Get creative, counter-intuitively

I'm in Boston - well, closer to Worcester, actually - this week for some work-related training and, in referring to some new technology (UEFI) being better then some old technology (BIOS), one of the instructors said:

"You could never innovate (with the old technology) because you didn’t know what the bounds of compatibility were."

Specifically, he was referring to the fact that the old technology did not have very many industry-wide rules about how an engineer was actually supposed to build the system - a system that needed to interact with many others. And this meant that most designers were afraid to go outside the bounds of legacy implementations because they did not want to be incompatible with everyone else's.

I mean, you'd think that such an open system would be filled with all sorts of creative whimsy, but that certainly did not pan out here; inertia took over and basically the same computer code was being used over and over (and over - decadesworth). Pretty counter-intuitive, huh? That's not to say the opposite - total micromanagement - leads to good design or seamless collaboration (quite the opposite.. another discussion altogether), but, still, one could better say that a proper framework and set of agreements up front might be a better approach to "free your team's thinking".

And that is exactly what Stanford professor and Aspen Institute consultant, Chip and Dan Heath, respectively, argue in their book "Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die". While I, *ahem*, haven't read the book, they did write about this particular topic in a Fast Company article a few months ago:

Get Back In The Box
By Dan Heath and Chip Heath
Published December 2007

The authors mention a few specific instances of when and where a "well-constructed box can help people generate new ideas", but I liked this one the best:

"Improv actors are taught to be specific," (Keith Sawyer, author of the insightful book 'Group Genius') says. "Rather than say, 'Look out, it's a gun!' you should say, 'Look out, it's the new ZX-23 laser kill device!' Instead of asking, 'What’s your problem?' say, 'Don’t tell me you're still pissed off about that time I dropped your necklace in the toilet.'" The paradox is that while specificity narrows the number of paths that the improv could take, it makes it easier for the other actors to come up with the next riff."

It seems most minds work best when there are agreed-upon reference points to jump off of. Interesting observation, for sure. And so next time you're having trouble being creative - and this is a process that may happen subconsciously for some - try being more specific in your questions. For example, instead of asking, "How can we improve our business in 2008?", try, "How can improve the customer experience?; how can we provide everything the customer would need to be successful before they have to ask for it (and therefore improve our business in 2008)". There are certainly other ways to ask those more specific questions, but I think you get the idea (or at least you will after reading the article).

The approach seems to be all about demystifying complex systems and asking people to make smaller mental leaps towards solutions. In any case, it may not be the right course of action *every* time, it's nice to have these new options in your mental toolbox.

On a related note, the NYTimes published an article last month on some of the, again, counter-intuitive, reasoning that goes into making decisions; some research concluded that "people are willing to pay a price to avoid the emotion of loss". So, people try to keep as many options open as possible - where removing options from the table seems like a "loss" - even if the very act of keeping all the (sometimes conflicting) options open means a decline in the overall quality of life or work, or both. Read on:

The Advantages of Closing a Few Doors
By John Tierney
Published: February 26, 2008

Both articles are worthwhile reads, maybe for debate over this Easter weekend?

Who ever said crutches were cool?

The Emergency Room is a funny place. And I'm glad that I haven't spent much time there over the course of my life. Minimal frequency is a statistic welcome, indeed, (and desired far into the future).

However, today I marred my record and stopped by my local ER for an x-ray. It's been about a week and a half since I started limping after a particularly hard run; to stress fracture city, I've wondered? On top of that, it's been about a week that I've been trying to schedule a doctor's appointment in the regular fashion (and in a timely manner - one not offered in 2008). The winter holidays is a darned time to hurt yourself.

So, against my intellectual instinct (but catering to my less-pain-is-better instinct), I slowly made my way over to the hospital at the end of the street, St. Mary's Medical Center. Luckily, the place was just about empty and they saw me as soon as I arrived. In total, the whole deal took about 3 hours as different medical people would cycle in and take care of different parts of the diagnosis/treatment; I thought ahead and brought a book, so the time went quickly.

The good news is that nothing is broken (yeah!); the pain be in my ligaments and other soft infrastructure. The bad news is that foot injuries of any stripe take forever to heal. But Santa bestowed a set of silver crutches into my possession, which will allow me to take the weight off my injured foot while I go about my daily business. Also, painkillers. Looks like Christmas was extended an extra day this year!

