===

“To agree to keep a secret is to assume a burden.”

—

Sam Harris

===

Well.

This is sort of about transparency. What I mean is that we don’t often speak of transparency in an equation sort of way – give and not give.There is a burden on both sides not just in the actual ‘doing of’. There is a burden within what you decide to give within your transparency objectives/intent as well as a burden within what you decide to not give and hold on to. I say that because that burden is, well, a weight. A weight I call the weight of secrets.

Now. I would say all knowledge is a burden.

It carries a weight of responsibility with regard to what you do with it … how you act because you have it … as well as how you think about you, and others, with it. Having accepted knowledge you have made an agreement with it. I tend to believe we don’t think about this. We accept knowledge as … well … maybe like income earned – disposable income in fact.

We worked for it, we earned it and it is now ours to spend as we choose. They are our ‘secrets’ and we decide whether we want to share those secrets or not. I do think it would be helpful <if not slightly capitalistic & less human than we would like> if we did think of being transparent this way.

That said. I believe knowledge is actually more like freedom. It is an unalienable right but it is also a privilege and therefore one assumes a responsibility to it and with it.

Uhm.

And with responsibility comes burden. Which almost sounds odd in that something with ‘free’ in it should be … well … “freeing” … and not carrying such a heavy burden. Maybe I should just suggest that nothing really comes for free … everything has something attached to it.

Knowledge?

Responsibility … the burden of responsibility. The burden of secrets – shared and held.

And that is a weight you carry … one which can be as light or as heavy as you make it. But. It is a weight nonetheless. One which you learn to carry well or carry poorly.

Knowledge tests our ability … and our character … with regard to how well we can carry this weight. It tests how strong we are .. once again … in ability an character. Having said that <and most likely having a number of people feeling a little uncomfortable thinking about knowledge that way>.

Secrets are a completely different level of a knowledge burden. And secrets are tricky.

Some are thrust upon you … unwanted but yet yours nonetheless.

Some are gifted you … carefully shared by someone who believes the weight it carries is too much for themselves … alone.

But regardless of how you assume the responsibility of a secret … it is also knowledge. And therefore it also carries a burden … a responsibility … and a weight.
I don’t have the scale to weigh them but my guess is that a knowledge secret exponentially weighs more than a traditional knowledge. I also don’t have any research but I also tend to believe, just like extra physical weight, as soon as we start feeling the extra weight of a secret … we seek to shed it.

Therein lies the true test of character.

Do I treat the secret as added weight thru muscle or view it as fat.

On the former I become stronger and faster. On the latter I become slower and unhappier.

On the former I don’t look for an opportunity to shed the weight. On the latter I am always thinking about opportunities to shed the weight.

All knowledge tests you. Secrets test you even more. Knowledge, and secrets, take a strength of self to carry its weight. The weight of responsibility of having the knowledge, the weight of freedom knowledge typically permits us and the weight of character that knowledge either hones into muscle or creates an excess of fat.

That is a lot of extra weight we have accepted by taking on this knowledge.

I tend to believe we do not think about this enough. Especially those who hunger for knowledge.

To be clear … I also tend to believe those who hunger for real knowledge do not hunger for secrets <secret hungry people are beings all in themselves something different>. But I also believe those who hunger for real knowledge are given ‘secret knowledge’ whether they want it or not.

All knowledge is heavy in some form or fashion. Secrets maybe even more so. Understanding this, and the burden you have assumed, makes the weight a little more bearable because you aren’t surprised by it and you actually start carrying it better.

We talk about transparency as “freeing” and, well, it is. And, yet, it isn’t. In business , & in Life I imagine, its just not practical to be 100% transparent. And anything less than 100% means you are choosing what % <specific things> to keep secret. Those ‘things’ become, well, the weight you carry.

===========

“We do what we have to do in order to do what we want to do.”

—–

James Farmer Jr.

====================

“Success doesn’t come to you – you go to it.”

—

Marva Collins

======================

So.

I have written a number of times with regard to passion and how I tend to believe it is misguided advice to ‘follow your passion’ … in fact … I wrote ‘don’t find your passion’  as one of my thought pieces.

I will not recount my concerns with it.

Instead let’s focus on this little gem: what we want to do. What we want to do spans everything from some grand audacious objective to some small ‘I want an ice cream cone’ want. That said. I don’t care where you are on that spectrum … if you decide to do what you want to do you … well … you end up doing what you have to do in order to do it.

I imagine this is a different version of ‘go get it.’ I am fairly sure the line “if you want something, go get it … period” comes from “Pursuit of Happyness”, but this is not about happiness this is about doing what you want to do.

The key here is that doing what you have to do is not a passive thought. It is not ‘bending the rules’ or ‘do whatever it takes to win.’ It is all about actively pursuing what you want … going after it and … well … go get it type attitude. This attitude is fairly consistent in its aspects & overall formula. I say it is a formula because you need to do all three of the things I list below … not just one.

I tend to believe everyone knows these aspects and this formula … and actually agrees with them … but not everyone actually does them. But here you go:

Work … or … doing shit.

What you want almost certainly never comes to you.

I can almost guarantee that anything you want you will need to go get. It will require you to do some work and do some hard shit to get to some place where what you want is within reach. If you do not take any action there will be no ‘what you want’ anywhere in your Life.

Period.

Relentless & resilient.

Work and doing is, unfortunately, not enough. Some people would suggest you need persistence … I will not. I think you need to be relentless and resilient. Relentless implies not just persistency but a real ‘go get it’ attitude. Fortunately, resilience is inextricably tied to that attitude. Relentless people tend to be more resilient. I say that because, truth be told, rarely is ‘working hard’ enough. Because even though you are working and doing … Life has a nasty habit of throwing obstacles in your way. And, let’s face it, it is always easier to find an excuse then it is to fight thru the obstacle <especially if the obstacles are relentless>. Resilience is kind of the engine for your progress … no resilience and the engine will stop.

Look.

Relentless and resilient may not insure Life won’t find some way to beat you down but it sure makes it more difficult for Life to do so. Relentless and resilience keeps you in the game. It keeps you on the path toward what you want.

Period.

======

“It isn’t normal to know what we want.

It is a rare and difficult psychological achievement.”

 

Abraham Maslow

========

Give your best.

Not all work is created equal and not all ‘relentless’ is created equal. In other words … you can work long and hard and still fall short of what you want to do. But. Never forget.

You are the architect of your own fate. And the architects’ best tool is … well … doing your best. And, unfortunately, you cannot know if the day you take off … or the day you decide to give something less than your best … is the day Fate decides to pay attention to you.

You have to give your best every day and every minute you can.

The other unfortunate thing is that rarely is ‘your best’ and ‘something’ <the outcome> immediate. It can sometimes take days, weeks, months and even years before you can see the results for your actions and relentlessness. The only thing that is for certain is if you stop or give up you will lose it all.

Period.

