Archive for the ‘Personal Development’ Category

How To Find Out Your Real Personality Type

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

I’ve been interviewed on the Introvert Zone regarding my ebook The Personality Puzzle.

The Personality Puzzle: Interview with Hunter Nuttall, Part 1 – this is about whether our personality changes with age, or in response to significant life events.

The Personality Puzzle: Interview with Hunter Nuttall, Part 2 – this is about why it’s helpful to understand different personality types, and what advice I have for introverts.

Klaus @ TechPatio asked a question in the comments, but when I realized that my reply was way too long for a comment, I told him I’d answer his question here. Here’s what he asked:

“A week ago I took a 40-question test that gave me these four letters: INTJ
I: 75%
N: 55%
T: 55%
J: 55%
As you can see, NTJ is pretty close to the middle, I’m not sure if that’s good or bad, if I’m just “average”? :)

But then I took another 40-question test a few days ago, that placed me as ISTP and a bit ISTJ. So I think it’s quite confusing with all those personality types when they can change so much in tests depending on your mood when you take them, and how you understand the questions.

I guess my question is, Hunter, what is the *best* way to find out your four-letters?”

Great question! It’s not always easy to determine your type.

When I attended a full day MBTI workshop, I came away thinking I was an ISTJ. I actually tested as an INTP, but the facilitator explained that the test is not always accurate, and after going through all the exercises, I decided I was an ISTJ in spite of what the test said.

Looking back on that now, it sounds ridiculous to me, but it made sense at the time.

3 years later, I met with a career coach to talk about career options, and the MBTI just happened to come up. I said I was an ISTJ, and she seemed surprised. She asked me if fitting in was very important to me, and I said no, if anything, I’d want to be different.

She said, “Oh, then you’re definitely not an ISTJ,” and after a couple of minutes decided that I was probably an INTP. I told her that’s what the test said, and she smiled.

Now I can see why I misunderstood some things and concluded that I was an ISTJ. And when I take the online tests, I get INTJ/ISTJ/ISTP quite often, and I can see that it depends on how I’m interpreting the questions, and even my mood.

First you need to realize that even the official test isn’t perfectly accurate. Yet it’s been tested and refined over 40 million administrations, and it meets and exceeds the standards for psychological instruments for both reliability (consistent results from one test to the next) and validity (measuring what it attempts to measure).

On the other hand, the online knockoffs have barely been tested at all. And even tiny variations in the questions can make a difference in how you answer them.

When I see you’re testing as INTJ, ISTP, or ISTJ, I know something is way off. These aren’t just three different types – they’re three different temperaments.

The 16 types are organized into four temperaments, which are the most basic personality types dating back to ancient times. They represent the starkest differences you can have between different personalities.

So if the online tests are taking you across temperament boundaries so easily (even if you’re borderline on those letters), something is wrong.

The best ways to find out your type, in descending order:

#3 – Take the official test and attend an MBTI workshop. The test results will probably be accurate, and the workshop will provide additional info as well as being a lot of fun.

#2 – Read books and websites about the MBTI until your type becomes obvious. The official MBTI guidelines say that you are the best judge of your own type, regardless of what the test says. And I think that when you understand the different types well enough, you can’t fail to correctly type yourself.

And the #1 best way to find out your four letters…read my book! :)

While I’m at it, I’ll comment on this part too:

“As you can see, NTJ is pretty close to the middle, I’m not sure if that’s good or bad, if I’m just ‘average’? :)

You’re using a smiley, so you know that “average” isn’t a bad thing here. It just is what it is.

If you have split preferences, you can say you have a balanced personality. This might sound good, and of course it is in some ways. At the same time, it can lead to confusion. Imagine not being sure whether you want to be a hedge fund analyst or a panda ballet choreographer.

If you have very clear preferences, you won’t have this confusion. You’ll be pulled in only one direction, and you’ll be full speed ahead when you get to do what you want. The downside is that you’ll be a fish out of water when you have to act against your preferences.

There are always pros and cons. There are no bad types, nor bad preference splits. So just be who you are!

Post to Twitter

6 Famous Right-Handed Southpaws

Sunday, October 11th, 2009

My post on mixed handedness generated a lot of interest, and I said I’d return to that topic after I had learned more about it. It turns out there was far too much information to put into a post, or even a series of posts. So I’ll be releasing it as an ebook in the near future.

