20 January 2010 |
 |
Productivity-O-Rama |
 |
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 AM   
Writing Five-Year Goals: John Drake tells us why we should know our five-year goals -- and how to formulate them. Then he tells us how he wrote his. Writing my own five-year goals is on my to-do list!
Jason Crawford has a new-ish blog "about startups, technology, entrepreneurship, business, leadership, and management." I really liked his November post entitled Query for Judgment.
Prepare for 2010 by learning from failed experiments: "This month, I'm trying out new stuff, going back and doing maintenance on previous failures, and watching things explode fairly spectacularly. Why? Because if I figure out all the failure points now, while I can mentally group all the failures in the bucket of 2009, then by the time I move into 2010, I'll already have figured out where the landmines are." I'm a bit slow in starting 2010, so I think that February will be my January. Or something like that.
GTD for Academics by Aeon Skoble. I implemented GTD in much the same way he outlines while in graduate school.Labels: Link-O-Rama, Productivity
| |  E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink |
|
| |
Subscribe to Rationally Selfish Radio  M4A Podcasts in iTunes MP3 Podcasts in iTunes
Subscribe to Rationally Selfish Life  Blog Posts via Feed Reader  Blog Posts via E-mail
|
|
|
24 December 2009 |
|
Merry Christmas! |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
Onkar Ghate published an excellent essay on the joy of Christmas in US News and World Report. It begins:
I'm an atheist, and I love Christmas. If you think that's a contradiction, think again.
Do you remember as a child composing wish lists of things you genuinely valued, thought you deserved, and knew would bring you pleasure? Do you remember eagerly awaiting the arrival of Christmas morning and the new bike, book, or chemistry set you were hoping for? That childhood feeling captures the spirit of Christmas and explains why so many of us look forward to the season each year. That joyful spirit of Christmas, Ghate argues, is part and parcel of a commercial Christmas. It's nowhere to be found in a truly Christian Christmas.
As someone who felt rather overwhelmed this holiday season, I appreciated Ghate's explicit rejection of the all-too-common duty-based approach to Christmas toward the end of his essay:
It's not uncommon today to hear people say Christmas is their most stressful period. Pressed for time (and this year probably for money, too), they feel there are just too many lights to put up, meals to cook, and gifts to buy. Seeking something to blame, they blame the commercialism of the season. But there is no commandment, "Thou shall buy a present for everyone you know." This is the religious mentality of duty rearing its ugly head again. Do and buy only that which you can truly afford and enjoy; there are myriad ways to celebrate with loved ones without spending a cent. Take some time to enjoy a mug of hot cocoa while staring at the pretty lights and decorations on your Christmas tree. Enjoy time with beloved family members and friends. Reflect on your accomplishments for the year. Look forward to 2010. Most of all, take a deep breath and enjoy your holidays in the most selfish way you can!
Merry Christmas!Labels: Ethics, Fun
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink |
|
| |
Subscribe to Rationally Selfish Radio M4A Podcasts in iTunes MP3 Podcasts in iTunes
Subscribe to Rationally Selfish Life Blog Posts via Feed Reader Blog Posts via E-mail
|
|
01 December 2009 |
|
How to Find a Good Therapist |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
I'm a philosopher, not a psychologist. Yet often the moral advice I offer touches on matters of psychology. My policy is that I'll offer advice based on common sense psychology, albeit only in general terms. I don't wish to act as anyone's therapist; I'm neither qualified for nor interested in that.
Often, a person needs only moral advice, with a dash of common sense psychology. That's what I can offer. Yet sometimes, a person has deeper psychological problems: to live well, he needs therapy.
That raises a question: How can a person find a good therapist? That's a tricky question. A less-than-good therapist can be a waste of time and money, if not positively damaging.
Happily, psychologist Ellen Kenner offers some helpful on choosing a therapist in this article on her web site. If you're looking for a therapist, I recommend reading the whole article. Here, I'd just like to comment on some highlights.
Dr. Kenner recommends asking three preliminary questions:
- What is your background and experience with my problem?
- What are your credentials?
- What type of therapy do you offer?
That's just the initial evaluation. Dr. Kenner emphasizes that the patient must continue to judge the therapist and his advice. She writes:
In the early stages of therapy, observe the following: Is your therapist goal oriented? Do you work on specific goals? Does your therapist focus on solving problems? Is he or she a careful listener... rather then jumping hastily in with an agenda that seems off base? In therapy, do you look back at your past purposefully... or do you spend oodles of time rehashing your past with very little application to present or to the future[?] And:
Again, as you start therapy with the person you choose... ask yourself -- "Does the therapist's advice make sense to me?" Are you becoming more hopeful that your life can improve -- not based on floating wishes, but based on facts and skills you are learning that help you cope better with your world? Do you regularly experience "ah-ha -- now I see the picture more clearly"? Or do you shake your head and wonder where therapy is headed? Always give yourself permission to ask your therapist his or her reasoning for any advice you are given. You want to grasp first hand why you should follow any advice. That's very good advice! The critical point is not to lose your basic confidence in yourself as a rational, thinking person, just because you happen to be in therapy.