That’s why this is a formula … you gotta work, be relentless and give your best to do what you want to do. All. In fact … I could argue this is one of the few truly “all or nothing” things in Life.

Lastly.

Here is the good news <because that all sounded like a shitload of work>. If you really do all the things I just suggested and do what you need to do to do what you want to do … your success will be on your terms … and no one else’s.

==========

“If your success is not on your own terms, if it looks good to the world but does not feel good in your heart, it is not success at all.”

—

Anna Quindlen

============

In order to do what you want we do what we have to get it.

Good shit does not ‘just happen.’

You have to work hard to have good shit happen.

Most of us know that.

Yeah.

We all wish to that success, and gaining what we want, would just be a little easier on occasion but in our heart of hearts we know there are no real short cuts.

The only solace I can offer is that if you do things on your own terms, you do what you need to do to get what you want and you work hard doing your best … well … that is the best tasting success you will ever be served.

========== 

“Mistakes are always forgivable, if one has the courage to admit them.”

–

Bruce Lee

======

“If you own up to your mistakes, you don’t suffer as much. But that’s a tough lesson to learn.”

–

Lee Iacocca

=====

So.

Owning up is all about the respect for the boundaries of responsibility.

Owning up to what you have done and said is possibly the truest test of character you will ever see.

When you are managing people you learn a shitload about employees by how they handle a mistake and how they ‘own up.’

Now.

As a manager you always filter the ‘owning up’ through your own management style <because you affect your employees behavior whether you admit it or not>. Any leader worth half a shit encourages the people on their team to think, go and do. In doing so they also accept the inevitable mistakes that happen with those who are often reaching beyond what they are currently capable of <that reaching is called “growth” by the way>. Leaders aside anyone, in any organization worth a shit, is going to find themselves in situations where well intended actions which have become mistakes have been made.

<note: I will ignore the crappy organizations who believe stupid ongoing mistakes are a fundamental building block to everyday business>

 This is where ‘owning up’ moves to the forefront. In general … you will find owning up falls into three basic categories:

• Cocoon the mistake.

It is mine. Examine it. Accept it. Blame yourself for it. Own it as an isolated incident.

• Leverage the mistake.

It was mine. Examine it. I learned from it. Own it. Use it moving forward as a stepping stone.

• Equivalize the mistake

<note: I made up the word “equivalize” … I could have used ‘equalize’ but it is actually more about someone searching for some equivalence that they can pony up in their defense>

It was mine … but … it was pretty similar to this other mistake … and remember when <insert name> did this? … which makes it not so bad, right?

<note: there are certainly degrees of each and every of these response categories>

Let me talk about these.

The first is a martyr. Throwing themselves at the mercy of the court.

The last is a victim. Saying … well … if you are going to convict me, be aware, you will also have to convict all these other people.

The middle one? Well. Before you convict me let me tell you how it makes me, and us, better.

Once again, any good manager worth half a shit will reflect upon their responsibility for the response before they respond. Good managers understand that they set the tone for ‘encouraging mistakes’ and managing the main filter someone flows through when assessing and articulating their own mistakes – fear of repercussions.

All that said. If you remove fear of repercussion you gain some true insight into the person. For example a senior person who feels entitled and ‘above the fray’ will have little to no fear of repercussion and you will see who they truly are in their response. And they can fall into any of the three categories I outlined. Younger employees, on the other hand, are more likely to be scared shitless and their response is like looking into a mirror of your management style.

But. Here is an interesting thought with regard to owning up.

Shit hitting the fan is like … well … a hurricane. Rarely is it simple and even more rarely does it stay a simple storm if you ignore it, it will eventually become a hurricane if you let it.

The thought? The ‘i’ in hurricane is also in its center. That is where owning up truly resides. How the “I” in the middle of the hurricane acts.

Still amidst the buffeting winds?

Scared of the mountain high waves?

Make little nuanced responses to remain in the calm of the hurricane?

=====

“The little things? The little moments? — They aren’t little. “

John Zabat-Zinn

===========

I imagine my point is that in owning up there is certainly the larger “am I willing to accept responsibility” but there are numerous little things within the acceptance which showcase character.

Being accountable, in general, demonstrates you are responsible. It certainly demonstrates you are willing to do shit, to make a mistake and are prepared to take accountability for it.

Being unaccountable creates an incredibly irritating dilemma to a manager.

“I didn’t do it” , when all the obvious evidence states you did do it, creates incredibly stilted conversations circling some alternative universes. It can become an absurd dance around reality. And, worse, not owning up to something actually creates a spark which creates a smoldering fire which needs to be constantly dealt with over and over and over again. I would note each time its little flame appears it scorches that person’s integrity just a little more.

I know.

It is incredibly easy to point fingers when things go wrong. Even easier to not even speak up and hope that no one notices. Good things, the right things, are always harder to do. Which leads me to a really neat thing I found about ‘owning up’ which I found when doing some research — an organization called ‘cultures of dignity’ that has a curriculum they offer for young people.

====

Owning Up teaches young people to understand their individual development in relation to group behavior, the influence of social media on their conflicts, and the dynamics that lead to discrimination and bigotry.

Whether you’re teaching in a school, a team, or a youth-serving organization, Owning Up is a flexible, dynamic curriculum that respects your knowledge of the young people you work with and the communities in which you serve. Owning Up is a tool to help educators work with the most interesting, funny, and challenging people in the world: tweens and teens. It’s also a tool to teach young people the capacity to understand their individual development in relation to group behavior with their peers, the social dynamics that lead to discrimination and bigotry, and the skills to be socially competent in the difficult yet common social conflicts they experience.

====

Fabulous. I love it. I love we go out of our way to show young people the power of ‘owning up.’ Uhm. Now adults have to exhibit the same behavior <or have their own class>. Which leads me to Trump who is, unfortunately, serving as a potential role model for our young people.

I imagine I thought about ‘owning up’ because of Trump. He has mastered the art of not owning up to anything. But he does it in a way that I am not sure I have ever seen before. He just ignores what he has said and done. He just keeps moving onward <not upward> and I imagine in his head he shows a disdain for ‘owning up’ because it is so far in his rear view mirror he can’t even see why others want to keep talking about it.

I am not sure if in his own alternative universe <in his head> he never did anything to own up to … or if he is so focused on where he is going next he cannot be bothered by going back to what was. Either way it teaches nothing about the value of ‘owning up’ to our young people and sends a horrible message with regard to accepting responsibility for words & actions. I would be quite pleased if Trump ‘owned up’ to that.

Regardless. All I would suggest to everyone is that there may be nothing more reflective of someone’s character than their ‘owning up’ behavior. And, I have to tell you, ‘owning up’ is possibly a key common characteristic of a good person & a good leader.

=================

“Just remember, if you flinch from your destiny, you’ll never achieve your true greatness — you didn’t choose to be chosen, but being chosen means you have to choose.”