In any case, that was that; and I'm glad that I got myself looked at. You see, I now feel like I'm on the path to getting better (and getting back onto the bike, getting back into the climbing gym.. and getting back to the dance floor with TWO solid legs). I have felt a shadow of myself lately.. and with so many friends out of town, it's been easy to get a little stir crazy in the house, especially with Larry David as my main company. Baking walnut bread in your new cast-iron dutch oven only gets you so far from a mental health point of view. haha.

Still, I felt a little awkward being at the ER at all, especially as it started to fill up with folks suffering from some downright wicked afflictions. And given the tight quarters, you hear all the gory details; in fact, you hear and you see and you smell all the gory details. It's a place that puts a few things in perspective, and you thank your lucky stars that, ultimately, you are whole and well, regardless of any little bumps in the road; life is pretty good.

An approximation of insanity

I'm always interested when I come across - by reading, usually - folks developing "new forms of life", a topic that, without fail, sparks the imagination; for me, it has always been this way (as an incorrigible daydreamer). While I'd like to think that, over the years, my education and experience would allow me to cast more subtle molds around the subject.. I must admit that crazy animal hybrids are still the first things that come to mind when I hear the phrase "new forms of life". Liger, anyone? haha.

But then my (ahem) deeper intellect takes hold, and I think of the possibilities for maybe some less-extravagant flora and fauna; more specifically, my attention turns to transgenic organisms, in all their controversial, and financially-lucrative glory. In fact, Christmas is almost here and I've always wanted a GloFish®, or a bunch of cancer fighting tomatoes. Both would be great in a salad, I bet. But I digress..

It's rare when I'm blown away by something - especially something I read/see on the Internet, ha! - but I came across the work of Theo Jansen today, a man at the crossroads of art, engineering, and insanity (in a good way!). His creations, well, at first, shocked me, and then, they made me a little uncomfortable; finally, I settled into amazement. Mr. Jansen is best known as a kinetic sculptor, but that title doesn't do him justice; simple mobiles these are not.

From his website (transcribed sans typos):

"Since about ten years Theo Jansen is occupied with the making of a new nature. Not pollen or seeds but plastic yellow tubes are used as the basic material of this new nature. He makes skeletons which are able to walk on the wind. Eventually he wants to put these animals out in herds on the beaches, so they will live their own lives."

Behold his Strandbeests!

While nice as a teaser, a still photo of these massive, protoanimal devices should only be used to whet your appetite for watching videos of their incredible locomotion.. once they get going, that is. You see, the metabolism (I use the term loosely, in the spirit of the project) of most of the creatures is based on the wind; early ones used this energy source directly, turning beautiful sails or propellers that would then actuate their manifold legs, while later generations - who said evolution is dead? - have additional facilities to store this sort of energy for later use. Lemonade bottles never had such a glorious existence.

So, without further ado, check these videos (and if you're thinking about eating a brownie beforehand, then I would say to eat the brownie):

1. First, indulge in discovery. VIDEO #1!

2. Now, listen to Theo Jansen present several of his designs to an audience at a TED conference earlier this year; he talked about "The art of creating creatures". I will admit that occasionally he sounds like a madman, but his commitment to his ideas - and the ideas themselves - is/are fascinating. VIDEO #2!

3. Finally, watch more action of a Strandbeest on the beach - its natural habitat, of course - as it detects if/when it arrives at water's edge and reverses its direction, surely avoiding a dramatic and oceanic death. As you can imagine (or, as you heard, if you watched VIDEO #2 above), these lifeforms are very susceptible to drowning. VIDEO #3!

To see the Strandbeests in real life, get thyself to the Netherlands! Hmm.. it is tempting; you never know how one's travel plans with shake out. ;)

In any case, beyond the visceral amazement, knowing about this project - especially after hearing Mr. Jansen explain his (physical and philosophical) mechanisms - gets you thinking about what characterizes "life" itself. As I've alluded to, or, I guess, have said outright, hearing the artist say that he is developing "new forms of life" from plastic rods and lemonade bottles sounds fantastical at best, and (pleasantly) insane at worst. Still, let's keep in mind that definitions change all the time, as new information comes to light, or new ways of interpreting data are developed. Think about such debates surrounding viruses, prions, and other biological phenomena that straddle the boundaries of what it means to be alive. Pushing those boundaries further, Stephen Hawking once posited that "computer viruses should count as life"; needless to say, that comment caused quite a stir in the academic community.

