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.

Reflections & thoughts on my 10 year blogiversary

/

It's been 10 years since I started blogging. And for much of it I didn't really know what the theme was. I was just trying to figure out what I thought about things, mostly things having to do with how technology was disrupting society (and the legal profession, of course).

I'm fascinated by how people react to change.

As we get older we cling to familiar ways, and resist new ones. We all have this tendency, me included. But, over the years, as I paid more attention to "how things tend to work," I realized that resisting change is not a helpful strategy.

Change is ubiquitous and inevitable.

Everything in the Universe is constantly changing. Interestingly, the stuff we humans have created (e.g. computers, mobile phones, the Internet, GPS etc.) is making the pace of change go much faster. The Darwinian mantra for most species on Earth has been "Adapt or die." The new mantra for the tech-laden world that we've created is: "Adapt quickly, or become disoriented and irrelevant."

I don't like being disoriented, so I try to keep up with technology-driven change.

I've been thinking about what the theme of this blog should be from now on. It shouldn't be just about technology, or just about change. I want to talk about fundamental insights, and how we acquire them. Are there some really key insights? If so, what are they? These are the most useful questions to ask, it seems to me.

We have limited lifespans, and we can't control much of our world (certainly not the way we hope to, or pretend to). But there are some things we can control pretty well, and we should focus on those things so we can create better lives.

The passage in this ancient text says it best:

As irrigators guide water to their fields,
as archers aim arrows,
as carpenters carve wood,
the wise shape their lives.

So the core question is this: what kinds of things can we control to shape our lives better?

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.

Using a major storm as a tool

/

Any experience can serve to give you insight and deeper awareness. Today the Northeast of U.S. is awakening from a major blow delivered by Hurricane Irene. Six years ago I awoke from a similar blow delivered by Katrina. And, while some people might recoil to hear me say this, Katrina was one of the best experiences I ever had.

Obviously no one wants hardship. We all crave sublime experiences, but disaster and hardship contain sublime moments if you can get past the panic and agony. Katrina was a horrible tragedy for many people, and so is Irene.

For what it’s worth to others here is what I learned from Katrina:

  • Fear and gossip are useless in a tragedy, as they are in everyday life
  • Clarity of purpose is easier in a tragedy, as it should be (but usually isn’t) in everyday life
  • The most valuable thing in life is helping people and having clarity.

For the next few days, or weeks, many people will have their lives disrupted. Their precious routines will cease and they’ll have to confront each day with fresh eyes. We can dwell on fear and gossip, or we can use this moment to reorient our lives and create something more powerful.

That choice is always there, but for some reason it’s sometimes easier to appreciate in a tragedy. I found something powerful in Katrina that allowed me to change my life for the better. I hope that everyone can find that same thing that I found.

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

What we (usually) have is a failure to communicate

/

One thing about being a lawyer is you have plenty of chances to try your hand at communication.  Every aspect of the practice of law involves conveying ideas, arguments, observations.  This is done in writing, and orally (e.g. speaking), but always verbally (e.g. with 'words').

Good communicators know that there is a difference between the word 'orally' and 'verbally.'  

Still, there is a lot more to good communication than knowing usage rules and grammar.  A lot of people get into arguments or misunderstandings because they are trapped in a cycle of poor communication. I'm not about to claim that having a law degree makes you a better communicator, but as I said at the outset, it gives you the opportunity to communicate in a variety of settings.

And I'm not going to claim that my communication skills are finely honed. I don't know how my skills compare to others.  I only know that they can be improved and I keep trying to improve them.

The first step for me to improve my skills is to recognize when I fail to communicate effectively. And this has always been the hardest step. After all, it's not easy to admit that you might have done a less than optimal job of conveying your point. Like most people, I tend to believe that I am always being perfectly clear. And I tend to believe that I've made my point with the proper tone, and with the proper set up.

See, that's the thing: it's not just about being clear in what you say.  You also have take the right approach. If you use an angry tone when you say something perfectly rational it will come across the wrong way and your audience will not understand. I struggle often with this issue, and I know that other people do too.

So, if you want to communicate effectively you need to listen first. You need to see what folks want to hear, what they're capable of understanding.  You need to find a way to appeal to their sensibilities.  And then you need to make your point clearly, and succinctly. If you do all of that you might be understood.