–

Charlie Jane Anders

==============

“Souls are funny things. They stay constant even when the outside changes, or when the heart makes mistakes.

Souls don’t really care about good or bad, right or wrong — they’re just true.”

—

Miranda July

=======================

Wow.

If you flinch …  that Anders quote is fucking awesome.

I had no idea who Charlie Jane Anders was when I read this quote and I am now glad I found out who she is.

Charlie Jane Anders

She is an American transgender fiction author and commentator. Author of All the Birds in the Sky, coming January 26, 2016 from Tor Books. Raconteur, bon vivant, wild and perilous soul. Willing to be a bad influence for a good cause.

Anyway.

I am glad I did some research because I gained a better perspective on the depth of this quote.

On its surface I just liked it.

I like the thought of it.

I like the truth of it.

I like the circumspection aspect of it.

I like the aspirational perspective of it <I do believe each of us has a destiny if we elect to achieve it>.

And I like the simplicity … and complexity within … of it.

But.

Coming from her point of view brings this quote to an entirely different level.

It shifts from merely communicating in platitudes to generating a deeper understanding that life chooses your destiny for you, everyone is included in that “you,” but it’s up to you to choose whether you accept your destiny.

And it is there, for all to see, in the quote … it is easy to flinch from your destiny.

Incredibly easy.

And that is what makes her thought a little more powerful because it is easy to see how she would have flinched. And … just guessing … probably did at some point.

And, yet, this woman who was born in New England and was herself a choirboy.

And, yet, this woman who has stated that she has been cross dressing since “definitely in my early teens.”

And, yet, this woman who has also self-identified herself as genderqueer and a trans woman.

She chose.

Yeah.

At some point she chose … yes … she chose … to follow the destiny life chose for her.

No excuses … she just chose.

Easy?

Yikes.

I imagine not.

Inspirational?

You bet.

I respect her. I am envious of her strength of character. But I am most likely most envious of her ability to access, and embrace, some self truth. Maybe I could suggest she peeked into her soul and decided she would choose to embrace it rather than flinch from it.

I say that because, ultimately, I imagine the stability and security of our souls needs to be grounded in some self truth. Ok. Some harsh unfettred self truth. The kind of harshness that could … well … make you flinch.

Harsh?

No lies.

No bullshit.

No ‘wishes.’

Just harsh unfettered truth.

In order to be greater than the turmoil of life.

In order to stand unwavering in the storm of life.

In order to not flinch in the face of the stiffest winds of life.

Just harsh unfettered truth.

I would argue that this harsh unfettered truth gives us a space.

It’s kind of like the eye of a hurricane.

It enables us to draw some lines.

It enables us to create some limits.

It enables us to place some margins as a buffer.

But at the center?

Just harsh unfettered truth.

I use harsh purposefully.

Self reflection is always difficult. It’s tough facing some shit you most likely don’t want to face.

But admitting it? Whew.

That’s where harsh comes in.

You come face to face with some shit you more than likely would rather not face about yourself and then … well … you admit that what you face is you.

That’s, more often than not, harsh.

You flinch a little.

But in flinching at this point you are empowered to not flinch when facing outwards.

You face your sins.

You face your flaws.

You face your failures.

You face the harsh unfettered truth.

=====================

“I speak my own sins; I cannot judge another.

I have no tongue for it.”

—

Arthur Miller

============

I believe any hope of greatness … any hope of attaining our destiny … always resides within us. I would also argue the harshest evaluation of your hope resides within the harsh unfettered truth within.

Now.

All of this may sound like only personal Life thinking.

It is not.

I use these same words these days with business people about businesses and companies. Businesses are given every opportunity to flinch. And I would suggest that most businesses, and business people, do flinch.

Shit.

The world makes it fairly easy to flinch.

In today’s world in which there seems to be no black and white and only grays.

In today’s world in which there seems to be no facts and only common sense.

In today’s world in which there seems to be no truth and only lies.

That said.

Not flinching resides in the power of self <as an individual r as a business> and naked unfettered truths.

Those who strip themselves naked of anything but truth will stand out not for their nakedness but rather for their clarity of who and what they are. These will be deemed the true authentic and the true credible and the true commendable or capable of winning favorable acceptance in people’s minds.

That is a harsh unfettered truth for the few who desire distinction and success in today’s world.

Don’t flinch from your harsh unfettered truth for it contains your destiny.

I will end by suggesting if Charlie Jane Anders didn’t flinch from her destiny … then none of us have an excuse.

None.

Being chosen means you have to choose.

So don’t flinch when faced with your destiny.

Maybe, just maybe, we should all seek a little willing to be a bad influence for a good cause.

 

 

==============

“Just remember, if you flinch from your destiny, you’ll never achieve your true greatness — you didn’t choose to be chosen, but being chosen means you have to choose.”

–

Charlie Jane Anders

============

======================

“I am 100% certain that I am 0% sure of what I’m going to do.”

–

Parks & Recreation

=============

“You’ve got to think about the big things while your doing small things, so that all the small things go in the right direction.”

–

Alvin Toffler

===============

Life doesn’t really make it easy for us. It kind of encourages us to focus on big stuff … and little stuff … at the exact same time <all the while encouraging us to focus on one thing and do it well>.

At exactly the same time … well … we all seem to be encouraged to want a ‘big life’ or ‘live life as big as you can’ which implies ignoring little over big.

Do something really big thing.

Do something important.

Do something substantial.

I won’t argue that most of us get the “big definition” wrong <because the truth is that identifying the ‘big’ for us is closer to 0% success  than 100%>.

But what I would suggest is … oddly enough … we do more big things than we may think.

Huh?

Frequently, we see incidents in life as “little things” and later we learn to our regret we recognize the same incidents as “big things.”

While the Toffler quote sums it up well I would be tempted to add “… so all the small things go in the right direction and you end up near(er) your big thing <whatever that may be>.”

I would suggest that it is in the juggling of the small within the big that is the challenge.

And not everyone is good at juggling.

Some people are really really good at doing the small things.

Some people are really really good at thinking about the big things.

But few people are good at both.

Regardless.

Big things are seemingly easy to do because we all see them. And they appear easy to check off our “to do” list. But, inevitably, it seems like everything really does come down to the little things, which unfortunately, we have a nasty habit of overlooking <not necessarily on purpose>.

<emphasis here> … that’s bad <that overlooking thing>.

It can be a big mistake <which is a big thing by the way> and a large creation of stress in our life <another big thing>. It’s a big mistake because those small things most often have a large impact to alleviate some of these potentially negative ‘big’ things in our lives. Ok. Take a moment and think about it. Stress can be partially managed by doing a couple of really small things … like … show up on time …. and listen and … well … you get it.

Whew.

Small stuff sounding types of things aren’t they?

Yeah.

Sometimes small important things sound small.  But do big things. Make a big impact.

Anyway.

