Face to Face
One aspect of improving myself in '07 has been focused on connecting with people; and involves three steps -- in this order:
1. Email more people, more often
2. Email less, call more often
3. Call less, face-to-face more often
I'm not doing as well as I had hoped by now, although I think about it every time my first instinct is to type an email, or pick up the phone. I will do better.
Today I read an interesting review by Kathy Sierra on the importance of face-to-face. She took a good look at why, as more tools are created to give us reasons to communicate remotely, we still flock to meet each other in person. The article was a sober reminder that I should be working harder at my three steps above.
One of the most thought provoking phrases she used was "Legacy Brain":
"...[O]ur legacy brain... still has no idea we aren't living in caves where human contact and social face-to-face interaction are key to our survival."
I don't want to get too esoteric, but there is a lot to that concept above. Not long ago I was so interested in the future, and the capability we'll attain from tech we haven't dreamed up yet, that I was ignoring the merits of the tools we have today. Ray Kurzweil had a big effect on that. While I'm still VERY interested in what the future holds, my focus has shifted to sharpening the tools I have today. I believe this will allow me to contribute to future advances in a more realistic way.
Where I started:
One of the many lessons my yoga practice has been teaching me is to be aware of every muscle in my body, and the affect my mind has on my physical body's tension. We'll be in Warrior Two, and an instructor will ask me why my back toes are crunched, or why my shoulders are crouching up against my neck instead of extending down my back -- only then will I realize that I was even doing that. Over time, using a little abstraction, I've applied this to other aspects of my life. I began to watch myself closely, and began to acknowledge the incredible power of another person's presence. I noticed my physical and emotional reactions to the energy people brought into situations. From these interactions, I have learned so much about myself and others -- bringing me closer to appreciating the power of presence: my own and others'.
LikeMind, started by Noah Brier - a great friend & awesome dreamer - is certainly helping. There's probably one in your city. Try it!
In a later post, I'll try to approach the even more incredible power of touch.
*********************
P.S. If you love the intersection of technology and personal interaction, try these services:
Meetro, Area/Code, Pacmanhattan, Meetup, Barcamp, and leave comments for others if you know of good ones!
Labels: face-to-face, interaction, Life_Tools, personal, Philosophy
This entry was posted
on Apr 17, 2007 at 4/17/2007 12:39:00 AM.
Great Philosophical Point
People change when they have to — not when we tell them to.
One of the best lines from Thomas Friedman's latest article for the New York Times, "The Power of Green" - a really well written, and well thought out essay. I recommend it to all.
If the article above sparks any interest in what YOU can do - read my post from February 19, 2005: http://www.kalifowitz.com/2005/02/green-power.html
Leave comments if you have any other ideas.
Labels: action, Activism, environmentalism, green, Philosophy
This entry was posted
on Apr 15, 2007 at 4/15/2007 01:26:00 PM.
There are . If you want, you can leave your own response by clicking here.
You may also send this post to a friend of yours via email, or bookmark it for yourself by using icons below;
Blogger's Code of Conduct?
My friend Noah Brier, an avid blogger, awesome networker, and great idea man recently blogged about Tim O'Reilly's suggested Code of Conduct for bloggers. I was inspired to leave a comment, which I did... and I've posted it here for future reference (in case I offended Noah, and he subscribes to O'Reilly's suggestion...) ;-)
Noah, you're dead on with being concerned about point #2, "We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person" (and the whole concept of a code of conduct). Imagine if the internet existed when there was slavery... would we want to silence Southerners who favored a ban on slavery - just because they likely wouldn't/couldn't say it in person? Their words would certainly be inflammatory and considered offensive by the majority of Southerners (hence the Civil War). Should that kind of discourse be muted? Who determines what is offensive? Remember last summer's riots in Muslim communities because of a cartoon containing the Prophet Muhammad? In the West we were baffled by this reaction.
And suggesting that you can't anonymize (sp?) something is ridiculous. Consider that The New York Times uses "anonymous sources" every day. How else could the Valery Plame incident have been brought to light? Remember how hard the NYTimes fought to maintain their right to keeping their sources anonymous? Why would bloggers so readily accept a code of conduct that their competition, the established media, would never consider?
Any form of attempted censorship (that dirty word O'Reilly chose to omit) shouldn't be tolerated by anyone. It's a reactionary response to a problem open societies will always confront. Noah, you said it best - you can't have it both ways.
Labels: blog, content, Philosophy, Rights
This entry was posted
on Apr 10, 2007 at 4/10/2007 01:58:00 AM.
There are . If you want, you can leave your own response by clicking here.