One thing that surprised me was how astonishingly hard it is to get reliable information on whether certain famous people are left-handed, right-handed, or mixed-handed.

What often happens is someone hears that so-and-so is left-handed, so he puts that in a book without checking for any evidence, and before too long it ends up on a million web pages. It’s kind of annoying when you’re just trying to find the truth.

Here we see 6 famous people who regularly appear on lists of southpaws, despite the notable distinction of not being left-handed. (Thanks to Chris McManus for bringing these people to my attention in his book Right Hand, Left Hand.)

Billy the Kid

Billy the Kid (corrected version)

First on the list is Henry McCarty, AKA Henry Antrim, AKA William H. Bonney, AKA Billy the Kid. He’s been the most famous southpaw outlaw since Paul Newman played him in the 1958 western “The Left Handed Gun.”

It’s actually understandable that we always thought he was left-handed. After all, we only had one photograph of him, and it showed him with a pistol on his left hip, steadying a rifle with his right hand.

The problem is that we only had blurry copies of the original photo. After discovering the original more than 100 years after his death, we found that it was made using a technique that reversed the image.

Furthermore, the original was clear enough that we could see that the buttons were on the wrong side of his vest, and his belt buckle was backwards. The corrected version appears above, showing Billy’s pistol on his right hip.

Pablo Picasso

Pablo Picasso

We only had one picture of Billy the Kid, but we don’t have that problem with Picasso. Actually, we have thousands of pictures of Picasso, and plenty of videos as well. The only problem is, he isn’t using his left hand in any of them.

Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein

You’ve probably seen this picture before, with Einstein writing on the chalkboard right-handed. He may very well have been mixed-handed, but he sure wasn’t left-handed.

James Michener

James Michener

Pulitzer Prize winner James Michener was once nominated by Southpaws International as one of their southpaws of the year. He wrote to them to say that the only thing he used his left hand for was occasionally scratching his right elbow.

Bob Dylan

Bob Dylan

If Bob Dylan were completely left-handed, you’d think it would be easy to find a picture of him playing a guitar that way.

However, he may have been mixed-handed. In David Hepworth’s 1986 interview with Bob Dylan, Hepworth noted that Dylan autographed his album with his left hand.

Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin

The confusion here comes from Benjamin Franklin’s essay a petition of the left hand. It’s written from the point of view of a left hand, complaining about how he’s treated differently from the right hand. But is that enough to mean that Ben was left-handed?

The portrait above was painted by Mason Chamberlin, from life (i.e., in person) in 1762. Ben Franklin is shown holding a quill pen in his right hand. I have to think that the artist wouldn’t go to the trouble of reversing the image since the model was right in front of him, and Ben would surely have noticed had he done so.

At any rate, there are many possibilities between completely left-handed and completely right-handed. Take this handedness test to see where you fall on that continuum.

Do you know any other right-handed “southpaws?”

For more handedness myth-busting, check out my ebooks Ambidextrous (for right-handers) and Ambisinistrous (for left-handers).

Post to Twitter

The Nobel Peace Prize Is The New Grammy

Saturday, October 10th, 2009

I always thought winning the Nobel Peace Prize was a big deal. After all, this is a prize that even Gandhi wasn’t good enough to win.

Barack Obama was nominated for it less than two weeks after his inauguration. The committee voted for him while he presided over two wars that have lasted longer than World War II. And he actually won the award on the day we bombed the moon. I don’t know where to start with what’s wrong with this.

The problem with handing out Nobel Peace Prizes like tic tacs is that it cheapens the award for the people who really earn it. You know, the people who actually do something for peace, like Martin Luther King, or Mother Teresa, or Nelson Mandela, or the 14th Dalai Lama.

It’s entirely possible that Obama will earn it in time (ending these two wars would be a nice start). But even so, wouldn’t it have been better for everyone, Obama himself included, to at least wait until the end of his presidency, instead of hoping he’ll earn it someday?

###

In other news, the price of How To Be Rich And Happy has been dropped from $97 to $47. For people who have already bought it, don’t worry – Tim will be in contact with an offer to make it right.

Post to Twitter

How To Be Rich And Happy (Non-Cheesy Version)

Sunday, October 4th, 2009

How To Be Rich And Happy

I usually roll my eyes whenever I see a title containing the word “rich.” That goes double for the word “happy.” So why on earth would I use both the words “rich” and “happy” in a post title? Because this is about the new book How To Be Rich And Happy by Tim Brownson and John Strelecky.