By now I imagine you get where I am going with this little post.

Little things that are big.

I write all this because while I believe Alvin was talking about actual “doing stuff” I thought I would remind everyone that the truly impactful little things have absolutely nothing to do with doing but rather HOW you do.

And while that sound very ‘self oriented’ I would point out it is not — because the big things, the truly big things, are not individual things, not “I did” things, they are ‘we’ things or group things or shared things.

Really BIG things may be ‘I’ generated but they are “we” implemented to be truly big.  And in that belief we can often find the little things needed so we can be sure the big things happen.

All this leads me to ‘hard choices’ because little or big … all things require making decisions.

Aw shit.

………. zig zag mistake …………….

Decisions.

Suffice it to say decisions, in general, are hard to make <even by people who are quite capable of making a good hard decision>.

==========

“Oh, don’t mind me. I’m just silently outperforming all of you on my own terms.”

——–

INTP Musings

===========

Decisions are hard because … well … they inevitably harden the person who makes them.

Decisions demand you to harden yourself in some ways.  You have to harden yourself, insulate yourself a little, from the human aspects of the decision and focus on the bigger picture and the horizon. Please don’t mistake this for minimizing the ‘little people’ or the individual or even ‘not caring’.

This is the forest or trees type decisions leaders <and all people at some point> need to make. It may sound callous but it is just like firefighting a big fire … burn some trees to save the forest.

Sacrifice some little things to save a big thing.

Oh.  And sometimes sacrifice a shitload of trees <little things> to save the forest <big thing>.

Regardless.

These little day to day hard decisions, when they are made, harden you as a person. It’s just life.  It’s not personal.

Here is what makes it even tougher.

I believe all of us who make hard decisions worry a little bit that it … well … becomes too easy.

That we become so hard that we lose sight of everything else.

As things proceed in our lives and we make choice after choice after choice each decision affects you … that is your personal toll.

That is what Life demands of you.

That is the price Life charges you.

Now.

Having said that.

Not everyone will make the hard decision. We will inevitably made soft decisions. Soft decisions that possibly gave a glimmer of hope by saving some little things but the danger is always that once you begin the slippery slope of making soft decisions on little things <and gravity really takes over> the glimmer becomes dimmer and dimmer over time <and the big thing is lost>.

To stop the slide a really hard decision needed to be made.

Look.

We all do this … make soft decisions on seemingly little things.

It isn’t a lack of foresight.

It isn’t a lack of understanding of what is happening.

It is a lack of ability to make the hard decision.

And … it’s a shame.

He blew on one of the dandelions, and the whole world disappeared.

While this may sound flippant my only real thought on little things & big things & making decisions is … noli timere <don’t fear>.

My thought is that it seems to me that we, in everyday Life, have become so fearful of doing the wrong thing that we have become slaves to “what is stated <by some expert or others> to be the right thing to do.”

Even on the frickin’ little things

In the end.

I truly believe the so called big things are not really that big <even dreams I will say>.

In fact.

Most often it is the little things that are the truly important things.

So when someone tells you that you don’t “think big” maybe you can take some solace that they don’t “think small” and you are happier because of that.

So when someone tells you that you focus on little things too much maybe you can take solace that you just don’t fear making the hard choices in the moment.

So when someone tells you that you are 0% sure of what is important to you take solace in that you believe all things are important.

All little things are big and all big things are really little. That may sound overwhelming but … well … if you do maybe you will pay attention enough to make the decisions when they matter.

=============

But resounding with the truth of things prophesied,

But of things with truth resounds

Но    вещей    правдою  звучат

No v’eshchej   pravdoju   zvuchat

Its lips are covered with blood!

Lips covered with blood

Уста, запекшиеся  кровью!

Usta, zap’vekshi’esa krovju!

———-

Ophelia’s Song: Alexander Bok

=================

“Beyond a doubt truth bears the same relation to falsehood as light to darkness.”

–

Leonardo da Vinci

=================

59squared.

3,481.

3481 squared.

12,117,361.

12,117,361 squared.

1.5 billion.

That’s three degrees and I am at almost 1/5^th of the entire world.

Yeah.

The numbers are really not that neat but you get the point.

With a single event, a single death, one person can set off a chain of events that will affect hundreds of thousands, millions and even billions of people.

Some people call this “6 degrees of separation” <although I showed it to you as only 3>.

I didn’t make up the squared concept … in some form or fashion it reflects the truth of the internet of things and connectedness. And … sadly … it shows the likelihood that the majority of us have some connection to the 59 people who died, the 500+ injured, in the Las Vegas shooting.

I say this because it makes it personal. Shit. This IS personal.

The main point here is that a person now has access and is aware of more people <true friends as well as web based friends> and can have more frequent communication due to the ‘digital revolution’.

Yet.

Social media is simply the fact that the traditional benefits of an acquaintance network <personal or professional> and friendships can be more expansively realized than before.

This means that truth resounds more quickly & clearly & bluntly than ever before.

The other truth is that our own experiences, and Life, can then be at the mercy of crowds of friends & acquaintances — crowds providing unsolicited input & feedback & experiences all influencing hordes of additional people’s thoughts on a daily basis. This means whether you are present in one place or not you can be impacted in the present place you stand. You are a nomad in which the world remains your home.

Our world is now one large network consisting of two basic things – people and connections.

And while many times we look at this as some forced or constructed network <Facebook, twitter, etc. provides hubs and constructs> the reality is that most people networks & connections are organically constructed. So while we like to draw out nice symmetrical shapes to define how connections work and networks are constructed the reality is that networks are more often not symmetrical.

The unique patterns in the connections determine the shapes. We reach out in asymmetrical ways to places, events and thoughts and bring them near in seconds.

In addition the ties between the connections can be complicated – spanning from intense or passive.

In the business world we try to characterize networks and connections in a variety of ways. The trouble is that people are not that orderly and certainly not stagnant and they actively reshape their connections, interests and networks all the time.

But I am not here to discuss how the internet can, or cannot, affect personal relationships or a sense of individual isolation but rather this is a thought on how the internet can make things, and Life … well … smaller.

On a day like today, a day after an event like what happened in Las Vegas, this rings true.

However .. .on most days the ‘quasi-truth’ that resounds in the echo chambers of what we talk about and ‘think we know’ is that the internet is isolating us … disconnects us from reality and social interaction.

So … is it possible that the internet increases connection and decreases connection at exactly the same time?

Yup.

The Internet connects and it isolates.

The usual assumption that most of us make about our computing and communication environment is that we are ‘always’ connected.

Indeed, most of us are ‘nomads’ when it comes to computing and communications. We live in a disconnected world much of the time as we travel between our office, home, airport, hotel, car, coffee shop, bedroom, etc.

We now recognize that access to computing and communications is necessary not only from one’s `home base’, but also while one is in transit and/or when one reaches one’s destination.

It is an anytime, anywhere access world. It is also, paradoxically, a ‘be anywhere at any time’ world.