But, if you simply want to unburden yourself of thoughts and emotions as pop into your head, you will not communicate. If you cannot bring yourself to reflect on how someone else might see things then you will only communicate with people who see the world exactly the way you do.  In other words, you will waste a lot of time going through a fruitless exercise.

Some people walk around and mutter to themselves. We tend to think those people are crazy, and they may well be. But there are a lot of seemingly rational people who are actually just as hopeless.

If you want to talk you should be ready to listen, and then have a strategy for making your point. Unless you only want to talk to yourself, that is.

Read More

Iceland, what made you think you were so special?

/

Michael Lewis' recent article in Vanity Fair is a must read on so many levels.  First, it's fascinating account of how Iceland, a quaint little country that has been isolated from the world of International finance for more than a millennium, suddenly became a careening high roller.  And then promptly became bankrupt. As in: 'the whole country became bankrupt.'

But there's another level (as their always is when Lewis looks at a situation) that I find more Interesting. How did a bunch of people who made their money for hundreds of years by fishing come to believe that they had an aptitude for high finance?  This short blurb, in which Lewis talks with an Icelandic fellow, kind of sums it up:

It took years of training for him to become a captain, and even then it happened only by a stroke of luck. When he was 23 and a first mate, the captain of his fishing boat up and quit. The boat owner went looking for a replacement and found an older fellow, retired, who was something of an Icelandic fishing legend, the wonderfully named Snorri Snorrasson. “I took two trips with this guy,” Stefan says. “I have never in my life slept so little, because I was so eager to learn. I slept two or three hours a night because I was sitting beside him, talking to him. I gave him all the respect in the world—it’s difficult to describe all he taught me. The reach of the trawler. The most efficient angle of the net. How do you act on the sea. If you have a bad day, what do you do? If you’re fishing at this depth, what do you do? If it’s not working, do you move in depth or space? In the end it’s just so much feel. In this time I learned infinitely more than I learned in school. Because how do you learn to fish in school?”

This marvelous training was as fresh in his mind as if he’d received it yesterday, and the thought of it makes his eyes mist.

“You spent seven years learning every little nuance of the fishing trade before you were granted the gift of learning from this great captain?” I ask.

“Yes.”

“And even then you had to sit at the feet of this great master for many months before you felt as if you knew what you were doing?”

“Yes.”

“Then why did you think you could become a banker and speculate in financial markets, without a day of training?”

“That’s a very good question,” he says. He thinks for a minute. “For the first time this evening I lack a word.” As I often think I know exactly what I am doing even when I don’t, I find myself oddly sympathetic.

Funny how easy it is for us to believe that we suddenly understand something that common sense should tell us is not that easily known.  I suggest that this a human (as opposed to an Icelandic) phenomenon by the way.  But of course we already knew that, didn't we?
Read More

Obama on religion

/

From an interview given by Barack Obama four years ago, shortly after he'd be elected to the U.S. Senate:

"I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I'm not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I've got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others."

Amen, brother.

Read More

How to prioritize ideas

/

Picture_8Herb Kelleher, the founder and CEO of Southwest Airlines, was approached by a young woman in the marketing department about a proposal. She told him that surveys showed that passengers on the Houston to Las Vegas flight might enjoy a light entrée. "All we offer now is peanuts," she pointed out, "and a nice chicken Caesar salad would be popular..." Kelleher pondered her proposal for a few seconds before responding: "Tracy, will adding the chicken Caesar salad make us THE low-fare airline from Houston to Las Vegas? Because if it doesn't help us become the unchallenged low-fare airline, we're not serving any damn chicken salad."

This story is recounted in a highly-recommended book called Made to Stick. I don't know why it's taken me so long to read this book, as it has been recommended a dozen times and I knew it contained valuable information. So now that I'm reading it, what's so great about it?

Well, it offers a simple and concrete blueprint for finding core principles and then communicating them to other people. In the practice of law, at least the part that involves litigation, this is the most important thing you can learn. And, sadly, it's something that most lawyers have trouble with. Partly, it's because we don't teach this in law school. But mostly it's because nobody has offered us the blueprint. Made to Stick contains the blueprint.

You would think that finding the core idea is easy, and sometimes it is. But even when it is (and that's less common than most people think), communicating a core idea is extremely difficult. It requires persistent clarity, and relentless focus. Herb Kelleher gets up every day and reminds himself what the core idea of his business is: "Southwest is THE low fare airline." Then he struggles to remind everyone else as they doggedly pursue undiscovered ideas that are very good.