I know, a title like that makes you want to ask “What the hell were you thinking?” (It’s actually my first question to Tim below.) But this is actually a book of substance and not hype. Instead of writing a normal review, I thought it would be better to interview Tim about what being “rich and happy” means.

But very quickly, here’s what you get. This is an electronic book delivered to you by instant download, but its 218 pages have the look and feel of a “real book.” It contains a tremendous amount of information, a great variety of material, and it keeps things fun. You can download the first three sections for free, and it’s backed by an amazing 12 month money-back guarantee.

It also includes:

- #1 Best Selling author John P. Strelecky’s inspirational book “Life Safari.” John’s works have been translated into nineteen languages and been best-sellers around the world.

- Tim Brownson’s critically acclaimed book – “Don’t Ask Stupid Questions, There are no Stupid Questions.”

- Access to an ongoing library of video tutorials in which John and Tim explain the exercises and findings in How to be Rich and Happy.

Update 10/9/2009: Due to numerous complaints, the price has been dropped from $97 to $47. However, it no longer comes with the two additional ebooks.

Go check it out now. Well, if you can wait a bit, read my interview with author Tim Brownson first.

Hunter: First things first, Tim – there’s no way we can avoid talking about the title. You know you were setting yourself up for ridicule by calling it “How To Be Rich And Happy.” If your book were a kid on the first day of school, it would be the one with a bowl haircut, the latest pocket protector with the memory expansion pack, and a t-shirt with a bullseye labeled “aim fist here.”

I’ve noticed that a lot of the fluffy self-help books use certain trigger words in the title to magnetically pull people in. The problem is that often there’s not enough substance inside to make it worthwhile. And readers find that an irresistible title has made them buy a book containing nothing but recycled platitudes and sales pitches for overpriced workshops.

So, when I heard that your upcoming book is titled “How To Be Rich And Happy,” well, let’s say it’s a great credit to your reputation that I didn’t immediately vomit in terror! But while I was mocking the title for the first few pages, I have to say that by the end of the book I was actually a fan of the phrase “rich and happy.”

Tell us about rich and happy. What does that mean to you?

Tim: Relieved to hear you didn’t vomit in terror, that wouldn’t be a good thing. Interestingly enough my reaction to the title was very similar to yours. When John told me he was planning a book called “How To Be Rich and Happy” I barely managed to control my mirth, as I was about to drive off the first tee.

If I hadn’t known John I would have dismissed it out of hand. Even when he sent me the draft I didn’t even read if for over a month, but when I did, I thought, wow!

The title will definitely raise a few eyebrows and some people will think it’s a scam to help me and John get Rich and Happy, but we’re prepared for that.

The point is we couldn’t think of a better way to describe what we were doing and to go all coy and bashful because we were worried about what others would think wouldn’t have served anybody. And at the end of the day who doesn’t want to be rich and happy?

Hunter: I’ve known you through your blog for a long time, but I hadn’t heard of your co-author John Strelecky. How did you decide to write it with him? What do you each bring to the table?

Tim: How I met John is really weird. I had a copy of his book “The Why Café” and wanted to ask a question. I shot him an e-mail and he responded with a reply almost immediately saying “let’s meet for breakfast.” I thought, “What the hell is this nut job talking about?” I had no idea he lived only a mile down the road, he could have been anywhere in the U.S. for all I knew!

That was over 3 years ago and we became good friends sharing a very similar outlook on life. His book “The Big 5 For Life” is one of my favorite business books of all time and one I’d encourage anybody to read.

So as I was reading the draft of the book I kept thinking “I want in on this project!” So I asked him if he’d consider letting me co-author and he said yes. Easy when you ask!

In terms of what John brings to the table. He was a very successful consultant and independently wealthy by the time he hit his early 30’s. He’s also had a lot of experience living the Rich and Happy life and spends upwards of 6 months per year traveling because that’s what he loves to do.

I’ll let you judge what I bring! A funny accent maybe?

[Hunter's comment: Tim is being a bit modest here. You can read more about him on the About page of How To Be Rich And Happy.]

Hunter: Your book’s introduction is bound to remind people of Napoleon Hill’s classic Think And Grow Rich. That’s a book I enjoyed very much, though like most classics, it’s sorely dated. In what ways would you say your book is similar to TAGR, and how is it different?