You may also send this post to a friend of yours via email, or bookmark it for yourself by using icons below;
On Listening
Because the amount of time I have to post on this blog fluctuates dramatically, I've found it hard to stick to one theme. I guess that's good since at the end of the day, if no one reads this but me, it'll be a good record of where my mind was at various points in time. That said, one of the many topics I'd like to write regularly about is "listening".
This evening I was watching Charlie Rose on PBS (the only channel worth watching). Each night this week he's asking his guests what they would advise the next president of the United States to do. Tonight he aired conversations with Madeline Albright and Newt Gingrich. They were on separately- he taped Gingrich last night. Independent of each other, each one's first comment was that the next president must be able to listen. Gingrich went as far as to say that the next president should take a tour of the world, go to as many countries as possible... go to their capitals and let them invite whoever they want. Go there and listen carefully to what they have to say. In order to be an effective leader of the world (a role we have, like it or not), we must have an appreciation for what those being led care about.
This is such sound advice, it's hard to find a place to begin. Listening is one of the most important skills that as Americans, we're never taught. Americans grow up believing that we know best, and that others will submit to our will. Our current president is a stellar example of that thought process.
One of the many lessons that I've learned in the past two years is that I don't know everything. And that by listening to others carefully, not only do I learn a lot - it reinforces for me just how much I can learn from others. Wikipedia is a fantastic example of this.
For all of Wikipedia's faults, it will eventually be the most comprehensive and most representative living document of the history of our world. Why? Because it builds on the collective knowledge of everyone with access to the Internet. Throughout history, a select few had total control of what history was recorded, and what history was cast aside. Today, one person can write an account of an historical event; and someone else can refute that account - or offer another perspective. This result is great; because it gives future readers an opportunity to experience / listen to multiple takes on a given event. As is often the case - both (or any number) of accounts will partially be right.
I read Google News (as my primary news source) for the same reason. When something happens in Israel, Google News will lead me to news reports from around the globe. This access offers me insight as to how a particular event affected different people, giving me a better appreciation for what happened.
I really do hope the candidates are watching Charlie Rose's interviews this week, and listening carefully.
Labels: Listening, Philosophy
This entry was posted
on Mar 28, 2007 at 3/28/2007 01:02:00 AM.
There are . If you want, you can leave your own response by clicking here.
You may also send this post to a friend of yours via email, or bookmark it for yourself by using icons below;
Education Theory
This evening I heard about a guy who's unfortunately rather lazy. He's in his early 20's, college educated, and has never had a job - nor any real drive to get a job. The worst part is, his parents continue to give him everything he needs to live an independent life, without working. He's a classic gen-x'er (I think). His parents are immigrants who are each remarkable people in their own right. They came here with nothing, not even speaking the language, and now live the American dream (sans white picket fences). It's remarkable how often I see this scenario.
I was discussing this issue with a friend today, and we were considering why it is that so many parents - who are so motivated and accomplished - end up with kids who are so unmotivated. Is it even the parent's fault? Could it be that a percentage of the population is simply born lacking motivation?
We agreed that it's probably a little bit of how people are born, but mostly how they're raised. I went on to consider what parents can do - how they find the middle ground between providing opportunities for their kids, while developing a solid appreciation for what they've got - as well as a solid work-ethic.
We discussed how when raising a child, one can't really "teach" them how to have a good work ethic - with a specific goal in mind. Rather, the approach should be one of creating a good framework within which children can experience a nurturing environment that espouses an appreciation for achievement - and setting goals that are attainable, yet challenging. An essential element to this is to keep kids hungry. Regardless of your ability to provide everything for your kids - from the age of ~ 14, I believe it's healthy to begin showing them that they can't expect to rely on their parents much longer for financial support. Give them jobs to do - rather than chores (which they can earn money from). For example: rather than "force" your kids to mow the lawn (a chore) - pay them to be your landscaper, by letting them pick which plants and shrubs to plant, learning how to keep the ph balance of the soil just right, maintaining a compost heep, etc... this way they have a vested interest, and can develop a sense of self-confidence because they are the ones who make the big decisions. Soon they'll be doing it more for the challenge than the money - and you won't have to remind them to mow the lawn because they'll be excited to do it. Landscaping is an easy one because it's very public, and easy for your kids to be recognized for it. Every neighbor and visitor will be impressed with their work & likely let them know it.
If you don't have a yard, or if yours is simply too big - help your kids get a job - no matter how "menial" you think it is. Let them work for someone who sees them as nothing more than an employee - so they can develop social skills with adults, and have an appreciation for money that someone else other than a family member gave them.
Labels: Life_Tools, Philosophy
This entry was posted
on Mar 1, 2007 at 3/01/2007 01:41:00 AM.
There are . If you want, you can leave your own response by clicking here.
