Checking in, being checked out

The reception desk at the National Hotel in Moscow is at the end of a long, narrow room. Getting there is a long walk, being watched by the receptionist all the way. I defer my gaze, feeling like a supplicant.

In American hotels, the desk is wide and embracing, and the space in front of it is shallow. You reach the desk rapidly, and you’re in control of the approach. You can almost pounce on the receptionist before they see you coming.

A long walk up, under scrutiny; a short walk to a wide welcome. Space, time, gaze: a primer in establishing who’s in control.

Car color

S. and I were discussing why most cars are such boring colors. She pointed out that most people buy cars off the lot, and thus most cars will be a muted color that offends few.

My theory was that buyers worry about resale - a car with a distinctive color will be hard to sell on. This is not a very good explanation at face value; I doubt that most people think about resale when they're buying a vehicle. On the other hand, since most cars are leased, the lessors - the dealers - do worry about this. This brings us back to S.'s explanation, since they (and the manufacturers) determine the specs for the cars on the lot.

One implication of S.'s theory is that we'll see more diverse colors as more people buy cars online, or otherwise specify precisely what they want rather than buy on impulse. The color of one's car is a great way to express individuality. One can already see that cars sold in this way, like the new Bug and Mini, have much more interesting colors than the muted livery of most other marques.

Excuse me - I have to ignore you for a while

Here’s a pointed description of one introvert:

"You don’t like having people around, including yourself.”

Not all introverts dislike themselves. For a wonderfully amusing and insightful take on introversion, read Jonathan Rauch’s Atlantic Monthly piece, Caring for your Introvert

For example:

Extroverts are energized by people, and wilt or fade when alone. They often seem bored by themselves, in both senses of the expression. Leave an extrovert alone for two minutes and he will reach for his cell phone. In contrast, after an hour or two of being socially "on," we introverts need to turn off and recharge. My own formula is roughly two hours alone for every hour of socializing. This isn't antisocial. It isn't a sign of depression. It does not call for medication. For introverts, to be alone with our thoughts is as restorative as sleeping, as nourishing as eating. Our motto: "I'm okay, you're okay — in small doses."

There is some debate on the importance of the introversion/extraversion distinction, though it’s one of the Big Five personality dimensions. Keirsey prefers to talk about Reserved vs Expressive people, but uses similar terms:

Expressive persons appear to be energized, charged up, by contact with other people. Owing to the surge they get when in company, they are quick to approach others, even strangers, and talk to them, finding this an easy and pleasant thing to do, and something they don't want to do without. Such interaction apparently charges their batteries and makes them feel alive. […] On the other hand, Reserved persons can be said to draw energy from a different source. They prefer to pursue solitary activities, working quietly alone with their favored project or hobby, however simple or complicated it may be, and such isolated activities are what seem to charge their batteries. Indeed, the Reserved can remain only so long in contact with others before their energies are depleted.

He closes his comment with an observation that rings true for me:

There is some social bias toward expressiveness in American social life, but Reserved persons have no reason to feel that there is anything wrong with them, and should be sure to provide adequately for their legitimate desire for quiet time to themselves.

The interesting development is that New Scientist reports that the Big Five (conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness and extraversion) may not be set in stone. One research team has found, for example, that openness decreases with age, and agreeableness improves.

Seeing the Setting

I’ve often bemoaned the fact that so many meetings are held in windowless conference rooms in the bowels of beautiful hotels in exotic settings. What a waste! One might as well meet at the Airport Holiday Inn – or so I thought.

Having just spent a week like this, I realized that the locale can make a huge difference, particularly if I consciously see the setting. One doesn’t need to spend hours amidst beauty for it to rejuvenate the spirits; a few seconds will do. I simply haven’t been mindful enough to take in what I was seeing.

Even if I hadn’t been conscious of it, I suspect that nice setting have a positive subliminal effect. If these meetings had all been held at the Airport Hotel, people’s spirits would have been subdued. The work would’ve been done, but without the spark of happiness.

I’ve resolved to try to see the places I’m in more clearly, and to take pleasure from them. It’s surprisingly hard to do; my mind is so well-trained to pattern-match to the task at hand (like finding the bathroom, dashing to the room to do email, or making small-talk with other participants) that this is all I observe – and I miss wonder of the world.

Deciding vs. Doing

A passing comment has led me to this conclusion: the ability to make decisions is often distinct from the ability to execute.

"Ability" here is meant primarily in organizational rather than personal terms. While some individuals may have a preference one way or another, the situation they find themselves in seems to influence their ability to do both simultaneously. In a reasonably contained organization, eg a small business, the chief executive needs to be able to make decisions and execute on them; there isn't an alternative.