Tim: John loves TAGR and I am more ambivalent toward it probably because it is so dated now and I can’t remember it that clearly.

There has been a conscious effort by us both to make this a process that people can follow easily. We did 6 or 7 rewrites in the last 3 or 4 months to make sure the book “flowed” for people. In that way I guess it is a bit like TAGR. I actually received a DM on Twitter from one of my own favorite authors in the UK, a guy called Michael Heppell saying he thought it was like TAGR for the 21st Century.

[Hunter's comment: Darn, he stole what I was going to say in my testimonial! :) ]

The differences are tricky because it’s about 4 years since I read TAGR, but I have no recollection of the importance we place on values and understanding what your own core values are. I could be wrong on that though because I have read one or two books in the meantime.

Hunter: Who is your book meant for? If you come across a burned out lawyer who just can’t take another day of work, a single mother who dreams of the day she can spend more quality time with her kids, and an aging idealist who never figured out what he wants to do with his life, who are you going to recommend your book to?

Tim: Are you ready for a huge cop out? All of them! Because what we do starts at the level of identity and ascertains what drives somebody at an unconscious level it can work for literally anybody that applies the formula to their life. Obviously the path will be different for different people, but I would be lying if I said it would benefit one type of person more than another and that is quite deliberate.

Actually scratch that, it will benefit anybody that is actually prepared to do what is necessary. Anybody thinking of buying it and hoping they will get Rich and Happy purely by reading it, is in for a huge let down and I’d advise them to save their money. One of the positive side effects of the price is we know we’ll get a higher than average percentage of people doing the work.

Hunter: I know you’re an NLP Master Practitioner, but my knowledge of NLP is pretty much limited to what the acronym stands for – neuro-linguistic programming. Does your book teach any NLP techniques, or is that something you need to hire a high-priced shrink for?

Tim: LOL, not many high priced shrinks use NLP although some of the processes are starting to be picked up and move into the main stream.

There is plenty of NLP in there although it may not always be visible as NLP to the casual observer. There are some obvious techniques like anchoring, reframing and using submodalities to help the reader change their subjective experience about an event and there is also some subtle use of language patterns designed to get people to do the work!

Hunter: Many parents tell their kids they can grow up to be president if they put their mind to it. Is that true?

Tim: On a local level I think it’s perfectly true. However, on a global level it obviously cannot be true, there is only one President. I think it’s important to encourage kids to believe anything is possible within physical reason.

I much prefer clients that come to me have outrageous goals than puny simple goals that will probably happen by default. The latter have usually had their dreams knocked out of them as kids by constantly being told to, “be more realistic” As one of the chapters says, “realism is for accountants,” and in my opinion it stifles creativity and kills hope.

Hunter: How do you know your formula can work for someone who is sincere in their desire to apply it? Don’t we all vary dramatically in our strengths, interests, assets, connections, opportunities, etc? So how can there be one formula that works for everybody?

Tim: Because the formula is dynamic and will vary from person to person. Our starting point is to say “Look, we don’t know what Rich and Happy means to you. We don’t know what your core values are and we don’t what your belief system is like. However, we can show YOU how to find that stuff out and start to lay the foundation for moving forward.” What we do that in my experience a lot of self development books don’t do, is explain how this stuff works and we back up a great deal with a lot of cutting edge medical and scientific research.

Not only that, but it’s the blueprint I use with clients so I have first hand experience of knowing it can work across all types of people.

Tim Brownson is a Life Coach out of the UK but now living in Florida and with clients all over the globe. He runs the blog The Discomfort Zone where he takes a light-hearted, left field approach to self-development and refuses to take himself too seriously.

His latest book How To Be Rich And Happy is now available for the bold and daring.

Post to Twitter

The Meaning Of Life

Saturday, September 12th, 2009

I’ve got a guest post up on IttyBiz about the meaning of life.

It was originally titled “Planning For The End Of Your Ittybiz,” but it’s really not specific to business at all. It’s about what you’ll do once you no longer have to do anything.

Stop by and get some life advice from the Dalai Lama, Thomas Jefferson, Steve Pavlina, Tim Ferriss, Neo, and Ferris Bueller.

Post to Twitter

Drawing On The Right Side Of The Brain

Sunday, August 9th, 2009

Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain

Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain is a classic book by Betty Edwards about learning how to draw. It was first published in 1979, then revised in 1989 and 1999 (the latest edition being called The New Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain). It has a reputation for being phenomenally effective at teaching people how to draw better than they ever thought they could.