That is the connected aspect which … uhm … creates the whole disconnected aspect.

Well.

Let’s just say we feel slightly disconnected in a connected way … uhm … until something happens that tightens all the lines of connection.

It is within moments like that where the supposed 6 degrees of separation becomes less degrees and more links … all of a sudden the 59squared aspect of connectedness occurs.

The world gets smaller … in fact … really fucking small.

We are brought together and something that happens to 59 people, or even 559 people, becomes an experience within our own grasp.

Which brings me back to truth and resounding.

The majority of our social networking constructs today are on the internet <or have a foundation on the internet>.

Simplistically, we, the people, are connecting via the internet. What this means is that the internet muffles or amplifies our voices, events and truth <as well as lies unfortunately>.

What this means is that … well … an event, a moment, a death, an injury, resounds … resounds as in 59squared.

What THAT means is … well … we have to face a truth whether we want to or not.

In this case … we are touched, connected and affected by one person with weapons of destruction destroying the lives of someone, and someones, which in some way we are connected to.

I imagine I thought to say this today because now we will end up entering into the gauntlet of what to do about this to stop events like this in the future or if we can even do something at all.

And I fear, in the end, we will do nothing.

We will remain disconnectedly connected in our little asymmetrical networks of friends & acquaintances.

That was a sad sentence to type.

At this point, my conclusion, I imagine it may be relevant to remind everyone of 59squared and the fact that I can do one thing, one right thing … or one wrong thing … and it will resound.

Choose your ‘one thing’ wisely.

 

 

====== back in October 2015 I shared my thoughts on what to do =======

What I am NOT for is irresponsible quibbling and inaction after a shooting tragedy. It is a complex issue that demands something more than a pithy simple solution soundbite. A gun, an individual & a society.

===

“A diamond is a chunk of coal that did well under pressure.”

——

Henry Kissinger

====================

“When you do things right, people won’t be sure that you have done anything at all.”

–

God (in Futurama)

===

Well.

Think what you want and say what you want to say about Kissinger … but the opening quote is awesome <although, geologically speaking, it may not be truly accurate>.

In our quest for recognition as a leader many business people, and leaders in general, seemingly get shoved <on seemingly a daily basis> into some absurd universe where everyone judges you <mostly on some absurd views of ‘being noticed is what matters’ or ‘shine bright like a diamond‘>. I say that because this means thinking of yourself as a piece of coal seems … well … quite underwhelming and quite ‘unleaderly’ <I made that word up>.

Uhm.

But.

One of the most frustrating things you learn early on in a management career path is that you do not get credit for what you are expected to do. And maybe what makes this most frustrating is that this lesson applies to a crisis as well as the most mundane everyday grind responsibilities.

But.

The thing is as you gain more and more responsibility you learn that this is actually a good thing.

People like reliability.

People like consistency.

People like a foundation of quiet competent leadership.

People like you doing what you are supposed to do <with little fanfare>.

This is a lesson learned early on in a management career … and you can tell the leaders who <a> did not learn it or <b> saw the lesson but lack self-confidence … because they … well … ignore the lesson and exhibit ongoing aggravating self promotion <even on the things they are expected to do>.

That said.

This doesn’t mean you aren’t tempted to take a moment or two to point out, sometimes in some fairly loud messaging, that you want some credit for what you are doing.

This is the ‘dance.’

The management & leader “credit dance.’ I call it a dance because every good leader knows they have to do some self-public relations and, yet, they don’t want to be seen as doing any overt self-public relations.

===============

“The price of greatness is responsibility.”

—–

Winston Churchill

=======

Being a great leader is all about doing your job and doing the right things at the right time … and <I imagine> figuring out how to actually tell people that you did the right things at the right time. This means not being seen a as blowing your own horn or being some narcissistic attention seeking, credit seeking asshat but rather one who understands it really isn’t about gaining credit or accolades but rather reassuring people that the right things, the good things, just get done under your watch.

I would note that reassurance is a powerful tool. It is powerful because doing things right isn’t about small … nor large … but if you do it right … really right … people will not really be sure that you’ve done anything at all and, yet, feel reassured that you are there.

Now.

In today’s bombastic world it can actually become a bad thing if no one notices. Why? <insert a ‘huh?!?’ here> because someone else at the exact same time is telling everyone what they did … and yes … unfortunately … often the squeaky wheel does get the grease.

Aw heck.

The truth is that the value is never in the credit. And leaders know that. And we everyday schmucks need to remind ourselves of that more often.

—-

“I alone cannot change the world, but I can cast a stone across the waters to create many ripples.”

————

Leaders know that the little things can matter and that just delivering upon what you are supposed to do really matters <a lot>.

A subtle touch can create the needed ripples. Doing what you are supposed to do insures the right ripples are always … well … rippling.

Good leaders know you can be the initiator, instigator or implementer … or even all of them … and it doesn’t really matter.

I would note that within the realm of doing what you are supposed to do about the only thing that can truly diminish ‘greatness of simple doing’ is not accepting responsibility – for the bad and the good and all that it takes to get to either place.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that what I just stated is ‘character’.

Leaders don’t lead by asking or telling people to follow it most often happens by doing the shit you are supposed to do really well.

I know. I know. That doesn’t sound “great” but greatness really cannot be achieved without it.

Oh.

This kind of suggests that greatness is a contradiction.

Let’s use Winston as an example.

Huge ego. MASSIVE ego. Charismatic speaker. Maybe one of the greatest orators of all time. Made some huge mistakes. HUGE mistakes. …. But humble in his responsibility. He permitted  the people to get credit for success and strength and what needed to be done … all the while doing what he as supposed to be doing.

He was vocal, and sincere, on issues and the people of Great Britain getting credit.

All despite his ego.

Great leadership reflects a unique balance of ego and humility. Ego to effectively lead and humility to be effectively followed.

I would imagine those with the greatest character reside somewhere on the line between those two things.

I would imagine those with the greatest character reside somewhere in between not getting credit for what they are supposed to do and actually being acknowledged for enabling greater greatness.

Well.

I know it isn’t popular to say this but most of the best things in Life, and leadership,  are found in the unspectacular:

• The best people more often than not go unseen and unnoticed by the majority.
• The best moments more often than not go unseen until looking back.

Just as perfection is most often found in the imperfections … spectacular is most often found in the unspectacular. And, yes, doing what you are supposed to do is unspectacular.

But I would argue the spectacular would never ever happen if the ‘supposed to do’ shit never happened.

In the end.

Great leaders are often judged by what you don’t see them doing. This also means great leaders are often judged by what they feel comfortable remaining silent about … by what they don’t say about what they are supposed to do and supposed to be.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this is a little more difficult than it may appear.

It is a little more difficult because a great leader does have to have some ego and some higher level of confidence and, therefore, some positive affirmation kind of helps to put some well needed oxygen back into the confidence balloon.