If you're seeking psychological help, you might feel very confused and burdened and uncertain due to your psychological problems. You're seeking help from a stranger. Your mind isn't working right, and you don't know how to fix the problem yourself. That's not going to bolster your confidence in your own judgment!
So you might be tempted to cede your authority to any half-way decent therapist you can find, on the assumption that he/she must know better than you. Or you might be reluctant to seek therapy at all, thinking that you'd have to cede your authority to that therapist.
That's a mistake. Unless you're delusional, you can judge whether your therapist seeks to help you live more rationally, more purposefully, more honestly, more independently, and so on. If not, then you need to seek a better therapist, using Dr. Kenner's advice. You can do that -- and you should do that.
In short, you should think of your therapist as you would think of a plumber, mechanic, or doctor. You're hiring the person because he/she has expertise that you lack -- not because you're a moron. You need to be sure to choose the person wisely, based on reasonable criteria. Then you need to judge the quality of their work, seeking someone better if you're not satisfied. If you do that, you can find yourself a good therapist.Labels: Psychology
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink |
|
| |
Subscribe to Rationally Selfish Radio M4A Podcasts in iTunes MP3 Podcasts in iTunes
Subscribe to Rationally Selfish Life Blog Posts via Feed Reader Blog Posts via E-mail
|
|
27 October 2009 |
|
Children and Death |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:00 AM
This morning, some of the good folks on OGrownups are discussing the best ways of helping children understand and deal with death. The discussion is quite excellent, and here's my small contribution, in response to a question about how to help kids overcome worry about the death of their own parents:
It might be helpful to tell you children what would happen to them if you died. Your kids are utterly dependent on you -- and they know that. Unless you tell them, they might suppose that they'd need to somehow fend for themselves -- or do something equally unrealistic. They might be worried about what would happen to the family pets, or whether siblings might be split up. However, if they know that they (plus the cat) would all go live with nice Uncle Bob and Aunt Judy, that might help alleviate some of the worry.
In essence, some of the anxiety might be more about themselves than about you! That's all well and good, of course. They should be thinking about their future. If you're interested in these kinds of discussions, come join OGrownups! You need to be an Objectivist to post, but not to lurk.Labels: Children
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink |
|
| |
Subscribe to Rationally Selfish Radio M4A Podcasts in iTunes MP3 Podcasts in iTunes
Subscribe to Rationally Selfish Life Blog Posts via Feed Reader Blog Posts via E-mail
|
|
26 October 2009 |
|
The Complexity of the Conceptual Mind |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 5:00 AM
A few months ago, Kevin McAllister posted a really stellar analysis of the roots of his problem with work-avoidance on his blog, Logical Disconnect. The post is entitled Overload and a Coke. I'd planned to comment on it, but much of what I had to say ended up in my podcast on cultivating concentration.
In any case, the post is well worth reading in its entirety, as it's an excellent example of the importance of introspection about such problems -- and the good results thereof. Happily, Kevin gave me permission to repost it. So that's what I'm doing. (Thanks, Kevin! My Monday morning bacon is hereby saved!)
Without further ado, here is Kevin's post: Overload and a Coke:
I have just made an important discovery about my mental limitations and my response to them. I've confirmed something I had already known, that my mental stack for sub-tasks is finite. For a while I've been troubled occasionally by a nearly overwhelming emotional need to do anything else besides my current work. For a few months now I have been seeking, opportunistically, to understand this emotional state because it seemed completely at odds with my goals and my usual relentless need to understand things.
The idea here is there are often tasks that have hidden or unrealized requirements. An example is you start out to vacuum the rug, and you need to clean up the clutter and move furniture, but when you move the furniture you discover that the leg on the chair is so loose that it is unsafe, so you go to repair it only to find that your out of wood glue and finishing nails. And to make it to the hardware store you need to stop and get gas and go to the ATM for cash. So when you originally set out to vacuum the rug you never would have said, okay well I'd better go get gas and some cash before I get started. I've heard this phenomena referred to as yak shaving. But I think most people have experienced this, and typically the stacks of additional tasks don't get too deep. However, in my work it is nearly a daily occurrence that my projects uncover things I could never have known until the work was begun. Some block your progress and some don't, some are big, but some are small. I've found it's the small ones that block your progress that were really stacking up on me and causing a problem.