You may also send this post to a friend of yours via email, or bookmark it for yourself by using icons below;
They are doing the best they are capable of...
... at this specific point in time.
A yoga instructor at
Jivamukti said this once. When she said it, I was completely perplexed. I pondered this sentence for a few weeks. It simply didn't make sense to me. "Most people rarely do their best, in fact they're usually doing a mediocre job" I kept saying to myself.
And then it hit me.
Do most people approach a task and actually try to do it poorly? I would argue that that is rarely the case; for even if they did, it is a conscious decision they made... and they will likely try to
succeed at doing the task poorly.
In either case, reminding myself of that sentence has allowed me to take situations that would normally enrage me and turn them into pleasant situations. Most people laugh when I say that. It has been argued that in most situations, those words "they are doing their best" are factually incorrect because:
- most people can do better & are
choosing not to
and that:
- I'm creating an excuse for them and their life situation
- I'm accepting something that should be unacceptable
- by doing so I am lowering standards
Focusing on the words in such a restrictive manner is to look but not to see. "They are doing their best" is more about what the words do to you - the person who thinks of them - than what they mean about the person the words are meant to describe. By thinking a positive thought, you immediately approach the situation with a positive attitude. Having a positive attitude will almost always increase your chances of successfully achieving your own goal - and can help get the person you're interacting with one step closer to getting out of their "funk".
If someone is performing in a below-average way, it's often because they are in "funk". Without sounding too esoteric, they have bad energy - they are carrying bad baggage. When you respond with a negative attitude, you are allowing your response to be dictated by them and their bad energy; rather than your own positivity. And in turn, you begin to generate your own bad baggage/energy.
It has been said that a more correct/appropriate phrase would be, "they aren't performing their best, and must be shown that they can perform better". This phrase breaks two rules of how to interact with people.
1. You can't change people - you can only change yourself.
2. By starting a thought with a negative connotation "they aren't..." immediately puts you in a negative state of mind - dooming any chance of improving the situation.
By telling yourself, "they are doing their best" you immediately think good thoughts. And if you qualify that statement by adding, "at this point in time" - you are allowing yourself to consider - if you think their performance is below where it "could" be - why they're performing the way they are... and how you must react in order to respond appropriately. Otherwise your only reaction will be to lash out - and no one wins in that scenario.
Labels: Life_Tools, Philosophy
This entry was posted
on Nov 20, 2006 at 11/20/2006 12:16:00 AM.
There are . If you want, you can leave your own response by clicking here.
You may also send this post to a friend of yours via email, or bookmark it for yourself by using icons below;
On Abstraction (Lon's contribution)
Regularly I have conversations with people, and wish there was a stenographer standing by to transcribe the conversation so that it can be shared with others on my blog. I often complain that of all the remarkable things I can do with my phone it doesn't have software that allows me to record my conversations.
There's one conversation topic that lon and I often have - where we discuss a concept he came up with - that basically brilliance is one's ability to abstract.
Here's an email that he wrote on January 5th 2006, that I just now got around to re-reading (I had marked it as unread so that in the future I'd refer back to it). Here it is for your reading pleasure:
My thought below is tangentially related to the article [Sal sent]... It sprang to mind because of the Star Wars reference and the fact that there are many discoveries to be made in our universe, but we won't hear about them until there are stores houses in our collective, thought vernacular.
My perspective on the universe of scientific discovery is that there are some minds, the most brilliant of humans, who are capable of thinking in almost pure abstraction. These are people who do not need to be able to have concrete examples or visualizations of concepts and may thoroughly think through concepts in theory alone. These people see ideas as clearly as others see the ground beneath them... and are typically scientists, though possibly artists or more.
However, for their discoveries to become celebrated by the rest of us, concrete examples or visualizations must be made available. Otherwise their concepts go on the shelf (in their mind, of course).
The fantasy (fantastic) freedom of books, movies, and other media often provide a way to house (and I use that term because of the limitations it connotes) abstract ideas. For instance, the original thought of diving 20,000 leagues under the sea was probably swimming around in some brillian russian engineer's mind a century before Jules Verne wrote his book. However, (a) technology and (b) a concrete example was not available for the implementor of that abstract idea to sell it to the rest of us.
- Lon
p.s. Humorously I am currently reading "Everything's Relative" a enjoyable book about the misunderstanding of famed scientific discoveries.
Labels: Life_Tools, Philosophy
This entry was posted
on Jun 8, 2006 at 6/08/2006 10:53:00 PM.
There are . If you want, you can leave your own response by clicking here.
You may also send this post to a friend of yours via email, or bookmark it for yourself by using icons below;
Stumble
Leave your response