TOY OR TOOL?

December 7th, 2019

 One way to define ‘growing up’ is the ability to acquire and play with a level of toy.

As children we start off with blocks and balls, Lego and actions figures.

Then we move on to bikes and phones, video games, clothes and cars.

Some of us stop.  We get hung up on the delicious distraction of one particular type of toy and it just suits our fancy.  Sometimes this “toy” can become a passion, as when someone finds they enjoy writing, language becomes a sort of infinity toy that can continually produce novelty.

There exists, however, a subtle shift between some things that we might call toys of pure distraction and pleasure and others that border on another category.

That is tools.  Language is our most powerful and versatile tool which can also be leveraged for fun.  But some do not stop there.  Tooling around on a computer like a kid might tinker with a toy can turn into a skill that can leverage a person’s effectiveness in ways that a toy of purely distraction quality can never do. 

There’s an easy distinction that can be drawn between toys that are merely for distraction and those that can be tools.  We need only ask: is the creation going in as consumption or is it coming out as a sort of gift to the world?

With a computer a person can waste time browsing endless websites, or the same person can build a useful app that can be used by millions.

The same versatility does not apply to videogames.  Such games are more like browsing than they are an act of creation.  And with this distinction of consuming or producing we can categorize absolutely everything we might purchase.  Does it enable more consumption or does it enable more creation?

The distinction can even go a little deeper: is it possible to be passive or does it require us to be active?

Are you buying toys to distract yourself more fully?

or are you buying tools to leverage your dreams even more?

SIMPLE ELABORATION

December 6th, 2019

This episode is dedicated to Brandon who you can connect with on Twitter at @brandonbydesign

Clear and simple expression is prized because it communicates ideas efficiently.  This plain and clear phrasing has a leverage that often evaporates as word count rises.

These virtues, however, might have embedded within them the traces of a malicious little vice.  In order to find this vice, we have to turn our attention to the subject of attention itself.

Our current discussion of attention follows an inverse argument to that of clear and pithy language.  In our modern age of distraction, no one seems to have much of an attention span.  Everyone claims it’s a bad thing that we have such short attention spans so is it any surprise that we prize the simple pithy communication over the plump verbose elaboration?

Think of the insightful quote or tweet. 

These require very little attention and if effective they create a little blip of pleasure before we move on.  Good quotes are like jokes in this way.  They light up a pathway in our brain that had never before been lit up in exactly that way.

The underlying problem with venerating simple, short and pithy ideas is that the process of being human is far more complex, and we cannot distill knowledge and wisdom down into say a few hundred pithy aphorisms.  We all experience a unique context, and the way we bridge our unique perspectives to one another is primarily through language.

Nuance is not achieved by the cute quote or the billboard statement.  In order to achieve nuance, we must establish a spectrum upon which subtlety can be demonstrated.  And any spectrum in this realm is going to be a context that must be built.

Rome was not built in a day, and no single sentence is claimed to be a masterpiece.  Only longer works gain the reputation of a masterpiece and this is because they create a context, through elaboration.

Not only this but we can reapply the observation about attention and tighten the argument.  Longer forms of communication, whether it be a poem, an essay, a novel, or an entire cannon – these require the sort of attention span that we currently bemoan the loss of.  The reason why is not just literal and practical.  Of course with a longer piece of writing, there is literally a longer time required to take in the material.  But beyond this, we can clearly state that any great piece of writing is evidence that the writer has paid close and sustained attention in order to come to the conclusions that they seek to convey in writing.  The invention of language and writing allows us to follow in their cognitive footsteps, to become aware of the context that makes a particular realization ripe, and then when the new idea is presented, it blooms in that nurturing environment, in the form of a nuanced context – the perspective of the writer.

Clear writing isn’t necessarily about getting the point across in as few words as possible.  Clear writing is achieved when we seek to add no more than necessary, while providing all that’s required for someone else to understand.

EFFORTLESS PROBLEMS

December 5th, 2019

When does something become effortless?

How does this differ from the expectation that certain things should be effortless?

Unfortunately a glaring contradiction exists between these two questions.  There are some very important things in life that we take for granted, and we do so by assuming that they should occur effortlessly.  Loving relationships are perhaps the best example of this assumption.  Many assume by indication of behavior that the meaning of love somehow contains a magic that should make interactions effortless.  The idea that work needs to be done in these circumstances somehow seems to contradict the high-ideal of love.  Whether this be a romantic situation or one between family members.  The nebulous and fluid concept of love becomes the glue for every assumption that things should somehow be effortless.

But as for that first question: when does something become effortless?  The answer is far more straight forward and obvious:

Generally, something becomes effortless after putting a ton of effort into the practice. 

There’s an anecdote attributed to Picasso that comes to mind:

He was sitting at a café doodling on a napkin and as he got up to go he crumpled up the napkin and put it into his pocket.  A woman sitting near by who knew who he was asked him if she could have the napkin.  Picasso responded that she could, for $40,000.  To which she replies “but it only took you 30 seconds.”  To which he ends the scene by saying “madam, it took me forty years.”

The woman’s observation that it took him only 30 seconds is a tribute to the effortless ease with which an artist creates after so many years of practice. 

It’s true with just about everything, and we’ve come to attribute a 10,000 hour rule to the mastery of any given skill or practice.

Now why is it that we readily admit the need for effort in order for something to become effortless in some fields but not others?

Why do we expect relationships to be effortless while other things require the grind of years, even when they are things we really enjoy, as we can assume with Picasso and painting, or some great athlete and their sport, or a musician and their music?

Often our relationships get only the dregs of our energy – what’s left over after a long and tired day. 

Or is it perhaps that we’ve simply gotten into a habit of laziness based on an assumption that something should be effortless?

