OT? Friday explorations
Edward K. Ream
work.
But if wider reflections upset you, please stop reading now. I will
not tolerate complaints about this being off topic. Nor will I
tolerate "rebuttals" or rants of any kind. Violate this and you will
be banned without further warning.
The only acceptable responses to this thread will be *links* to
thoughtful, *calm*, and intelligent discussion of important topics.
I'll be the sole judge of what is acceptable.
I am in the middle of reading a truly important book:
The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You've Been Told About
Genetics, Talent, and IQ Is Wrong
http://www.amazon.com/Genius-All-Us-Everything-Genetics/dp/0385523653
http://geniusblog.davidshenk.com/
This is a book of science as it relates to human accomplishment.
About half of the book consists of extended notes and citations. I
highly recommend it to anyone. There are many take-away messages in
this book. Chief among them is that talent is a process, not a fixed
endowment. Anyone and everyone can (does!) have multiple talents:
what is required to develop a talent is the right kind of work,
described as deliberate practice.
In deliberate practice, one consciously chooses to expand boundaries.
Doing so will inevitably lead to failures to accomplish what one sets
out to do. But this is to be expected! Indeed, in the context of
deliberate practice, failure is evidence that one is on the correct
path! Contrast this with the more typical view of talent as an
endowment or gift. In this view, "failure" becomes evidence that one
does *not* have what it takes!
Folks, the difference between these two points of view is stupendous.
Once one understands the kind of work required, one can focus on doing
more of that work. My new mantra is: work harder!
Here are two interesting TED Talks that relate to the issues raised in
the book.
Srikumar Rao: Plug into your hard-wired happiness
http://www.ted.com/talks/srikumar_rao_plug_into_your_hard_wired_happiness.html
The take-away message: focus on the process of reaching your goals,
not on the outcome. If you do that, you will enjoy life regardless of
outcomes. If you don't, you will set yourself up to be unhappy, even
if you *do* reach your outcomes.
For me, the pleasure of working on Leo happens every day. Yes, I want
to accomplish my goals, but I am really no happier just after a
release goes out the door than the day before :-) It's good for us
goal-oriented folk to remember this from time to time :-)
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions
http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
The take-away message from this talk is that science has a vital role
to play in evaluating moral questions. Harris uses philosophical
reasoning to extend the reach of science. Imo, Harris does a superb
job.
Edward
Edward K. Ream
On Mar 26, 1:21 pm, "Edward K. Ream" <edream...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks, the difference between these two points of view is stupendous.
>
> Once one understands the kind of work required, one can focus on doing
> more of that work. My new mantra is: work harder!
There is another liberating aspect of these insights. It is this.
Deliberate practice does *not* have to be enjoyable at all moments.
Sometimes "failure" can be frustrating, discouraging, etc.
Similarly, I am not always happy on the "surface" when working on
Leo. Yet I know that this is fulfilling work for me, so in some
deeper sense I am "happy" even when growling.
I think language does not adequately express this difference between
deep and surface emotions. When the deep structure is in place, the
surface emotions don't make so much difference.
Edward
yarko
> On Mar 26, 1:21 pm, "Edward K. Ream" <edream...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Folks, the difference between these two points of view is stupendous.
>
> > Once one understands the kind of work required, one can focus on doing
> > more of that work. My new mantra is: work harder!
>
> There is another liberating aspect of these insights. It is this.
> Deliberate practice does *not* have to be enjoyable at all moments.
> Sometimes "failure" can be frustrating, discouraging, etc.
>
> Similarly, I am not always happy on the "surface" when working on
> Leo. Yet I know that this is fulfilling work for me, so in some
> deeper sense I am "happy" even when growling.
I remember Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's theory of "Flow: the psychology
of optimal experience" - being so engaged that there is no room for
anxiety is it's own kind of happiness...
In "The Love of Fate" (the last chapter of "Finding Flow") he talks
about participating in something bigger than ourself as "good",
engaging, and meaningful... In the sense that this is so, it is a core
aspect (it seems to me) of the definition of us as a social species.
For me, your reference to Srikumar Rao's "focus on process" (or, "The
Journey is the reward" - as is famously known) is congruent with
Mihaly's Flow theory; the joining perspectives making the reality of
this more concrete, richer.
Somewhere I read a related article - when looking up the "esoteric"
defense Csikszentmihalyi put for for the statistical relevance of his
method of sampling human experience - about something that seemed
stunningly related: our natural drive to increase competence as a
mechanism of survival - in essence, another aspect of what drives us
to reach "Flow", and why that might / must be an "enjoyable"
experience, by definition.
Good stuff!
- Yarko
Edward K. Ream
> I remember Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's theory of "Flow: the psychology
> of optimal experience" - being so engaged that there is no room for
> anxiety is it's own kind of happiness...
I enjoyed his book, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience
http://www.amazon.com/Flow-Psychology-Experience-Mihaly-Csikszentmihalyi/dp/0060920432
I remember thinking, so that's what I have been doing :-)
Here is a talk that was forwarded to me, called Solitude and
Leadership: It was given at West Point
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/solitude-and-leadership/
How many times have I talked about taking long, solitary walks, or
ideas that arise in bed?
Edward