I first heard about it in Paul Scheele’s PhotoReading course. One day he was mulling over the problem of how to look at the words on a page without using his conscious mind, but at the same time without de-focusing his eyes.

He found his answer through this book, saying “I read an article about an art teacher named Betty Edwards. In her book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, she said, ‘If you want to draw my thumb, don’t draw my thumb,’ because you will use the left brain–the analytical, non-artistic side of the brain. She said, ‘To draw my thumb, draw the space around my thumb.’ That strategy uses the right brain–the creative side of the brain.”

As a teacher, Betty couldn’t understand why so many of her students had a hard time drawing something that was right in front of them. She could see that they were trying, but her suggestion of “Just look at it” was always met with a frustrated “I am looking at it!”

She developed her techniques after realizing what the real problem was. Most people don’t draw what they see – they draw what they think they see.

As kids we learned a particular way to draw a sun. Maybe it’s in the corner of the page or maybe not, but surely it has lines coming out of it. And yet, whenever I’ve looked up at the sky, not once have I ever seen lines coming out of the sun.

We learned a certain way to draw a house, a dog, a car, and a person, and these methods stuck with us. Now when we think we’re drawing what we see, we’re actually just loading our mental clip art, and drawing what we think we see.

One of the main techniques in this book is drawing things upside down. The idea is that if you can’t recognize what you’re drawing, your left brain can’t load its mental clip art and tell you what the object should look like. Instead, the right brain kicks in, and you draw what you actually see.

Here we see that Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain is a fantastic title, having double meanings for both drawing (sketching, as well as utilizing) and right (the opposite of left, as well as the correct side of the brain to use for drawing).

People often forge signatures upside down so they can focus on the details they see, instead of making a T the way they learned to make a T. It makes sense in a way. In 10th grade English when we could look for our vocabulary words in the newspaper for extra credit, I read the paper backwards so I could focus on each individual word and not get caught up in the story (though that may not have been the teacher’s intent).

But could this really work? Wouldn’t a signature drawn upside down be all messed up after you turned it right side up? Anyway, I gave it a try, drawing these signatures upside down:

Signatures drawn upside down

You can’t really tell if they’ll look right when you turn the paper around, but I was pleased with the results:

Signatures drawn upside down, then turned right side up

For comparison, here’s what I got when I drew them right side up:

Signatures drawn right side up

Other than MLK’s signature (which is really hard to do upside down!), the two versions don’t look all that different. (BTW, is anyone else surprised that Leonardo da Vinci’s signature looks like that?)

OK, so drawing upside down works well enough for signatures (although my right side up signatures were still better). But what about when you’re drawing a real picture? Surely a sufficiently complicated subject would have so many intricacies that you couldn’t possibly get it right upside down. But let’s find out.

Before the book explains anything, one of the first exercises it gives you is drawing your self-portrait. Fortunately, you’re not asked to draw someone while hanging upside down from the monkey bars. Instead, you’re just sitting in front of a mirror and drawing your reflection. Here’s what I drew:

Self-portrait

Yeah, it’s really awful. But what specifically is wrong with it? The main problem is that I wasn’t really drawing what I saw. Nobody’s eyes are that big, outside of a Disney cartoon. The proportions are all wrong, none of the features look right, and I couldn’t pick myself out of a lineup.

And I made what’s called “the chopped-off skull error.” If you look in a mirror, you’ll notice that your eyes are halfway between the top and bottom of your head. It’s obvious, but nobody wants to acknowledge it. We subconsciously think foreheads aren’t as important as the main features, so we put the eyes closer to the top, chopping off the skull. It’s an extremely common mistake. Even van Gogh did it in his early years.

If you draw upside down, will all these mistakes go away? In theory they should. If you don’t know what you’re drawing, you can’t bring any preconceived notions to the table. But I couldn’t help thinking that I’d make other mistakes that would have been obvious if I could see what I was doing.

Anyway, the day after drawing my self-portrait, I attempted a rather intimidating feat. The subject was a knight on a horse, with no shortage of fine detail. I was going to draw it upside down. And for an added challenge, I was going to use my non-dominant hand (though Betty doesn’t say to do this). I drew this:

Knight on Horse

I couldn’t believe what I saw when I turned the paper right side up! The biggest mistake was in the lance, where my inability to draw straight lines with my right hand forced me to draw the lines thicker as a cover-up. But overall, I was thrilled with it.

