I frequently need to remind myself that I will not be happiest once I have achieved my goal. I will be happiest whilst I am working towards it. Goals are excellent landmarks to aim for and achieve. However, as soon as one landmark is reached another one will almost certainly come into view. In the end, it’s the traveling that’s the best part.
This post is inspired by a New York Times article on the lack of new ideas.
I found this piece thanks to my friend Tyler, whose thoughts on the editorial can be found in his blog.
I don’t agree with the point made in the article. Yes, we have more information than ever before. And yes, we almost certainly have more than we can reliably process. But that doesn’t mean we don’t still have new ideas or that “the next big idea” is a doomed concept.
I think that the root cause of this problem is that we hear more of two things:
1. People not having ideas.
2. People repeating the good ideas of others.
The aforementioned article focuses primarily on the first – people just relaying and sharing information, rather than ideas. And yes, this probably happens to a greater extent now than it did 20 years ago. But this doesn’t imply the exchange of ideas has decreased, espeically if you acknowledge the exponential rate at which the total exchange of communication has increased. There’s more than enough room for the exchange of both information and ideas to increase. The exchange of information has just expanded more quickly so it has become more salient than the exchange of ideas.
And what about point 2? On one hand, re(twee/pea)ting another’s ideas adds nothing new to the conversation. On the other hand, it transmits those ideas to a larger audience. So, if someone does have a new idea, there’s a good chance it will reach a much larger audience much more quickly. How is that a bad thing?
Maybe the accelerated speed of communication means it’s more difficult to claim ownership of an idea because it becomes accepted and repeated so quickly. Or maybe it’s more difficult to have a “big idea” because the the creation of little ideas is more distributed. And most big ideas are based on a lot of little ideas. So big ideas now appear to be simple “connect the pre-existing dots”, whereas they used to involve inventing some of the dots, as well.
Maybe our communication has improved and expanded so greatly that what used to be a big idea now seems small by comparison.
Finally, think of all the big questions which remain unanswered. And think of all the incredible people working to answer them. And think of all the even more incredible people working to ask more questions.
Just because those incredible people haven’t had a big idea yet doesn’t mean they won’t.
However, it is admittedly more likely that you won’t recognize a big idea when it occurs.
Yes yes yes I gave my “at least I’m still writing and that’s a big thing” post yesterday and promptly missed a day.
But my girlfriend flew across an ocean to be with me for a week and a half, so some exceptions are worth being made.
Which is also, coincidentally (or not), why this post is so short today. It has been a fun evening: A day of work including Lebanese lunch with m’lady, dinner and a show, and a cast party with all her Oxford friends.
And now to sleep.
My small multi-domain experiment has been going for one week now, so it’s time for a progress check.
The headline, I suppose, is that I’ve kept to the schedule of posting every day, which hasn’t always been convenient, but I’ve made time for it. Going in this was one of my biggest concerns, so I’m happy to say I’m still going strong.
It’s too early to detect any long-term benefits. In fact, I’m at that difficult stage where a lot of the long-term goals seem to be getting more distant. I’m generating new ideas, but it’s difficult to find the time and mental energy to develop them fully. That said, it has been an incredibly busy (and productive!) week at work and I’ve been focused on technical projects, so I haven’t been dedicating my mental energy for theorizing. I’ve also been less than impressed with the ideas I have generated. Once again, however, I haven’t been focusing on creativity, recently.
One thing I have noticed, however, is that forcing myself to write every night is correlating with making the “right” decision in other areas. I increasingly find myself opting for the “extra effort, do the right thing” alternative. Maybe it’s connected, maybe it isn’t. But it’s hardly a bad thing.
So, a summary. It’s too early to tell whether or not this experiment will be successful, but at least it’s still going, which is something in and of itself. And it’s coinciding with improvements in other areas which, if nothing else, make the overall experience more encouraging.
I have discovered an excellent way of identifying when you have reached the edge of your expertise in a particular task.
Simply write out the task step-by-step, with explanations for how to complete each stage.
When the only explanation you can come up with is, “through some form of magic,” you have probably hit the edge of your understanding.
For example.
How to tie your shoe:
1. Loop one lace around the other. Pull tight. Friction will now hold shoe snug.
2. Form loops with both laces.
3. Wrap one loop around other loop. Pull tight. Friction will now hold knot snug.
4. Knot will remain snug, yet can be easily untied by pulling ends of laces. Knot is released through some form of magic.
A fledgling idea – not satisfied with my arguments or my explanations just yet, but here’s a fledgling attempt:
Business and academia struggle to benefit each other because of their different relationships with the truth.
Academia is, in name, dedicated to the objective search for truth. But objectivity has been taken to mean that you can’t have a vested interest in the outcome of your research – and therefore can’t be seen to have a profit motive. This means that it is very difficult for academics to benefit from the truths they find.
