What's strange might make you strong

My mother was born in Panama and lived there most of her life. She moved to New Orleans right before I was born (in New Orleans) and stayed up until I was 12. That's when she got fed up with the United States and moved back. She didn't tell my brother and I that she planned to move back; she told us we were going there for the summer. But when summer ended she enrolled us in a Panamanian school, where English was taught as a foreign language. I was teased for being "a gringo" and did poorly in every class except the foreign language class.

I hated my mother then. And it dawned on me that it wasn't the first time she'd forced me to deal with a language barrier.

When I was first born she spoke to me only in Spanish. And shortly after I was born she hired a Spanish-speaking maid. All day long, the only thing I heard was Spanish, so that's what I learned to speak. My dad was worried that I wasn't going to be ready for school. He kept insisting that my mom teach me English, but she refused. I don't remember how I learned English, but I do remember that I had trouble in school from an early age,and was always behind my classmates in every subject.

I hated that too. But what could I do about it?

Now I don't hate those experiences; I cherish them. Feeling like an "outcast" made me trust in my own perspective. Learning another language taught me how much our perspective is shaped (and limited) by the words we use to describe things and events. Living in another culture also expanded my awareness. Yeah, all those things I hated turned out to be valuable. Who'd have guessed?

Weird how that works.

At first, challenges foist upon you seem unfair, but later you find out they're actually special treasures. Maybe that's why we should judge people and events so quickly. We're not as adept at knowing what's going to be good for us as we think we are.

And Panama, the country that I used to think was a third-world junkyard, turns out to be a booming economic juggernaut.

The Key to Happiness is Engineering

One key skill in life is learning how to be happy. The first (and, for many, the hardest) lesson is that: things and people don’t make you happy. Or at least not for long. If you want happiness that lasts you need to learn to manufacture it yourself.

If you’re shrugging that last statement off, then I feel bad for you. You have a lot to learn. We all have a lot to learn about how to create, and maintain, an upbeat state of mind. There are lots of ways to learn this.

  • Religion (pervasive, but organized religions are mostly bureaucratic)
  • Therapy (Often works, but expensive, and hard to find the right person to help)
  • Self-help books (probably too many choices, but if you find the right one and stick with it this can help)

I think that the trick to learning to creating your own happiness isn’t so much finding the right system, as much as it is practicing the moment to moment mindfulness that’s needed to shed the common tendency we all have to quickly find fault with life.

If you need a quick guide to help you get started, though, I think this short blog post by Scott Adams is pretty pithy. After you read Adam’s excellent prescription you still need to practice the regular mindfulness, which really means seeing the positive in life as opposed to the negative. For that I recommend you check out the blog called 1000 Awesome Things.

Albert Einstein - what was the key to his "genius"?

Here are some key takeaways from my reading (not yet finished) of Walter Isaacson's book on Einstein. These aspects of Einstein's personality seem to be largely responsible for his success. Interestingly, these traits were also the cause of his many early failures (e.g. professors tended to be put off by his smug certainty, which is why he couldn't get an academic job after graduation from the university).

  • He always questioned authority; held no reverence for accepted views or common beliefs.

  • Disdained nationalism, religion, and most formal organizations.

  • He flourished in the Patent Office job not because he liked the job, but because it didn't hinder the development of his revolutionary proposals. No one at the patent office cared if he wrote controversial academic papers; they didn't even notice. If he had had an academic post (which is what he wanted) his career probably would have initially suffered after writing the iconoclastic 1905 papers.

  • Visualization always came first when he tried to understand things, including the insidious problems presented to physists. He learned the importance of visualizing at the college prep school in Aarau, a school that practiced the teachings of Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (a Swiss education reformer).We can only speculate how much less successful Einstein would have been if he not been encouraged by the Pestalozzi approach; but it certainly helped him greatly. Einstein said of his education at Aarau: "it made me clearly realize how much superior an education based on free action and personal responsibility is to one relying on outward authority."

  • Contrary to popular myth, did not flunk any math courses. But he did do poorly in mandatory subjects that he didn't care about, such as French. It's true that math was not what he was primarily interested in, and he didn't do as well as he should have in that subject. But he crammed and learned it quickly when he saw the usefulness of it in physics. He learned mostly on his own, and when he was deeply interested he could learn a subject very quickly.

  • He had deep powers of concentration. He focused on one thing at a time, and could easily block out everything else while he focused deeply on one question or problem. People tended to see him as aloof. He knew this and didn't care. He was more interested in solving problems than in reassuring people with social pleasantries.

  • He didn't care about making money, and saw the lure of money as a corrupting influence on correct thinking. He was fascinated by science, but also with philosophy and ideas in general.

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.

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.

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?

Two books newly minted lawyers should read

Law school teaches you nothing about conflict avoidance or basic negotiation. In the real world, getting along with people is of utmost importance. Some might believe that you can’t teach people diplomacy and negotiation.

Dale Carnegie’s book How to Win Friends and Influence People has taught millions of people the basic psychology of everyday diplomacy. For lawyers who need to be persuasive (and isn’t that all lawyers?), this book is a must read.

For lawyers who negotiate (that is for lawyers who are still alive) the book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In is absolutely indispensible. Actually, this book is useful for anyone who negotiates, which is pretty much anyone who spends money.

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.