The core idea is 'core' not because it is a good idea. It's the best idea, but it doesn't stay in everyone's focus by that fact alone. Made to Stick explains why people drift away from the core idea, and why they have trouble communicating it. Lawyers who want to improve their powers of persuasion would do well to read this book. However, I don't recommend it to every lawyer. For example, I wouldn't recommend that my opponents read it. Ever.

Read More

The power of one

/
"Nothing was ever created by two men. There are no good collaborations, whether in art, in music, in poetry, in mathematics, in philosophy. Once the miracle of creation has taken place, the group can build and extend it, but the group never invents anything. The preciousness lies in the lonely mind of a man."

—John Steinbeck, East of Eden

Read More

Subtlety & Fear

/

What if every day you showed up to work, eager to do something really good? Something meaningful.

What if you came up with ideas on how to do things better? Not at first, but only after you felt confident that you understood the point of the work and all of the subtle forces surrounding it.

What if, upon hearing your suggestions, your boss rejected them without much consideration? What if he made you feel small, suggesting that you were distracted? Your boss directs your attention to the goal: "do it this way," he says. The "goal" is to do it by a certain method. There is nothing subtle about the goal, or how to achieve it. Systems are never subtle.

Eventually you become demoralized. You wonder what the point of your work is. Why do you feel disloyal? Why doesn't your boss appreciate you?

Well, stop being so selfish. Get a grip.

Put yourself in your boss's shoes. He's worked in the system a long time; he know how things are supposed to be done. It's hard trying to get people to work within a system. Bosses don't have time for subtlety and novel ideas. They have to teach lots of people the old system, the one that they learned. Organizations like the one you work in need authority, and they need people to follow along without a lot of backtalk. What do you really want anyway?

Do you want something real?

What if every day you felt a sense of satisfaction about your work? What if you could try a new approach at the very moment you realized it was better? What if your boss completely supported this? What if you were the boss? What if you worked for yourself?

You would not be free of authority. But you would be free of institutional, corporate authority. Does that scare you? Then what are you afraid of?

You'll make mistakes, no doubt. But that's not what scares you, is it?

Read More

Fundamentalism & Religious Delusion

/

Picture_2Richard Dawkins' excellent bookThe God Delusion is currently #12 on the NY Times best-seller list for paperback non-fiction. Dawkins is a scientist and wants to let people know that it's okay to be an atheist, despite strong resistance to the idea of questioning religious faith. His criticism of religious beliefs is polite and thoughtful, but of course that does not appease the faithful. The 'faithful' might also be called 'fundamentalists.'

What's a fundamentalist? Someone who looks at all new information to see if it matches their beliefs (or principles) and ignores that which doesn't match. The more extreme fundamentalists don't simply ignore the information, they become agitated. And really extreme fundamentalists have been known to attack. So offering new ideas can be harmful to your health. Especially if religion is involved. Just ask Galileo.

And where isn't religion involved? Even today, it's everywhere—even in places that seem implausible. Two hundred years ago our founders created a Constitution demanding the complete separation of church and state, but today practical reality tilts in precisely the opposite direction. Polls show that most Americans will elect only those political leaders who believe in God. Dawkins' is not running for U.S. President, but he has an important message: it's okay, sensible even, to question things that are unsupported by evidence. And he thinks that there isn't any meaningful evidence of God's existence.

Perhaps, though, he misunderstands the essence of religious faith.

The nice thing about a belief in God is that it offers us comfort and security. Who cares if it's provable? If it provides security then it must be a good thing. Non-fundamentalists, such as Dawkins, question even this proposition:

Then there is the security created by man in the idea of God. Many people ask me whether I believe in God, whether there is a God. You cannot discuss it. Most of our conceptions of God, of reality, of truth, are merely speculative imitations. Therefore, they are utterly false, and all our religions are based on such falsitites. A man who has lived all his life in a prison can only speculate about freedom; a man who has never experienced the ecstasy of freedom cannot know freedom. So it is of little avail to discuss God, truth; but if you have the intelligence, the intensity to destroy the barriers around you then you will know for yourself the fulfillment of life. You will no longer be a slave in a social or religious system.

By the way, the above words weren't written by Richard Dawkins, the scientist. They were spoken by J. Krishnamurti, a supremely spiritual man. His message was also that people should examine things for themselves, without preconceptions or conceptualizations. To him, this was the essence of spirituality.