If it is a big problem, meaning a full project in it's own right, and is not blocking my current progress, I simply make a note that this new thing needs to be done too and continue on my way. Even if it blocks my progress, I'll go ahead and shelve the first task and take on the second one. But if it is a small problem and blocking my progress, I just switch to this new task, and try to mentally retain all the context that got me there. Generally this works, but, often my extra tasks go down so deep that I reach a point where it is impossible to retain the whole context. This mental overload is real, and painful, and I've been dealing with it all wrong.
When I reach this point of mental overload I run away screaming! Well not literally, but I certainly do try and do anything else. Suddenly it seems like checking my email, or going to get a coke at the vending machine is the most important thing in the world. I think there are other factors in play as well, such as, if the driving project behind these sub-tasks is something that is only mildly interesting or something I loathe then the threshold for the number of sub-tasks I am willing to endure is much smaller.
The breakthrough in my thinking was realizing that this overwhelming need to go find and clean my white tennis shoes was in direct response to learning I had yet another task to be pushed onto the stack. So the emotional response was because I was no longer able to hold the whole of my current task in my head, and I have now set up a contradiction.
I know the thing I am doing is important and more important than the new thing because it is bigger and implies the new thing, so to prevent myself from losing the broader context I will not work on the new sub-task so I don't lose any of the important details of the super task. But I also know that I cannot proceed on the broader task without working on the sub-task. As this contradiction leaves me nothing to actually do I might as well get a coke and avoid the whole irresolvable mess.
Now this has been a source of guilt and loss of productivity for me for a while because when in that mess I'm not making progress on my project. But from David Allen and Jean Moroney I've already learned the solution to mental overload. That is to write things down.
So the strategy I've just developed is when I recognize this feeling to stop and ask myself, "Are you overloaded?" If the answer is yes, then I simply need to write down the context I am in danger of losing. At this time I suspect that will consist of a list of the outstanding tasks that are standing in my mind.
If the answer to that question is not, yes, I have a backup question that has helped me with procrastination before that is, "What do you want?" I mean this in a broad way, basically, it helps me bring to mind the reasons behind undertaking the tasks in the first place. Any similar stories to tell? Post them in the comments!Labels: Productivity
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink |
|
| |
Subscribe to Rationally Selfish Radio M4A Podcasts in iTunes MP3 Podcasts in iTunes
Subscribe to Rationally Selfish Life Blog Posts via Feed Reader Blog Posts via E-mail
|
|
28 September 2009 |
|
Reality, Not Authority |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 5:00 AM
In response to my story from my "Social Skills" podcast about a father teaching his child to evade by demanding obedience from her, Rational Jenn posted some fascinating comments on how parents often substitute their authority for that of reality. Here's a bit from her post:
Please don't misunderstand me--this is not to say that I don't exercise my parental authority. I do have it--you sort of get it automatically when the kids are very small. As they are utterly dependent upon the adults in their lives, they of course learn to rely on them for the things they need, including guidance, and they do view parents as authority figures.
But what I try to do is to never ever make my authority the sole basis for discipline. I explain my reasons--sometimes those explanations need to be provided to the child after the fact (there's that rushing out into the street example again). I try to show or tell them something about the reality of the situation and guide them through what needs to happen. And if they can't or won't do what they need to (like not biting a sibling), then I will exercise my authority and help them stop.
Parenting by Authority does encourage kids to evade. They can learn to squash their feelings, to pretend events didn't happen, and to learn how to game the system. They learn that what Dad decides is more important than what actually occurred. And they lose the ability and the chance to use their minds independently. She then discusses some the consequences of Parenting by Authority, but for that, you'll have to read the post. (Later, Jenn posted a fascinating story on catching her son trying to evade.)
Then the discussion continued: Amy Mossoff posted on the dangers of authority-based education. In her view, "Montessori is the only widely available educational system that does not Educate by Authority." Here's an example:
The Montessori method recognizes that external reward systems such as grades are not necessary, and even harmful. Children naturally want to learn. Anyone who has observed small children can see this. The reward for good work is in the work itself, and in the accomplishment. Montessori materials are self-correcting - the children know whether they have done the work correctly without relying on a teacher's stamp of approval. The blocks of diminishing size must be stacked up from biggest to smallest or the tower will not stand. The cylinders of diminishing size must be placed in the proper holes, or they will not all fit in the puzzle. I love that!