As organizational complexity increases, executives are increasingly channeled into one modality vs. another. Some leaders make the hard trade-offs that lead to a vision and strategy. Others are more focused on execution; though such work in itself requires endless hard decisions to be taken, I distinguish those from the strategic decisions that shape an organization's future.

You might be a geek if...

This one from S.

You decide that your co-worker's whiteboard needs a rainbow drawn on it.

You select those colors from the available whiteboard pens that appear
in the rainbow and order them according to the spectrum.

You can't remember for sure whether the red is on the inside or the outside of the
rainbow, so give up on the project in preference to getting it wrong.

This is why geeks have the reputation of not being romantic, even when it's spring and the sap is rising...

In praise of self

Anglos who come to America are struck by the number of people who revel in describing their achievements. It deserves explanation. Here are some reasons why folk might insist on telling you all about the great things they've done.

1. It's the way they've been brought up. There's certainly a cultural component to talking about oneself. The English are taught to take a perverse pride in being excruciatingly humble. the same seems to be true in Japan and the Mid-west. I haven't discerned any regional patterns of American self-aggrandizement, though.

2. They're selling themselves to you. If people feel that they can prove themselves by describing their achievements, they'll do it. If it leads to increased respect, it's in their best interests.

3. They're selling themselves to themselves. This has always been my favorite explanation: people who revel in themselves have a low sense of self-worth. I'm not so sure any more. The very prevalence of the truism that blames all sorts of social ills on people's low self-esteem has made me increasingly skeptical of it. There's even evidence on the other side, now. It's often said that bullies have low self-esteem. However, New Scientist reports that bullying others has social value (Clare Wilson, 5 March 2004, "Teenagers special: Bully boys"). Anthony Pellgrini found in a study of 138 school children that bullying raised a perpetrator's social status (Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, vol 85, p 257). These kids know what they're doing. According to Pellegrini in this story: "Boys have high status with their male peers if they're bullies, and girls like them"

4. They're just bubbling over with enthusiasm for their work, and they love telling you about it. People who are goal oriented achievers will frame their work in terms of accomplishments, and a litany of triumphs will pour out without any ulterior motive.

I'm beginning to think that enthusiasm (#4) accounts for quite a lot of pride expression, particularly in America. Overt enthusiasm is encouraged here, and so enthusiasts are more visible. Tie that to a culture of selling (reason #2), and one can begin to explain #1.

What did people ever do before blogs?

They wrote letters to the editor. From NPR, a story about a man who's written letters to the newspapers around Chicago for thirty years.

Anti-rival and anti-excludable

I've been hearing for some time about rivalrous vs. non-rivalrous goods, and excludable vs. non-excludable ones. This is because physical property is excludable and rivalrous, while intellectual property -- something that's very important in my day job -- is non-excludable and non-rival. (Some definitions subsume "exhaustable" in "rival". The term "rival" is synonymous with "rivalrous", as are "exclusive" and "excludable". For a summary of terms see here.)

In simple terms, the more people share a rivalrous good, the less there is for anyone; when they share a non-rivalrous good, everyone gets the same amount, and the amount doesn't decrease with more users. Apples and seats on a plane are rivalrous; an idea, radio broadcasts and the common cold are non-rivalrous.

Goods are exclusive if producers can prevent people from consuming them if they haven't paid. I can prevent someone from using an exclusive good, but I can't prevent someone from passing on a non-exclusive good like an idea. It pretty easy to make tangible goods exclusive; I can lock up the apples. It's harder with intangibles, as the struggles over managing access to digital music have illustrated.

Some goods are both non-rival and non-excludable, like national defense, and non-DRM protected digital music. Public goods are non-rival and non-excludable. The rival/non-rival and excludable/non-excludable concepts can be shown as a 2x2 matrix:

	Excludable	Non-excludable
Rival	Tangible private goods (eg airline seats)	Commons (eg unlicensed spectrum)
Non-rival	Intangible private goods (eg patented inventions)	Public goods (eg national defence)

These definitions, however, don't take into effect the network effects that have become so prevalent on the web. Social networks like amazon reviews and del.icio.us tags are not just non-rivalrous, as one would expect from knowledge; the more one uses them, the more value is created.

These goods are "anti-rivalrous". Their use increases the amount available for consumption by others.

One can play the same game with exclusiveness. An "anti-exclusive good" might be one where the my giving it to you actively encourages you to pass it along to others. Viruses are one example; another is peer-to-peer software which someone cannot use without becoming a server node for others.

Expanding the table above to a 3x3 gives:

	Excludable	Non-excludable	Anti-excludable
Rival	~	~	?
Non-rival	~	~	(eg viruses)
Anti-rival	(eg member-limited social networks)	(eg communal site tagging)	(eg P2P supernodes)

Note that I haven't given names to the cells - that's left as an exercise to the economists...