But regardless of how you choose to define existence, what is *not* in question is the genius of the artist, the engineer, the man, Theo Jansen. And I hope he continues to evolve his Strandbeests so that one day he can realize his dream: to behold herds of them autonomously patrolling the beaches of his native Nederland. Wild!

33.2 million is a lot of people

Last week, The Economist reported that, according to WHO and UNAIDS, the number of people infected with HIV worldwide fell from 39.5m to 33.2m over the course of this past year. And while that sounds like an awesome statistic (and it is, in many respects), the "drop" is actually due to a change in the statistical methods used by the aforementioned organizations. If you use the revised models with last year's data, last year's HIV total would have been 32.7m; in other words, there are 500,000 more cases this year versus last year.

But that is not necessarily a bad thing. Most people attribute the larger number to two things. First, more people are living longer with HIV and AIDS due to the availability of new treatments, and second, the number of new infections seems to be going down. In any case, there are a number of other statistics in the article that give cause for hope towards the ability for humankind to manage the disease (much like it manages other chronic afflictions like diabetes). Read the full article for more details:

WHO's counting?
by The Economist
November 22nd 2007

Still, the current treatments aren't perfect (nevermind a cure), and they don't work for everyone. So, research (for treatments) and education (for prevention) must continue. In fact, I was reminded of this earlier today by my mom, who mentioned that yesterday was World AIDS Day; it seems my sister (who works for the Peace Corps in western Kenya) had helped put on an educational event in her community for the occasion.

World AIDS Day has been observed every year since 1988 on December 1st. In some respects, this post is a day late.. but, as I mentioned, it is important that we're reminded of the issue once in a while, regardless of an "official", um, holiday. But beyond World AIDS Day, the US Department of Health and Human Services sponsors several "Awareness Days" throughout the year, each aimed at a different population; if you're interested, check out their full schedule of events.

Hopefully, the repercussions of HIV and AIDS aren't too close to home for you personally, but chances are, someone you know *is* affected on some level; 33.2 million is a lot of people. And in the global scheme of things, a scourge on such a large scale has secondary and tertiary effects that certainly affect our economy, our scientific research priorities, and, perhaps most sadly of all, our sense of personal "freedom".

With all of this in mind earlier today, I did what any American consumer would do: I bought a tshirt (with part of the proceeds going to AIDS research). Who's "doing their part" now? Oh man.. haha.

Would you lick it?

I just picked up a new stick of Tom's of Maine Deodorant at Trader Joe's yesterday, and, to my amusement, it says "Improved with Hops!" right up there on the front of the packaging. It seems that hops inhibit the growth of gram-positive (odor-causing) bacteria and, therefore, are a welcome natural addition to the ingredient list.

Is there nothing that plant can't do?

As you may or may not know, hops are also used as a flavoring and preservation agent in most types of beer. In fact, some of my favorite beer styles - IPAs and Imperial Stouts come to mind - are brewed with a very liberal amount of the stuff. In short, I dig the seasoning.

Yeah, so even though the deodorant is supposed to be "unscented", it totally smells citrusy to me (with an undercurrent of sweet pine).. oh, and I know why: it's my imagination going into hop-overload! haha. Well, even if that *is* the case, part of me still wants to - after a deep breath of the stuff - to lick it. And unless I'm going to be kissing you after such an impulsive act, who's to argue with *my* reality. ;)

Check it out for yourself.

My optometric destiny (and beau monde)

Two weeks ago I had an eye exam at Eyedare in the Mission - not too far from my old place; and my eyes are generally healthy (hell yeah!), but I did need a slightly stronger prescription on my glasses. So, I submitted my, ahem, Prada frames to have the lenses replaced; a day and a half later I picked them up.

And they languished in my errand bag; I didn't put them on until the following day, when I submitted myself to fashionable cafe life (to do some work on the ol' laptop). But when I did, I entered a new - and uncomfortable - phase of existence (temporarily, at least - read on). Life was crystal clear; life was also vertiginous.

Can you think of a worse proposition?

You experience a familiar, yet faded, version of everything around you - insofar that you are distracted from "just being"; YOU ARE NOT ALL THERE. And so, why be there at all; you ain't that special to not give 100% (yo). Just think: in your hands, an instant infection of the swirlies. Do you dare indulge in them to experience the eyesight of an eagle? Is your desire for such a deliriously avian attribute so intense; is your prey that far away (and how would you catch it anyway)? You're at a damn cafe.

Give it time, they say. And I did.