It’s incredible how much a few extra minutes of effort can yield.  Going on a long drive with a family member?  Research a neat spot that’s on the way and make a little adventure of it.

Discover an acquaintance has a love of painting and no good brushes?  Pick one up. 

A friend is in need and has no way to repay?  Give for the sake of practicing how to give. 

With enough practice, anything can become effortless.

To assume otherwise – to believe that something should be effortless because maybe it’s fun or starts off well is to breed a future wake up call, and it might come when it’s too late to put in the effort, because the opportunity will have already passed by.

WASTING TIME

December 4th, 2019

There are two ways to waste time.

The first is the obvious way.  Completely passive, with a belly full of food, another beer now cracked and a TV show or a movie coming into focus.  Or with the phone whipped out, a thumb flicking away furious minutes.

We suspiciously refer to this activity as ‘relaxing’.  And we’re told it’s a good idea because as it’s said all around, you gotta take it easy.

The second way to waste time is to try and create something.  To work.  At first glance work doesn’t sound like a waste of time, but if we are working on a project that makes no money, then perhaps some might call it a waste of time.

Isaac Newton for example wasted quite a bit of time tinkering around with Alchemy and theology.  Luckily he wasted time in a third way that seems to have proven some benefit.

Some people don’t fit into cubicles.  In fact, as a side note it’s fairly astonishing that so many people do fit into them, for years.  And given the fact that many of them might not even really be doing anything.  This is all the more surprising – perhaps even disturbing- when we compare it to a basic description of prison.

People who have genuine trouble with this kind of set up often have notions compelling them to seek other situations where those ideas might find a fertile patch of reality.

These people are often wasting time in a productive way.  Of course, these people have little to no visibility until that thing they wasted so much time on suddenly turns out to be not so much of a waste.  The curiosity and work pays off, and then others give it barely a second of thought as they wonder how they did it.

Must have just been lucky.

Luck certainly plays a role that is hard to pin down.  But luck is more willing to play in certain environments with certain people rather than others.  Luck certainly might frequent the cubical environment in some form, but it’ll be far more rare to bestow the same kind of opportunity it does for the inveterate tinkerer who toils away in obscurity with their latest idea.

EMOTIONAL REGULATION PART II - THE TEST

December 3rd, 2019

[This episode extends from Episode 591, Emotional Regulation Part I.  This will be a casual, ongoing series with an experimental attempt to group some of the themes that appear on Tinkered Thinking regularly.]

This, ‘Part II’ is dedicated to Saher Cherif who you can connect with on Twitter @Saher_Cherif

Every action is predicated - in fact - dictated by an emotion.  Just like a good question which can generate the emotion to draw us into a quest to find an answer, even the smallest action, like grabbing one more potato chip has at its root, in emotion.

Success, or even just progress, in any area is determined by the kinds of actions that we take.   This process of action selection and execution gets a lot of the fanfare in the noisy world of productivity hacks.  But if we agree for a moment that all action is derivative of an emotion, then why is this emotional component not part of our focus?

Tinkered Thinking has previously spent some time exploring the symmetrical nature of both vicious and virtuous cycles.  The vorticular structure of these cycles, like a whirlpool,  seems to be everywhere, from the shape of galaxies, to the rotation of a hurricane – even to the way it feels when things are falling apart in life.  Think of the wording we use around this instance.  “I’m in a downward spiral”.  Terrible emotional experiences like depression and anxiety seem to have a self-reinforcing nature.  It’s as though they are primed by default to get stronger for as long as they exist.  All of us, aside from perhaps the psychopathically happy, have experienced this sense of being drawn down into a funk.  To put it lightly.

We might even wonder if there is a neurological pattern or structure upon which this whirlpool process is hosted, and if the Default Mode Network plays a crucial role in the particular polarity such cycles propagate, whether they be geared toward happy and productive or depressed and passive.  Of course, this is mere speculation and is far beyond the scope of Tinkered Thinking’s aim here.

The underlying point is that our brain propagates this process, no matter what we shove into the machinery. 

Think of it like any other piece of machinery.  It’s built to do a certain function, and when that machine is turned on, it’s going to try and do that function, no matter what you put into it.  Let’s take something basic as an example:

Say a garburator, which is used to tear up food scraps so they will wash down the drain.  It’s built for food scraps, but it’s not build well enough to know if someone drops a fork down the drain.  Either way, it’s going to try and process  whatever is thrown into it.

The brain is much the same way.  Give it an emotion, any emotion, and it’ll run with it, make it grow. 

Thinking about yourself, and your brain upon which some sense of self operates on top of, as a slippery slope casts everything else in a new light.

For example, just think about how we are all so reactive.  How we turn on the news and purposely expose ourselves to negatively framed information.  And then that material gets fed into a brain which seems designed to amplify things emotionally.

With each and every waking moment, we are presented with a test.  That test can be phrased as a simple question:  which emotions are you willingly going to entertain? 

When something goes wrong and there’s the opportunity to get angry or defeated over it… will you let those emotions define the moment, and potentially inform how you move into the next moment and onward into the future?  That’s the test.

If instead you can regulate these emotions to the point of redirecting helpful emotions and misdirecting useless emotions, then progress will naturally arise.  The test is simply how we choose to feed our internal emotional environment. 

There’s that old parable about the two wolves that live inside of everyone.  The good one and the bad one, and they are constantly battling one another for dominance.  The question arises: which one will win?  The answer of course, is the one you choose to feed.

The entry fee to progress is this emotional test.  After that, success is a function of time, consistent effort, and attention.

How we actually pass this test effectively, and consistently is the real trick.

The tool that has the most ROI here is a dedicated meditation practice centered on concepts of mindfulness.  How it works, is meditation gives you a pause button.  It’s during this pause that you can make a conscious choice about which emotion you’re going to feed to the meat grinder.