It takes a awhile to learn you don’t have to ask for oxygen or even try and fill it yourself … well … at least good leaders learn that … the bad, insecure ones never do.

==============

“More isn’t always better. Sometimes it’s just more.”

―

Barbara Benedek

====================

“Our company? 

We have a change the world attitude. We don’t mind being disruptive as long as it is with the intent to create something new and better.  Smart disruption displaces the conventional and replaces it with an unconventional way to do things that actually meets what people want, need and expect. 

We call what we are doing ‘shaking the category etch a sketch.’ 

Visions should be lofty and grounded.

Simple yet reflective of a complex world.

Pragmatic & practical yet not the status quo.” 

—–

Bruce McTague

=======================

Ok.

I must get trapped in dozens of discussions & debates over innovative ideas, disruptive ideas and what is “new.” And thanks to Yale and some guy named Loewy  I have a tendency to toss around two phrases a shitload in the conversations — “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable” and optimal newness.

<note: <a> ‘optimal newness’ is a relatively new phrase which i have appropriated to replace some of my less eloquent phrases saying the same thought, <b> I have used ‘most advanced yet acceptable’ as a thought for years as it was offered to us by  ‘the father of industrial design’, Loewy, in the 1950’s but more recently highlighted in an Atlantic article>

I pull these phrases out of my thought bag of tricks because invariably these “let’s talk about new ideas” conversations get squeezed between two extreme bookends and the phrases help to unsqueeze the thinking.

One bookend is the highly caffeinated entrepreneurial ‘disruptors’ who are convinced they have an idea that no one has ever seen or done before and want to present it as “the coolest thing you have never seen before.”

The other bookend is the pragmatic risk averse “change agent” who proudly presents the same widget which was once painted taupe and is now painted flat black as “new, improved and contemporary.”

By the way. These bookends actually have names: neophilia, a curiosity about new things; and neophobia, a fear of anything too new. This conversational tug of war is a reflection of the basic human truth that we love, and actively seek, familiarity <safeness>… uhm … as well as the thrill of discovery <risk>.

We do this with … well … everything.

Therefore we are almost always torn, slightly or a lot, by these two opposing thoughts. This is the thinking that led that guy, Loewy, to articulate his industrial design attitude as “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable.”

He believed to sell something surprising, make it familiar; and to sell something familiar, make it surprising.

This thought is important. It is important because while an idea can, conservatively, die 101 different ways 2 of the most likely ways to die is <a> you have a surprising, possibly truly disruptive idea, and your inclination it is to make it look spectacularly surprisingly different – therefore scaring the shit out of most people and they do not attach themselves to it, and <b> you have a spectacularly unspectacular useful idea and … well … you undersell it because it is difficult to articulate beyond the familiarity – therefore boring everyone into believing it is not worthy of a ‘new’ label. And before you beat the crap out of me on all of this The Atlantic article offers a nice proof point to ponder:

In 2014, a team of researchers from Harvard University and Northeastern University wanted to know exactly what sorts of proposals were most likely to win funding from prestigious institutions such as the National Institutes of Health—safely familiar proposals, or extremely novel ones?

They prepared about 150 research proposals and gave each one a novelty score. Then they recruited 142 world-class scientists to evaluate the projects. The most-novel proposals got the worst ratings. Exceedingly familiar proposals fared a bit better, but they still received low scores. “Everyone dislikes novelty,” Karim Lakhani, a co-author, explained to me, and “experts tend to be overcritical of proposals in their own domain.” The highest evaluation scores went to submissions that were deemed slightly new.

I shared this research to show that even the dullest deserves some surprise & novelty while “new” has some limits when trying to communicate the pragmatic <both of which are important with regard to … well … almost everything>.

That said. I think the real point here is that you need to find the sweet spot … that there is an “optimal newness” for ideas or, well, how about we call it “advanced yet acceptable”.

So why do we always have this struggle? Well … in business the challenge seems to be the business world has put an incredibly high value on <perceived> innovation & disruption and a lesser, if not nonexistent, value on <real> functionality & highly pragmatic thinking & ideas. This out of whack valuation steers some business people to some extremely shallow misguided thinking and hollow ideation.

Nowhere is this found more often than when discussing “disruptive ideas” and innovation which are the two “phases that pay” when we talk about new.

We use these words to imply this idea will change the world <and more often than not it is just a nice idea which will make an impact in its own little universe … assuming it doesn’t die a quick death>, therefore, it becomes the only type of idea we should pay attention to.

In other words … if it’s not disruptive, its crap.

Well.

That’s crap (bullshit). The truth is that many, if not most, of the most foundational ‘innovative’ or new ideas the world has ever seen tend to be the most overlooked, unseen to the naked eye, unobtrusive ‘disruptors’ we have ever interacted with.

The truth is that most effective useful disruptive ideas are almost always leveraging off of something existing. You may turn everything upside down … but you are still using some existing pieces <some existing attitudes & behavior as well a ‘things’> from which your idea will end up tapping into. I say that with two thoughts in mind:

• something from nothing equals the same thing as nothing from nothing … nothing.

• smart, or intelligent, disrupting is always about something from something.

Ponder them <not too much because it will make your head hurt> … but everyone should keep these two thoughts in mind whenever seeking optimal newness – you cannot create something from nothing.

Anyway. In today’s business world “new” and “disruptive” are inextricably linked. This is a shame.

It does not benefit either concept or idea to do this. New is … well … new. No more and no less <although there are certainly degrees of new>.

Disruption actually means ‘to challenge.’ And, despite what many want you to believe, disruption is actually about creating something … not simply to destroy something. I would actually suggest that disruption, at its core, is about changing the way you think – creating new ways to think about something.

Think about it. Conventions train us to do the conventional. I say that because accepted beliefs <conventional thinking>, where everyone is thinking the same, usually means no one is really thinking.

Therefore, constructing new accepted beliefs may not mean destroying the old, the familiar, but rather creating a new way of thinking and creating a new familiar. All this becomes important as you consider what would be “optimal newness.” Because as we wander aimlessly between the hyperbole of disruptive and new … well … many new ideas are simply a fresh derivative of ‘familiarity.’

I say this to make a point.

Optimal newness, 95% of the time, leverages some familiarity … something existing … and it is grounded in some reality that people can grasp.

Therein lies a truth “optimal newness” never loses sight of. The biggest ideas with the biggest end impact on our lives typically have gained some momentum not because they were some huge ‘new, never seen before’ idea but rather because the innovated on some conventional thinking and shifted us into some different way of thinking about something.

Maybe we should think about it this way … if today’s innovators have been successful … have seen farther than others before … it is because they have stood on the shoulders of giants … well … maybe stood on the shoulders of something that already existed.