I'm delighted that my podcast sparked this bit of discussion. Here's my follow-up question: In dealing with other adults at work or elsewhere, do you always deal with them by reason to the greatest extent possible? Or do you sometimes lapse into mere authoritarian demands? It's easy to say "I deal with people by reason, of course!" That's the answer we want to give. However, I suspect that the intrinsicism pervasive in our culture has affected most of us to some degree or other.
Personally, I'm going to make a conscious effort to interact with other people scrupulously in "mind of reason mode" rather than "muscles of authority mode." It's not an error that I make often, but I'm pretty sure that I've slipped into it from time to time with people open to rational persuasion -- particularly when tired, frustrated, or hurried. Clearly, that's a mistake. So if I do that, I hope that someone will point that out to me -- preferably without gloating!Labels: Children, Relationships
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink |
|
| |
Subscribe to Rationally Selfish Radio M4A Podcasts in iTunes MP3 Podcasts in iTunes
Subscribe to Rationally Selfish Life Blog Posts via Feed Reader Blog Posts via E-mail
|
|
21 September 2009 |
|
Steve Jobs on Apple |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 5:00 AM
Wow, this Fortune interview with Steve Jobs is chock full of insightful gems. Here's some of my favorites:
On Apple's connection with the consumer
"We did iTunes because we all love music. We made what we thought was the best jukebox in iTunes. Then we all wanted to carry our whole music libraries around with us. The team worked really hard. And the reason that they worked so hard is because we all wanted one. You know? I mean, the first few hundred customers were us.
"It's not about pop culture, and it's not about fooling people, and it's not about convincing people that they want something they don't. We figure out what we want. And I think we're pretty good at having the right discipline to think through whether a lot of other people are going to want it, too. That's what we get paid to do.
"So you can't go out and ask people, you know, what the next big [thing.] There's a great quote by Henry Ford, right? He said, 'If I'd have asked my customers what they wanted, they would have told me "A faster horse."'" Too often, companies simply chase what consumers already want. The best companies offer us values that we've never dreamed of before. Such new values integrate so well into our lives that, in very short order, we cannot imagine ourselves without them. Apple has done that consistently, most notably with the iPhone. If I gave it up, I'd have to radically change the way I work and live.
On Apple's focus
"Apple is a $30 billion company, yet we've got less than 30 major products. I don't know if that's ever been done before. Certainly the great consumer electronics companies of the past had thousands of products. We tend to focus much more. People think focus means saying yes to the thing you've got to focus on. But that's not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully. That same principle applies to individuals too. We have to choose what we do -- and what we don't do -- wisely. We have to choose the activities where we have a competitive advantage -- and outsource or forgo the rest.
On his marathon Monday meetings
"When you hire really good people you have to give them a piece of the business and let them run with it. That doesn't mean I don't get to kibitz a lot. But the reason you're hiring them is because you're going to give them the reins. I want [them] making as good or better decisions than I would. So the way to do that is to have them know everything, not just in their part of the business, but in every part of the business.
"So what we do every Monday is we review the whole business. We look at what we sold the week before. We look at every single product under development, products we're having trouble with, products where the demand is larger than we can make. All the stuff in development, we review. And we do it every single week. I put out an agenda -- 80% is the same as it was the last week, and we just walk down it every single week.
"We don't have a lot of process at Apple, but that's one of the few things we do just to all stay on the same page." Ah, my favorite remark!
To demand that employees conform to processes is to impose mind-numbing, productivity-killing, self-esteem-crushing bureaucracy on them. A bureaucratic company is focused on enacting certain fixed means -- rather than on accomplishing its goals by the best means possible. The result is much wasted time, effort, and money. In contrast, notice that Jobs focuses on Apple's goals in his Monday review. In fact, his Monday meeting seems like a company level GTD weekly review. It's about production, including giving employees the information they need to solve problems, not about conformity to process.
A bureaucratic company is a company that doesn't trust its employees to make good decisions. The result is stagnation and incompetence. If a company can't trust its employees to exercise good judgment in doing their jobs, then it needs to fire them and hire better employees. Or it needs to learn to trust them to do what they're capable of doing, including learning from mistakes. Bureaucratic focus on "process" and "policy" will drive away the most productive and capable employees -- or crush them. It's not a mode of business appropriate to rational, productive people.
Goals, goals, goals. It's got to be all about the goals.
(Via Bodarko.)Labels: Management, Productivity, Work
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink |
|
| |
Subscribe to Rationally Selfish Radio M4A Podcasts in iTunes MP3 Podcasts in iTunes
Subscribe to Rationally Selfish Life Blog Posts via Feed Reader Blog Posts via E-mail
|
|
|
| | |
|