Of course, you don’t have to keep drawing upside down forever. Once you get in the habit of really looking at things, you’ll be able to draw right side up without being biased by your assumptions about what things look like.

The main thing is to just get started. How many beautiful drawings never see the light of day because people assume they don’t have enough talent? If I can draw this knight on a horse, upside down, in ink, with my weak hand, after one day of instruction, I’m sure you’d be surprised by what you can do.

But as for Betty’s theory about why her methods work, I’m pretty sure she’s wrong. We’ve all heard a lot about the left-brain/right-brain dichotomy, but almost everything we’ve heard is wrong (though the details are far beyond the scope of this post). She came under heavy attack for drawing half-brained conclusions (pun very much intended) based on this pop psychology.

However, she did the right thing in response. Instead of backing away entirely from the left-brain and right-brain distinctions, she just started using the terms L-mode (analytical) and R-mode (creative). There are very important differences between these ways of thinking, even if they aren’t neatly packaged into separate hemispheres of the brain.

But the bigger problem is that things still seem backwards. Why would looking at something upside down make you switch from L-mode to R-mode? Wouldn’t recognizing the subject and loading the associated mental clip art fall into the R-mode category? And when your recognition of the whole is disrupted and you’re forced to look at the details out of context, wouldn’t that be an L-mode activity?

Anyway, this is not to take away from the simple truth that her methods work wonders by changing your way of seeing, which determines so much. Learning about the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator forever changed the way I look at personalities. Now I can’t meet someone without trying to figure out their type. In the same way, learning the basics of drawing is changing the way I look at all objects. I can’t look at something without thinking about how to draw it, or whether it really looks the way I think it does.

Even if you don’t think you like drawing, you might be surprised by what you get out of Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain (although you might want to skip the exercises that require equipment you won’t have). Once you learn to see, the world will never look the same again.

Post to Twitter

Outliers: The Story of Success

Monday, July 6th, 2009

Everyone is talking about Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers: The Story of Success. Many people say it’s great, and it is.

It’s filled with amazing insights into success. It took me a long time to read it because I found that reading just a few pages sometimes gave me enough to hold me over all week.

You can read the prologue here and some excerpts here. (See “The 10,000 Hour Rule,” “Harlan Kentucky,” and “Rice Paddies and Math Tests” in the sidebar. The last one was enough to make me start learning to count in Cantonese.)

Just be aware that it’s not a how-to guide with a list of steps to take. In fact, his idea that successful people are merely a product of their environment might make you go all fatalistic like the Merovingian. It’s meant to be more intriguing than practical.

My only disappointment is that I was hoping for a lot more detail about the 10,000 hour rule that he’s so well known for. It says that pretty much anyone can become successful in pretty much anything if and only if they put in 10,000 hours of practice.

But what level of granularity does that apply to? Does 10,000 hours of being creative make you successful at being creative, or is that too broad? Does it really take 10,000 hours of practice to be successful at reciting the alphabet, or is that too narrow?

In Success Is For Suckers, I wrote about whether success is worth it, in response to Glen Allsopp’s post What Malcolm Gladwell Should Have Told You In ‘Outliers’. Now having finished the book, I can better see what Glen was talking about.

Compare these two examples from the book of people who sacrificed their childhood in the name of success. One was Bill Gates. He sacrificed his childhood to become the richest man in the world doing what he loved. That’s way more than a fair tradeoff.

Another was a poor girl named Marita. She sacrificed her childhood for an 84% chance of catching up to her grade level in mathematics. It’s not mentioned whether she got there, and if she did, we’re only talking about mediocre math ability by the standards of a country that’s notoriously bad at it. The link between that and success is far from clear.

Of course, Bill Gates didn’t know things were going to work out so well for him. But he would have gladly made the sacrifice regardless, just because it was more appealing to him than anything else he could be doing. Maybe Marita feels the same way. I hope she does.

But not knowing the outcome in advance can make the decision very difficult. In eighth grade, I had to decide what high school I wanted to go to. I could have gone to my local high school, which was a perfectly good one. Or I could have applied to the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, which has been ranked the #1 public high school in the country by U.S. News and World Report.

Although TJ would have been an incredible experience, there was a price to be paid. If I remember correctly, I would not only be leaving for school earlier in the morning, but I’d be getting home at 7 or 8 every night instead of 3 in the afternoon like a normal kid. And that’s to say nothing of homework, or how stressful it would be during the day.