Regardless. I read somewhere in one of those bullshit pop psychology pieces that confident people are better than most people at seeking out small victories … they don’t necessarily need “big” ideas or maniacally pursue being called a ‘disruptor’ as they pursue success. I tend to believe confidence can reside in comfort within ‘optimal newness’ and the confident business people know that newness doesn’t have to be splashy nor hyperbole driven but rather surprising functionality.

And maybe that is the larger point with regard to ‘optimal newness’ and ‘most advanced yet acceptable.’ In business these days we seem to either believe “go big or go home” and therefore either overplay our hand or completely underplay it <because it isn’t big enough>. Just think about that last thought as you ponder the last dozen good ideas you have seen die before your eyes.

I will end by stating, unequivocally, that this is easier to write about then to put into practice.

Shit.

Finding the ‘optimal’ anything in business is hard. All I know is that every time I have this discussion with a sales group talking about selling, an innovations group talking about articulating an innovation or even a CEO about ‘organizational change management’, I get a lot of cocked heads  as they think about it a little.

That’s got to count for something.

============

“Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.”

—-

J.R.R Tolkien

============

—

“And though she be but little, she is fierce.”

–

—-

William Shakespeare

=================

Ok.

This is about business and business leadership.

Leading is a big job. It carries big responsibilities and big burdens. You have to be big enough in some way <skills, charisma, character, smarts, etc.> to stay above the organization and employees. And I say “above” because part of leading is being able to see above the heads of everyone so that you can lead and align and step in when & where appropriate.

Above is not dominance per se just that you maintain a dominant position from which you can most effectively & efficiently lead.

Now.

Here is what any good leader knows … you don’t have to be big to … well … be big.

Heck. You don’t even have to act ‘big.’

In addition.

A good leader can leave the comfort of the ‘throne’, i.e. the trappings of the ‘bigness’ –the natural ‘dominance’ that comes with a title — and still remain above even when stepping down from all those things.

However.

Not everyone is a good leader. And not every leader is particularly good at navigating the natural doubts <am I doing the right thing, am I doing the best thing, am I doing the thing I should be doing, etc.> that come along with being a leader. By the way … any good leader has some doubts on occasion … it keeps them grounded.

Regardless.

What that means is there will inevitably be business people who fear looking small. And they protect their illusions of ‘bigness’, or being bigly, mainly in several ways:

• They diminish everyone they can in the attempt to make others as small as they can so that they look bigger no matter the comparison

• They find a ‘safe space’ in which they place their metaphorical throne and make everyone come to them <this is kind of like the boss who purposefully has their desk built slightly higher and the chairs facing the desk slightly lower to insure they maintain a physical dominant position>

• They avoid, as much as possible, one-on-one interactions with anyone their own size <unless they can control the environment>.

• They ground themselves in platitudes under the guise of “flexibility & adaptability” so they can avoid having to defend anything specific with anyone who could diminish their bigness

Well.

Why I decided to write about this is … uhm … day in and day out Donald J Trump offers us in the business world reminders of ineffective leadership style and the characteristics of insecure leadership.

And the number one characteristic of insecure leadership is the inability to step down and still stay above.

Insecure leaders are extremely hesitant, if not completely resistant, to leaving their ‘dominant position.’

Let me explain ‘dominant position’ because it can sound bad <and it is mainly meant to express a position of authority>.

A CEO or a president is clearly in a dominant position by title and by responsibility and, in most cases, by some larger skill that got them to where they are. A true ‘dominant position’ <let’s call it “authority”> combines all aspects.

Therefore the person in the dominant position combines substance & style. And this is where insecurity steps in … because if a leader has any true doubts with regard to their ‘dominant position’ – mostly doubts on their substance — they start exhibiting some insecure characteristics.

They will dial up their style aspects to cloak any substance deficiencies and become excruciatingly careful with regard to how they interact with other people.

But the one I thought about today was “stepping down.’

Let me explain.

I heard Donald J say the other day “they should call us to participate.” In other words … they need to come to me <thereby establishing some aspect of subservience and feeds the sense of ‘dominant position.’

This was not a one-off comment.

He does this … every … frickin’ … day.

Trump never “goes to people” nor does he unite by inserting himself into any opposing groups <people who may not agree with him> opening himself up to say “let me be part of what you want.” I cannot envision him ever going to opposition and suggesting he wanted to work with them <they have to come to him>.

His whole leadership style is driven by an insecurity of ‘dominant position’ and he fears stepping down from his position because he fears it will expose the fact he isn’t really above anyone other than in title.

In other words … he fears looking small <or ‘not bigly’>.

And therein lies the larger lesson.

Good leaders don’t become smaller when they step down or go to people rather than make people go to them. They know there are no ‘little people’ but rather only big responsibilities of which everyone has.

Little people are little wherever they go … even if they just sit in the corner office.

Unfortunately for us a little leader knows this … and doesn’t know this.

What I mean by that is they can sense their littleness therefore they go out of their way to stay within whatever cocoon of ‘bigness trappings’ to encourage the belief they have that they are actually big. And, yet, they don’t know this because they tend to have an oversized view of themselves <every should come to me attitude>.

They see themselves through a fairly warped view of self-relevance … “everyone else becomes more relevant by being around me therefore they become bigger in my bigness.” And that partially outlines their main fear.

Loss of relevance.

Anyone who becomes more relevant than them is a danger. Loss of power, the illusion of or real, is the danger.

What that all means is that an insecure leader more often than not lives in a “you need to come to me, call me or ask me” mentality.

• Foreign dignitaries come to visit him <and he does not visit them>.
• Democrats should call me instead of being obstructionists.
• People need to visit him at the White House <or Mar a Lago>.
• He never works with people or offers to meet them.

He treats everyone as if they should be subservient to him and if they do not meet that desire he is dismissive or even attacks them as ‘obstructionist.’

Let me be clear.

No sane business leader <in this generation> has this attitude.

You cannot.

You cannot because you know many of the people working for you are actually smarter than you and a shitload more just may know something you do not know.

You cannot because oftentimes your peers, who actually report to you, may actually be better than you at some things.

You cannot because you know that good people never want to feel subservient but rather want to feel being a key part of overall success.

Most of those who lead have learned these things not by attempting to learn to be ‘above’ but rather by learning how to lead. And you learn that mostly by getting into ‘the game’ and realizing you can play anywhere at any time. I know that I took an advertising job as a young newly promoted VP in NYC not out of any desire to be the best but because I was curious. I was curious to see if I could “play in the NYC advertising game.” I didn’t need to be the best nor did I desire to dominate … I just wanted to see if I could play.

I can tell you that once you become comfortable with knowing you can play at the biggest level and the lowest level you have a fighting chance to become a leader.

Look.

We all have numerous character flaws and it is a sad truth the majority of us can’t see them. This is even more difficult in a leadership position because you do naturally become more self-aware of any of the things you are good at and yet also not good at … but you also lean heavily on the things you ‘perceive’ got you where you are today.

I say that because insecure leaders are relatively hollow on the self-awareness.