On the other hand, business is, in name, dedicated to the relentless search for profit. But this relentlessness has been taking to mean that you can overlook the truth if the profit potential is great enough. This means that it is inefficient for businesses to benefit from the truth.
The situation gets worse when you combine the two effects outlined above. Academics deride businesspeople for overlooking the truth. Businesspeople deride academics for their unwillingness to make financially-motivated arguments.
But this needn’t be the case. Because truth has value both to academics and businesspeople, and this value is becoming increasingly apparent.
Businesses need to realize that profit models based on untruths are not sustainable, and can do far more damage than just a failing business. This has started to become clearer, but acceptance of the evidence has been slow.
Academics, on the other hand, need to realize the value of the discoveries they make, and that they should be able to benefit from them. At the same time, they must understand that benefiting from a false discovery or an untruth is not sustainable, and can do far more damage than simply ending a research program.
As businesses begin to focus on creating true value and sustainable profitability, they will gain a greater appreciation of the contributions of academics research. And academics must be prepared for this, and react accordingly. They must realize the value of their discoveries and feel comfortable benefiting from them. But they must also reject benefits tied to untruths as unsustainable.
There is a world in which academia and businesses are not seen as being on opposite sides of the fence. And we can get there. But the road is long and we’re only just beginning to walk it.
As I said, rough ideas and a fledgling attempt. All discussion welcome!
I love it when things have obvious components and apparent uses, but to really understand them you have to think about them in a different way. Yes, this applies to most things. I love a lot of things.
But as specific examples…
I love how improv comedy scenes are usually filled with jokes. But in the best scenes, the jokes are not the funniest bit. A good comedy scene is one which as a “game” – a little tear in the fabric of reality which the performers slowly and skillfully rip wider and wider, all the while patching the tear with an alternate reality (usually with a double meaning), until the original reality just becomes a ridiculous farce.
I love how each component of a social media system – Twitter, Facebook/LinkedIn, blogs, etc. are fairly straightforward in and of themselves. And a lot of people just use them for posting notices, etc. But to really get the most out of them you have to think of them as conversations.
I love how the best “reference objects” for reminding people of information need not be directly relevant to the information. Their most important feature is that the person is motivated to carry it around with them, thus constantly having the reminder at hand. And the reason for carrying it around can be a completely different function.
Anyway, sorry for not taking the time to be more specific or clear in my explanations – in a bit of a rush and just wanted to post to keep up my experiment! I just love how you often have to bend your mind to get to the bottom of things.
Today’s post on our blog for The iOpener Institute for People and Performance, where I am the Director of Research.
Join the conversation about National well-being, individualism, and wealth.
Yesterday, I launched a personal experiment inspired by Stewart Friedman’s recent(ish) HBR article. I mentioned how I’m rarely moved by self-improvement suggestions, but how this one got me working. That probably deserves an explanation.
I’m really not a fan of exercises aimed at self-improvement in any specific domain – least of all personal self-improvement. For example, I struggle with exercise for exercise’s sake. Self-improvement activities for the sake of self-improvement just seem… inefficient. I have so many ideals in so many domains, it’s genuinely hard to justify time focusing on just one.
But the idea of “four-way wins” makes sense to me. Work on one thing that delivers multiple benefits. And take a small step towards changing the world for the better. To me, that’s a valuable use of my time. And it has the potential to create a value beyond its immediate effect, by increasing my ability to make valuable contributions. So this could be something.
Of the four domains of change, three are fairly straightforward:
- Work: I need to write and communicate clearly. I’m good at this, but I’m not fast.
- Home: I need to be more willing to share my thoughts. I’m happy to be a listener, but I also need to pipe up, once in a while!
- Mind: Getting my thoughts in order and boosting my creativity.
Granted, blogging for a month doesn’t sound like a huge step towards improving my community. And, by itself, it isn’t. But some of the thoughts I will be working on will have the potential for changing the world. And the clearer the thoughts are, and the clearer my communication of them are, then the greater chance I will have of effecting change. So this is part of laying the foundation for greater change.
I read a lot of “improve thyself” blogs and articles – it’s part of my job. Most of them don’t phase me – list after list of practical yet repetitive tips. But I recently discovered Stewart Friedman’s article in the April 2011 HBR. Timely, I know. But I found it. And it has inspired me to conduct my own experiment.
The experiment: I will publish a blog post every day (including weekends) for the next 30 days. The post may either be of this blog or on The iOpener’s Institute’s blog, but it shall be posted!
Why this particular experiment?
- I want to get into the rhythm of writing daily
- I want to get my thoughts on a number of topics in order
- I want to work on communicating my ideas more concisely
- I want to boost my creativity
- I want to engage in conversation with a variety of people
It will be very interesting to see what, if anything, has changed by this time next month!