My dad made it very clear to me what the tradeoff was. He said, “If you want to learn everything you possibly can about math and science, then this would be the best thing in the world for you. But if you don’t, you would absolutely hate it.”

I went to the regular school, and to this day I’m still pretty sure I made the right choice. I think I learned plenty, and I probably would have gone to the same college anyway (the University of Virginia). And remember that there are some advantages to, you know, not sacrificing your childhood.

On the other hand, say my future self had come to me in eighth grade and said, “If you go to TJ, you’ll become interested in robotics. Because of that, you’ll go to MIT. There, you’ll meet a professor who will steer you towards nanotechnology. You’ll go on to invent a race of nanobots that can be injected into the blood stream and safely kill cancer cells. You’ll be an outlier. But if you don’t go to TJ, then none of this will happen.”

In that case, then yes, of course I’ll make the sacrifice, knowing that the payoff is coming. But no one wants to make a sacrifice when your best prediction is that it’s not worth it. And not knowing the future is what makes it so hard to make the right decision.

Post to Twitter

When Words Kill

Sunday, June 21st, 2009

Paul Atreides in Dune
Paul Atreides knew words could kill, and harnessed their power to save the planet Dune. But some people aren’t so noble.

In Dune, the 1984 movie adaptation of the classic sci-fi book, Paul Atreides knows the power that words have. In the movie (but not the book), his people use devices called Weirding Modules to literally turn words into weapons.

By speaking certain words into the device, people can generate a devastating sonic blast. Most words are innocuous. Maybe they just don’t carry enough emotional intensity. Actually, very few words are known to trigger the device, but they discover others when training the Fremen people to use it.

One soldier makes the innocent mistake of calling Paul by his self-chosen Fremen name, Muad’Dib, while holding a Weirding Module. Paul is as surprised as anyone else when his own name triggers the device, collapsing part of the ceiling. “My name,” Paul thinks to himself, “is a killing word.”

Can words have the same kind of power in reality? After all, we’re told that “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” But can’t words do a little more than sticks and stones?

The harmful effect of words might start off small. Someone is told that they’re stupid, or ugly, or they can’t do anything right, and maybe it doesn’t seem like a big deal. But when they hear it enough, they start to believe it.

And when people believe that something is wrong with them, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they’re having a bad day and something goes wrong, they think it’s because there’s some truth in what the other person said. They think they deserve it, so they feel worse about themselves. And they pass this feeling on to other people.

It’s not even necessarily the words themselves that do the damage, so much as the way they’re said. When someone takes a word with no inherent negative connotations (such as the name of a religious or ethnic group) and uses it in a negative way, people hear the hate.

Other words are specifically meant to do harm. Several groups, including the Special Olympics, have started campaigns to ban the R-word, as it’s now being called.

Can words kill? Absolutely. 11 year old Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover hanged himself after classmates repeatedly called him “gay” in a derogatory way. It’s unclear whether he actually was gay, or whether he was even old enough to know.

13 year old Megan Meier hanged herself after several people created a fake MySpace account, pretending to be a 16 year-old boy who told Megan “The world would be a better place without you.”

In middle school and high school, Seung-Hui Cho was teased for his social anxiety and speaking disorder. People told him to “Go back to China” (he was Korean). As one classmate said, “There were just some people who were really cruel to him, and they would push him down and laugh at him. He didn’t speak English really well, and they would really make fun of him.” Cho went on to kill 32 people plus himself in the Virginia Tech massacre.

Words have more power than you think. Is it really so hard to use them to help rather than harm? For some ideas, watch this:

Post to Twitter

Teaching An Old Dog New Tricks

Tuesday, June 16th, 2009

In Stephen King’s Kindle-only novella UR, a college English teacher buys an Amazon Kindle in order to spite his ex-girlfriend by appearing tech-savvy. Horror ensues.

Yeah, I know, you probably don’t have a Kindle. But this isn’t about that book. This is about ditching technology as we age. They say that you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. Maybe you can, but often the dog doesn’t want to learn them.

A few years ago I took an online test that tells you what generation you belong to. (Here’s one generation test, though not the same one.)

The one I took had me right at the border of Gen X and Gen Y. It all came down to whether I had a Facebook account or not. I didn’t, so I was classified as Gen X. Now I have one, but I don’t use it. Does that make me Gen Y?