Looking at Trump it is easy to see that he grew up thinking he could get away with whatever he wanted. He lived in a bubble in which young, mentally lazy, rich, amoral white men routinely got away with whatever they wanted. These same characteristics are exhibited in his insecure leadership style.

Here is what I know.

Big leaders are big leaders.

And they are big because wherever they go they retain their bigness. That means they need not ‘stay above’ to be big … they can step down … sit in town halls answering questions from real people as well as sit down with people who didn’t vote for you as well as sit down with peers and discuss ideas … and walk away just as big as they entered the room.

Small leaders cannot do those things, therefore, they do not.

I have now given you a way to judge big leaders from small leaders. Judge away. Every leader should be judged … and judged harshly … because … well … they are leaders and that is their burden.

“… technology companies want us to think that by engaging in self-monitoring and self-care practices using wearable wireless technologies we will be empowered to “take control” of our health.

“These apps and devices also sometimes ‘push’ or coerce us into using such technologies in the interests of other actors and agencies”, raising questions about their potential for “economic and social discrimination”.

—-

Deborah Lupton, a sociologist who has made a critical study of the digihealth market.

============

Well.

I am not a sociologist and I am not a wearable technology expert.

And, yet, for some reason I find myself in another discussion where I have been asked about some futuristic type stuff including:

What do I think will be the future of healthcare?

What do I think about artificial intelligence and the workplace?

What do I think about tomorrow’s business organizational model?

What do I think about 3D printing and its effect on manufacturing?

What do I think about Wall Street and the overall financial industry

What do I think about globalization and its effect on individual country’s business ,and jobs>

What do I think about the young <in business, in education, in critical thinking>?

And.

Now … what do I think about wearable technology.

Let me be clear.

At best … I am 50% right on thinking thru innovations success <maybe the last I got right was the double edged razor>.

At best … I am 50% right on thinking thru the future of entire industries.

But … that doesn’t mean I do not have an opinion … and I do know some things about people’s behavior and what they like and dislike <from a usage standpoint> … so here goes on wearable technology.

I read somewhere that 2014 was greeted as ‘the Year of the Wearable.’

Well.

That’s a little over-the-top nuts to me.

As most over-the-top futuristic type things are … someone has decided to make some over-the-top claim about an innovation and the future of “the next hot thing” <which is most likely tepid at best>.

I think wearable technology is going to have some major complications as it tries to become integral into people’s lives.

Why?

Well.

As people try to cram more and more stuff into whatever they are already doing and what they want to do there will be two main decision criteria for anything trying to work its way in to someone’s routine:

• Lubrication:

We all have gobs of things to do and a to-do list longer than time available. In most cases we are not seeking to add things but are more than happy to utilize techniques & tools which make what we have to do get done more efficiently.

That’s Life lubrication.

If someone or something can convince me that buying it & using it will lubricate everything I already have on my plate … well … they can have my money.

And if it actually DOES lubricate? Well. They will continue to not only get my money but I will use the product/service on an ongoing basis because it … well … has shown value.

Everyone should note that the link between purchase & proof of value is tenuous between innovations and people/users which is why many them look good in trial but die overtime.

I will admit … for the life of me I cannot figure out why futurists or the blowhards who espouse ‘year of anything’ with regard to an innovation ignore this.

<on a separate note: that’s why I believe smartphone telehealth is the next generation of general practitioner medicine … it lubricates Life on a valuable consumer need>

• Enhancement:

Sticking with my to-do list or stuff I do daily <regularly> … if something can

improve, maybe make more effective, something I am already doing … it is an ‘enhancer.’ In most cases we are always looking to subtract something if we can add something better. Or even better … enhance something we are already doing that we like <better because that incorporates less change in our Life and it suggests what we are already doing was smart>.

That’s Life enhancement.

If someone or something can convince me that buying or using it will enhance my life, make it better or more enjoyable or ‘fuller’ on an ongoing basis … well … they can have my money.

And if it actually DOES enhance? Well. They will continue to not only get my money but I will use the product/service on an ongoing basis because it … well … has shown value.

All that is kind of basic but for some reason gets overlooked.

That said.

Wearables, for the most part, neither lubricates our life nor enhances it … they simply educate us on how effective, or ineffective, or how efficient, or inefficient, we are already managing our Life.

It simply adds shit to what we are already doing and … well … adds work.

It simply provides information.

Good information? Sure.

But all it will either do is piss me off or show me what else I need to be doing.

Look.

I have more than enough things, and access to a zillion things, which will tell me what I am doing wrong or what I could be doing better … and all for less than $300.

If wearable technology would actually change shit without me having to do shit <kind of like a morphine drip without the morphine> then maybe it would meet lubricate/enhance criteria.

At the moment all wearable technology does is highlight the eliteness of the super fit and the rest of us every day non super fit schmucks.

They are certainly cool … but in today’s world ‘cool’ doesn’t get you too far in the marketplace. It can gain you a business niche but if the cool doesn’t Life lubricate or Life enhance … it will gain nothing more than a niche.

By the way.

In the business world a niche model can be quite lucrative.

Anyway.

I hesitate to jump on board the ‘digital wearable technology revolution.”

At least from a mainstream consumer choice perspective.

Now.

Let’s take a minute on corporate wellness or health or maybe … the “digitally engaged patient.”

Let’s say wearers can earn discounts of as much as 15% on their health insurance premiums. Well. That sounds appealing … and not just to me … 70% of consumers surveyed by PwC said they would wear a device to reduce payments.

Let’s say that wearable applications become more practical as both hardware and software develop where the devices can measure temperature and blood chemistry which would permit doctors to monitor patients from afar. Well. That sounds appealing … and not just for me … doctors love the idea and for people with chronic illness it could be life-saving or at least life-changing.

Let’s say wearable devices, which could include a smartphone that can measure blood-oxygen and blood-glucose levels <key if you’re diabetic>. Well. That sounds appealing.

Let’s say that a wearable device can monitor your ECG linked to an app that can tell when you’re running low on heart medication and need to order up a repeat prescription. Well. That sounds appealing.

Some of these devices are already on the market or coming soon via private health providers. And some people envision a time not in the not-so-distant future when physical activity and vital sign data will be collected seamlessly from devices planted on or in our bodies without our having to do anything much at all. Well. That sounds REALLY appealing from a lubrication and enhancement viewpoint.

Fitbit, and other wearables, don’t really seem that viable to me, however, they do appear to be on the leading edge of what will be valuable to us.

I imagine that if you have some extra money to waste or you are one of the superfit obsessed with maximizing every little edge out of your body then a wearable is well worth pursuing.

But for us every day schmucks who are comfortable getting what little we can out of our bodies when we do choose to do some exercise or like to take it easy on Sundays in front of a TV watching other people exercise … well … my wearable is much more likely to be a ‘cold one’ in my hand then some $300 wearable on my wrist.