers). Obviously, it's okay to believe that the Bible is the literal word of God (if it's not then 70% of Americans have a serious problem). But, still, it wouldn't hurt to know how the Bible was compiled in the mundane historical sense. And it wouldn't hurt to know how—during the course of history—well-meaning men have purposefully shaped the contents of the Bible.

I'm sure many people would argue with me on that point. God bless them. And I apologize in advance for any turmoil and anxiety I might have introduced into their lives. For what it's worth, I don't claim that there is no God. I don't claim that there is. I try to steer clear of foisting spiritual views on people. The historical record suggests this tends to lead to bloodshed.

Anyway, If you're interested in the mysteries of antiquity then perhaps you'd be interested in this National Geographic special Naked Science: The Book that Can't be Read. Seems that there this thing called the Voynich manuscript that was supposedly written in the 15th or 16th Century. Except that maybe it was written a lot earlier than that. And, the weird thing is that no one has been able to decipher it.

Frankly, I'd be more inclined to believe that the Voynich manuscript was written by God than the Bible. I don't think that 70% of Americans or any other people on this planet would be able to understand the true word of God. If they did then I doubt they would be so violent and prone to deep ignorance.

The National Geographic special is on tonight at 8 pm (not sure if that's EST or CST). Tune in. Maybe you'll learn something interesting.

Read More