Lo, and behold, I put on the glasses a handful of times over the next week or so - with the same, disappointing, effects. However, yesterday, at Russian class, eyes and brains aligned; I had - to my surprise - no problems whatsoever when my two fuzzed-out eyes became four border-crisping machines. And I felt the freedom of those who can choose their own optometric destiny (and beau monde).

And to that, I say, до днa!

Can you name more than 20 lanugages?

According to the NYTimes today, while you were off saving mountain gorillas and Northern Spotted Owls, thousands of the world's languages are going the way of the dodo.

New research, reported today, has identified the five regions of the world where languages are disappearing most rapidly. The 'hot spots' of imminent language extinctions are: Northern Australia, Central South America, North America’s upper Pacific coastal zone, Eastern Siberia and Oklahoma and Southwest United States. All of the areas are occupied by aboriginal people speaking diverse languages, but in decreasing numbers.

And by "decreasing numbers", they mean that some languages are spoken by as little as one person. One! And when those small populations go - or their minds go - another language falls into disuse and, many times - without a written record or an oral recording - into oblivion, at the rate of about one every two weeks. That statistic seems almost too incredible, considering I could name maybe twenty languages; my list would include, simply, the most widely spoken and influential languages spoken today, but apparently there are an estimated 7000 in total. How many can you name; you might want to save your answer for your next party?

Read more about the situation and the conservation efforts here:

World’s Languages Dying Off Rapidly
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD, Published: September 18, 2007
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/world/18cnd-language.html)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In semi-related news, the NYTimes online will be reducing the scope of its content under the TimesSelect purview starting tomorrow! In other words, most of the articles on the NYTimes.com will go back to being free!

Find your personal jesus

How about a little word association:

1. recreation
2. switchblade
3. Jolly Roger
4. whiskey-flava
5. muffin top, yo

What do ya got (comments or email is fine)? And if you are associating combinatorially, then let me break out the bonus points (which can be redeemed for pool party).

In the meantime, what kind of, uh, leader would I be if I didn't get on the couch and dive into this fantasy lexicon, or, rather, lexicon for fantasy, myself:

1. blue cheese kayaking
2. ohmygod, I've been stabbed and I'm angry
3. all aboard; be ready to get shivy
4. condoms would be nice
5. yikes Tim!

So are you a disciple of Freud, Confucius, Fey, or other?

Whisper, and I'll whisper back

I got to know this piece of human knowledge first-hand when I lost my voice for almost a week last November:

If you whisper to someone - it doesn't matter what you are saying - the person you are whispering to will probably whisper back in response. And they may not even ask why y'all are whispering.. at least not at first.

True? As I said, I've got a handful of empirical - and personal - evidence that says so. But you may want to do your own testing. At the least, it's an excuse to get close-close to someone.. in the name of science.

So, if anyone can confirm or deny my observation with their own experiences, let me know!

A New Branch of Medicine Upon Us?

It seems a bit weird that an article entitled "The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think about heart attacks—and death itself" isn't making headlines beyond the front page of my f'ing Hotmail account.

For example, this article contains some quotes like this:

"...according to Dr. Lance Becker, an authority on emergency medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. "After one hour (after someone had died)," he says, "we couldn't see evidence the cells had died. We thought we'd done something wrong." I n fact, cells cut off from their blood supply died only hours later. But if the cells are still alive, why can't doctors revive someone who has been dead for an hour? Because once the cells have been without oxygen for more than five minutes, they die when their oxygen supply is resumed."

Like whoa! The article goes on to talk about various techniques being researched to take advantage of this new information. These new techniques really seem to fly in the face of conventional, professionally accepted, and, in fact, proscribed! treatments for heart attacks and the like.. treatments that have like a 20% success rate at best (feel free to comment on the validity of that fact).

That said, I'm sure it will be awhile until anything comes out of this research based upon the "actual" cause of cell death (new theory, for now: oxygen REintroduction into the body), but man, it really gets the imagination going..

A whole new branch of medicine may be upon us - one dedicated to bringing people back from the "dead", or at least the notion of "dead" that we have right now. Now, that is some sci-fi shizz if I've ever heard it. So cool. And I hope to read more about this type of science (in the NYTimes or Science or *something* beyond msnbc!); if you come across anything along the same lines, let me know.

And if that's not enough to think about - that is, the biology/medical part of the equation - we haven't even gotten to the more metaphysical questions about what it *really* means to die. But I'll leave those musings for another day..