Summing up wins

A friend of mine is trying to shift the perspective of someone who sees the world as a zero sum game. My friend is arguing for a new business model; his antagonist thinks of winners and losers.

The Economist's Lexington column in the February 26th, 2005 issue ruminates on America's love affair with success and failure. It makes an observation that speaks to the antagonist's motivation:

[You] can't have winners without losers (or how would you know how well you are doing?).

One can counter, as my friend does, that economic growth has two steps: creating value and dividing value. First you make a bigger cake, which is a cooperative enterprise, and then you divide it up, which is competitive. (This begins to explain, by the way, why evolution hasn't only selected for competitive people. We aren't all hyper-competitive; many people prefer to play rather than win. A successful species (and business) needs both kinds.)

However, even dividing the cake up is only a zero-sum game for "rivalrous goods", that is, goods that can be "used up". A good is rivalrous if my use of it competes with yours. On the other hand, a non-rivalrous good does not cost more to give to additional people, and the use of it by additional people does not diminish the use of it by others. Rivalrous goods include tax money and the water supply. Knowledge -- knowing stories, for example -- is non-rivalrous, as are digital media.

An NPR story on fishermen poets this morning concludes with a poet who says that he'd rather have stories to tell than a bank account. "When you die, I think the winner's the guy that has the most stories".

Ego and Intelligence

Jeff Hawkins' On Intelligence lays out a fascinating theory of how the brain works. He presents a new synthesis of elements of congnition that he argues have been under-estimated to date: time-dependence, hierarchy, memory and prediction.

The main drawback is that this is very much a first-person narrative; on page 87, for example, the word "I" appears no fewer than ten times. An exception, perhaps? Let's try page 169: "I", "me" and "my" appear eight times.

The ideas are laid out very well, and the reader is eased into neuroscience with clever analogies and metaphors. There are thought-provoking passages on why AI and neural nets failed, on the likely nature of intelligent machines, and on the uses to which they could be put. He led me to stimulating speculations -- what greater compliment for a thought-provoking book? -- like possible explanations for the diversity of personality traits among individuals all endowed with essentially the same cognitive apparatus.

The prose is very readable, thanks largely I assume to the efforts of the co-author, science writer Sandra Blakeslee. The price paid for the collaboration, though, is that the writing doesn't have much character. In contrast, Malcolm Gladwell writes just as well, but one feels that you end up knowing him a little and would like to spend more time with him discussing his ideas.

As a scientist manqué I found Hawkins' lack of rigor faintly annoying. While he makes a good case, the phrases "it's true that" and "I firmly believe that" seem to be equivalent to him. This is a popular book written before the papers are published, rather than after; as far as I could tell (eg from the publications listed at the Redwood Neuroscience Institute, f(o)unded by Hawkins) he has no peer-reviewed publications. This book seems to be more interested in establishing a claim in the public mind than advancing science, though its popularity among the digerati is likely to spur the professional scientists on, in spite of themselves.

Goldstein on Gödel

Rebecca Goldstein's Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel is a wonderful "life and work".

She successfully communicates both the context and essence of Gödel's contribution, and his opacity and paranoia. Goldstein provides a lucid outline of logical positivism; for the first time, I grasped the philosophical point of this movement, and it's relationship to Platonism. I began to get a handle on Wittgenstein, and, amazingly, I felt I understood the rudiments of the predicate calculus, the difference between truth and proof, and even the sketch of Godel's proof.

Goldstein also conjures up Gödel as an individual, and turns the fragments and glimpses of this very private man into a metaphor for his personality. One gets a sense of a how a few caring colleagues looked after him, in spite of his rebuffs and hypochondria. While a very different man, Gödel's eccentricity and circle of caring colleagues reminded me of another strnage mathematician evoked Paul Hoffman's fascinating book: The Man Who Loved Only Numbers : The Story of Paul Erdös and the Search for Mathematical Truth.

The book is fluently written, and I'm tempted to explore her novels. The explanations of abstruse mathematics are well handled, and she skillfully evokes the many peripheral personalities. The only jarring notes are a handful of gratuituous trips to the thesaurus.

This life of Gödel reminded me fondly of a book I read and loved more than a decade ago: John von Neumann and Norbert Wiener: A Dual Biography by Stephen J. Heims(Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press, 1980). Sadly, it seems to be out of print; I found it at my local university library, and I look forward to reading it again.

Meaning: the lack of a knack

In the previous entry I referred to my fruitless, but not yet hopeless, search for meaning. On reflection, it may be hopeless; I may just not have the temperament for it.

According to tests like Seligman's Signature Strengths, my self-image is built around even-handedness and humility. I strongly value open-mindedness, good judgement, and modesty. One might expect that this kind of person would not have strong opinions, would be willing to entertain that any number of contradictory possibilities might be equally good, and wouldn't believe that they have any privileged insight into, say, what's worth doing and what isn't.

