I like the idea of ongoing change, and no better book exists in my view than Change: What Really Leads to Lasting Personal Transformation by Jeffrey A. Kottler (BR00118). I blogged about it extensively, but that doesn’t mean shorter pieces out there don’t catch my interest. Like this one from GetPocket although the original was Inc. This one takes the premise of “planning” your reinvention rather than settling for reacting to something and creating a spontaneous reinvention. It outlines some reactive ones (like a change in the market changing your business life), shifting businesses to a more sustainable model (although no reason that can’t apply to your personal life too), or a change in lifestyle (similar focus). However, the one I liked was the one the author called the “big Aha! moment” as a catalyst.
Many people waste years looking for a magic bullet and wallowing in their misery, I guess I wasn’t meant to do that.
Vox.com asked 15 experts in their fields to predict in 2070, i.e. 50 years from now, what will we look back at that we are doing today and think, “WTF were we thinking?”. They use as an example, the idea of smoking from back in 1964, and the dramatic falls in smoking rates. Jim Crow-segregation laws. Or drinking and driving. As we learn, as we evolve in our thinking if not in our society, what will we drop by the wayside? The full article can be found at: https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18226563/50-years-wrong-side-of-history-future-prediction
I went through the list, and here is my reaction:
Eliminating youth tackle football. Generally, I agree, although like the article points out, the issue is more about head trauma and collisions. So it won’t likely be just tackle football, but heading soccer balls, contact hockey, etc. We’re pretty close to it now, I don’t think it will take 50 years. On the flip side, we are also putting kids in a bubble and I think that will decrease — we’ll balance out where the REAL dangers lie, and it won’t be in banning lawn darts or making them wear a helmet to go on a trampoline.
Before I get to the article I like, I’ll talk a little about the context of why I like it.
Economics and psychology together, i.e. behavioural economics, has long known that post-facto “rewards” for behaviour is usually only effective if the person knows in advance what the reward is going to be. So, if you set a goal, and the person values it, they will engage in the behaviour required to “win” or “earn” the reward. Gamification only works if the person knows the rules and has some say in the reward, i.e. it isn’t random chance.
Yet around the world, “tipping” doesn’t follow that pattern. It is an unknown reward provided after the transaction (i.e. the meal, for the restaurant world), and is supposed to reflect the customer’s view of how well they were served. Better service, better tip. Poorer service, poorer (or no) tip. Yet people rarely deviate from the norms — they often will pay 10% or 15% or 20% all of the time, by their personal comfort levels, for the wide “middle” ground for the level of service. » Read the rest
This is another article from Farnam Street, and I confess up until a few days ago, I’d never heard of them. Run by a guy named Shane Parrish, he’s based here in Ottawa. Some really fascinating stuff on there, with decent curation and a lot of links. This article highlights that:
Not all of our grand schemes turn out like we planned. In fact, sometimes things go horribly awry. In this article, we tackle unintended consequences and how to minimize them in our own decision making.
You might think that the article is going to be about train wreck ideas or the butterfly effect causing tsunamis. Not really. In fact, I would say it is more about linear thinking from good intentions to good outcomes, without taking into account side effects. Some unknown, some unforeseeable, some just missed because they stopped thinking early. » Read the rest
If you’re interested in goals and theory the way I am, then an article about “cross-training for the mind” and different ways of thinking in various disciplines is like catnip. When I saw the article, and that it was going to work through 113 different mental models, I couldn’t NOT click on that bait. In fact, their goal in the article is based on the following:
The overarching goal is to build a powerful “tree” of the mind with strong and deep roots, a massive trunk, and lots of sturdy branches. We use this tree to hang the “leaves” of experience we acquire, directly and vicariously, throughout our lifetimes: the scenarios, decisions, problems, and solutions arising in any human life.