Krishnamurti didn't want any followers, but he wound up having some, and still does. You don't hear much about them because they don't attract attention. They haven't started any wars, or persecuted people whose views they disagree with. Maybe they're deeply examining the world around them, which distracts them from the noble task of foisting views on others.

But back to Dawkins' book. Why is it called The God Delusion? It has to do with what the writer Robert Pirsig once observed: "When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

Amen to that, Brother Pirsig. Amen.

Read More

Learning when to quit

/

Picture_19I just finished reading Seth Godin's excellent book, The Dip. It's "a little book that teaches you when to quit (and when to stick)." I have been thinking about this problem for several months now.

Mainly, I have thought about it in my yoga practice.

I've found that if I don't push myself I get bored, and of course I don't progress. But if I push too hard or in a thoughtless way then I tend to hurt myself. There seems to be this very fine balance point of (1) letting go and relaxing, while (2) creating a steady intention to go a bit farther. While thinking of those things, I also have to pay attention to my body's physical resistance, which is not always the same. Sometimes I can't go as far today as I have been going for the past week. And that's when I push, thinking I'm supposed to challenge myself. That's when I get injured.

There's an ego thing involved, of course.

Godin's book is interesting because it suggests that it's often a good idea to give up, a notion that at first seems completely heretical. Yet he shows that many successful people have become successful by quitting something big. Michael Crichton, after graduating from Harvard medical school, decided he didn't want to practice medicine (even though he would easily have made a lot of money) because he didn't think he'd be happy. He didn't even try it out for a few years. Instead he went on to be wildly successful doing something that he loved doing, but which presented a less certain future when he embarked on it. Smart people know when to quit, Godin says.

Usually.

He points out that smart people have one big weakness that usually keeps them from quitting at the right time. "Pride is the enemy of the Smart Quitter." This might be Hillary Clinton's problem. We all know that she's very smart, but somehow her campaign isn't winding up the way she first envisioned it. She's having financial trouble. The likelihood of her winning the nomination is getting smaller, and the cost of winning it is getting harder even from a non-financial standpoint. And despite it all, she proclaims she "won't quit."

Godin offers an interesting thought about the aftermath of quitting: it often feels very comforting. "One reason people feel really good after they quit a dead-end project is that they discover that hurting one's pride is not fatal." Obviously everyone wants to win, but it's true that learning how to lose is important too. Hillary touts herself as 'the experience candidate' and yet maybe she hasn't had enough experience learning when to give up. She's only run for elected office once (the U.S. Senate), and she won. That's the only elected position she's ever held, and now she's seeking one of the most important positions in our country.

It's true that a lot of skills can be learned on the job. But I can't think of too many world leaders who've learned the difficult art of quitting after they've been elected. That's probably the main reason so many wars continue even after it becomes clear they're both hopeless and unpopular.

Read More

How the tortoise beat the hare

/

Picture_4The other day I saw a black SUV rev its engine and then zoom past a car on narrow street because the driver was impatient. As the SUV passed by I could see the driver, a soccer mom, casually talking on her cellphone. I looked back and saw that she had not made the light, so her NASCAR move was apparently for naught.

In the blog world I see people racing around trying every new gizmo/software and then offering up their immediate impressions as though this has great utility. One well-known tech blogger, whom I shall not name, seems to think that every conversation or encounter he has needs to be recorded and then served up to his many followers. What's most amazing is that hoards of people eagerly await this kind of information. He has wonderful backstage access to new technology, but his observations don't seem to have much value.

The mainstream media has been serving us 'stupid pie' for years. To keep their ratings up, they package their message for the lowest intellect. When bloggers first appeared there was hope that this would change but, alas, it appears that popular bloggers with continuous partial attention disorder are doing the same thing.

I've discovered somewhat recently that I don't enjoy, or benefit from, the hectic stream of observations made by people who would rather push the buzzer than listen to the whole question. Many of them are really nice people. But I can't let myself be part of their mad rush anymore, and so I've decided to let them pass me by.

When I was a kid I could never understand how the rabbit lost the race to the tortoise. The rabbit was much faster than the tortoise, and there was no reason why he shouldn't win. Turns out there is a reason: the rabbit has no idea where it's going.

Sadly, most of us are rabbits.

Read More