This would make it hard to experience meaning, given the Concise Oxford Dictionary definition of it as "importance, or significance". Both these terms suggest a relative judgment; something can be important or significant only relative to other, less important, things. Someone who is even-handed will find it difficult to experience one thing as much more significant than another. A leaning towards modesty makes it even harder, since there is a reluctance to believe that any judgment that is arrived at is important compared to that of other people.

Now, I cheated a bit. Another meaning of "meaning" is "worthwhile quality, or purpose"(Compact Oxford English Dictionary) . In that case, the search for meaning is a search for purpose, not the search for importance. And yet... "worthwhile" implies a value judgement, and a purpose entails selecting one direction over another. Humble open-mindedness isn't going to help much here, either.

If it's correct that some temperaments militate against finding meaning in life, then others must enhance it. Seligman, for example, lists one of 24 signature strengths as "Spirtuality, Sense of Purpose, Faith, Religiousness". At the risk of tautology, one might guess that people who have a strong sense of the Other will find meaning, since to them it is obvious that there's a greater reality beyond themselves that provides a compass, and a way to discern between alternatives. Other personality types that are likely to find meaning easily are those who are courageous (taking strong stands in face of opposition suggests the self-confidence required to discern one thing as more important than another), and those showing leadership (since leadership presupposes a sense of direction, which presumes the ability to feel a strong bias for one course of action over another).

Miscellany

The postmodernists say (said? are there still any out there?) that there's meaning in random jusxtaposition. Let's hope:

I've known for a long time that as men get older, their hair stops growing out their head and start coming out their ears and noses. I'm learning to live with it. But what I wasn't expecting were the bushy eyebrows. Long, straight, hard hairs that come out akimbo. Omigod, please, I don't want to become Dennis Healy! What does one do with them? Pulling one out seems like cutting off the Hydra's heads; two grow back in its place.

I dreamt the other night of Bill Gates doing stand-up. He was pretty darn good. He was enjoying himself, and the audience was with him. He ended his set with some hilarious impersonations of a few Microsoft VPs - that nobody in the audience got.

I saw a stage adaptation of Chaim Potok's Chosen last night. It is a coming-of-age story about people discovering what gives meaning to their lives, and then devoting themselves to it. I am still searching for meaning after all these years. I tell myself that I shouldn't expect to find it. If it weren't essentially impossible to find meaning, why would there be so much literature - and religion - about it? One could say the same thing about love. Which gives me hope: I didn't imagine I'd ever experience true love until the day I did.

Cheskin have done a wonderful piece about the meaning of color around the world. I first saw it just around the time when the 76 gas company started confusing me. I've always been fond of the orange livery of their filling stations, and I started seeing the orange as more and more red; was I beginning to lose my sense of color? And then one day I saw a tanker truck in the old orange delivering fuel to a station decked out in red. Side by side, orange and red; there could be no doubt. It must be a rather pathetic attempt to wrap themselves in the flag. In these days of patriotism, the board must have decided, red and blue was better than orange. What a pity. Red is already so overused, especially in the gas market (Conoco, Texaco), that it has no distinguishing meaning any more. I'll treasure my little orange 76 car antenna bobble even more now.

Before and after:

I copied out this quote from Thomas Merton's "The Love of Solitude, IV" ages ago:

A man knows when he has found his vocation when he stops thinking about how to
live and begins to live.

(A longer excerpt here.)

Two epigrams:

If I can think of it, someone else is probably already doing it.

The least trustworthy person in the world is my future self.

Winning against a Big Ego (3)

Another in the occasional series (#1, #2) of musings on how we little people can survive in the shadow of the Big Egos -- and perhaps even win a bout or two.

The DISC model uses four character dimensions to come up with fifteen personality profiles. Each profile is a different mix of the four dimensions: Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, and Conscientiousness.

Executive leaders tend to score high in Dominance and Influence. These are their strengths, but also their weakness.

• People with the "Inspirational" pattern, for example, set out to control their environment and audience. They're very high on Dominance, and also on Influence. They care about the projection of personal strength, character and social power. By the same token, they fear weak behavior, and loss of social status.
• Those with the "Persuader" pattern seek authority and prestige; they revel in growth, and like to sell and close. In this case, Influence is higher than Dominance, but both dwarf the other two dimensions. Persuaders fear a fixed environment, and complex relationships.

Riffing on these DISC attributes, here are some tricks that might help level the playing field:

1. Suggest that taking the course of action you oppose would make them look weak, or threaten their status.
2. Present your proposal as leading to dynamic change, and their inclination as perpetuating the status quo.
3. When on the defensive, draw them into the complexities of the topic. Beware, though; if they're intelligent and able to handle complex thinking, you may be outplayed unless you're at the core of your competence, and they're not.