It’s not that I can’t use Facebook, I just don’t want to. I say it’s because it’s a waste of time, but does that make me the same as the people who won’t learn how to use email?

Why do we stop trying new things as we get older?

Is it because we have less time to play around?
Is it because we lose our energy and curiosity with age?
Is it because we’ve had enough time to settle into our patterns?
Is it because we think we’ve done enough by then?

Is this a problem?

Post to Twitter

The Bottle That Wouldn’t Open

Sunday, June 7th, 2009

Ramune

Someone gave me a bottle of this Japanese soft drink called Ramune. I didn’t know what it tasted like, and looking at the bottle didn’t offer any clues. It had pictures of a pig, a pumpkin, a watermelon, a fan, a flower, a life preserver, and a UFO.

But the weirdest part didn’t come until I tried to open it. I tore off the wrap around the top, removed this green plastic piece, and tried twisting the top. But it just wasn’t twisting off.

I read the label to see if it said anything about opening it, and it did:

WARNING

  • DO NOT SWALLOW THE PLUNGER. Throw it away immediately after opening.
  • Adults should open the bottle for small children and supervise drinking.
  • Do not try to remove the marble from the bottle to avoid injury.
  • Do not freeze the bottle or store it in direct sunlight.
  • Do not consume if the marble is broken, missing, or descended before opening.

Plunger? Oh, that must be that green plastic piece. Good thing I hadn’t thrown it away. After breaking the connectors that attached the inside to the outside, the green thing became a plunger that you could press your thumb on to apply the force to a smaller area.

Marble? The bottle looked like it had a marble stuck in it, but I thought that was part of the top. But no, there really was a marble stuck in it, and to open the bottle you have to push the marble inside.

So I put the plunger on top, and pushed with my thumb. The marble wasn’t going down, and my thumb was getting bent out of shape. Was I doing it wrong?

I checked online, and found that opening a bottle of Ramune is something of a rite of passage. At least for some people, who use everything from hammers to headbutts to get the darn thing open. Then there are others who say it’s not that big a deal, you just push with your thumb. I fell into the former category.

After wearing my thumb out with no luck, I tried using the heel of my hand. Although I wouldn’t be able to push as deep this way, I could exert much more force, and it would hurt a lot less. But after a few failed attempts, I had dug a deep ring into my hand, and drawn a trickle of blood.

Was this supposed to be another Kobayashi Maru?

I decided to bring out the big guns. My hammer was packed away, but my screwdriver was easy to get to and would work just as well. I put the bottle on the counter (so it would absorb the full impact instead of being pushed away), on top of a cork oven pad (so the counter wouldn’t get scratched).

Then I pounded the bottle several times with the base of the screwdriver, well aware that I was just as likely to break the bottle as I was to push the marble in.

The marble looked like it had moved some, so I went back to pushing my thumb on the plunger, and the marble went it, stopping a couple inches down where the bottle narrows.

The bottle then adds insult to injury because even after opening it, the marble blocks the flow when you try to drink it. But with the right angle, I finally enjoyed the pig/pumpkin/UFO-flavored drink known as Ramune. (It actually tastes something like Sprite).

Just yesterday, I was reading something about attacking problems from a non-obvious direction after reaching a mental dead end. This comes from Whole Brain Thinking: Working from Both Sides of the Brain to Achieve Peak Job Performance:

Visualize the extreme opposite of the situation. Example: If you are trying to invent a gadget to open bottles, pretend you are trying to bond the bottle cap permanently to make it impenetrable. It will thus be easier to discover the weaknesses inherent in the current bottle caps and a way to get the substances that are inside, out–without resorting to the typical removable cap. You might invent a syringelike contraption that extracts the contents rather than beheading the package.”

I have to wonder if the authors wrote this after an encounter with Ramune. (By the way, this is an example of lateral thinking, just one of many crucial concepts covered in Marelisa Fabrega’s ebook How to Be More Creative – A Handbook for Alchemists).

Any usability engineer would go into conniptions about the bottle design. Yet the challenge of opening it is what gives Ramune its mystique and its fan base. I want to get another bottle, not so much to drink it, but just so I can try opening it again (hopefully doing a better job next time).

If a soft drink can teach patience, persistence, and lateral thinking, then what other learning experiences might be hiding in plain sight, disguised as problems?

Photo from Wikimedia Commons

Post to Twitter