I am very excited to announce that now TED is going places! Places like my home city, Sofia :) I am very pleasantly surprised at the pace with which things are developing as only some few months ago I was one of two Bulgarian TED translators :) For more information on TED in Sofia please visit the official TEDxSofia web site: http://www.tedxsofia.com/
[за българската версия, моля кликнете "Click to read entire post"]

Много се радвам да събщя, че TED вече ще се организира и на места като моя роден град, София :) Приятно съм изненадана, тъй като само допреди няколко месеца бях един от двамата български преводачи на TED :) За повече информация, моля посетете страницата на TEDxSofia: http://www.tedxsofia.com/

Click to read entire post

"he ought to choose a woman, sez I"

Tomasky on Obama putting a woman on the Supreme Court:
"[...] a common point will be that it's wrong to say Obama should choose a woman and should simply select the "best person" for the job. Okay, that's a nice idea, folks, but really, in a country of 306 million people, a couple million lawyers, and tens of thousands of judges and law professors, how can there really be any such thing as one best person?

It's a crazy idea and a chimerical standard. Ten or 12 people will emerge who meet the various criteria, and from among those 10 or 12, there's no way in the world to guarantee that person X or person Y is THE best. So, from among those 10 or 12, he ought to choose a woman, sez I."
I thought that was quite interesting four a couple of reasons. First, the question of choosing someone for a post when there are millions, thousands, hundred candidates is always curious. How do you choose? It is definitely not easy, but seems like the HR of big corporations are indeed looking for ways to find The Best candidate out of the huge pool of applicants, hence the (often) 6-month long recruitment process where candidates need to take and re-take psychometric tests, go through assessment centres and interviews, etc, etc. At the end of the ordeal there should be a winner or two... or even more, because (large) companies may just hire all the candidates who qualify. (I won't comment on this kind of recruitment process in this post, some other time maybe.) I guess the more relevant question here would be, how do you choose among few candidates, when your choice is easily influenced by subjective criteria. And even more importantly, is subjectivity at all wrong?

In any case, the issue with the Supreme Court is very different not only because we are not talking about any job, but also because the main question is about having more women in government positions and leadership positions in general. If we know for a fact there are not enough women in such primary posts, is it OK to discriminate and hire a female candidate? That was the second interesting point. Check out another article by Tomasky, which is an informative review on the issue of equality.

Click to read entire post

On High Fidelity. The book I mean.


I finished re-reading one of my favourite books, 'High Fidelity' by Nick Hornby, just a few days ago. It was an enjoyable experience. The book is written in a very engaging way. The main character, Rob, talks to the reader throughout the book, which makes the reader part of the action and puts them right inside the story; the reader is not a mere observer. Apart from the writing style, I find the story quite interesting because it is about a modern (read: unrealised) quest for happiness, even though (surely) not explicitly defined that way. We live in a society where having a job we like and a partner we like are a few of the necessary 'requirements' for us to be happy. Clearly, having 'requirements' for happiness is right where the quest is doomed to failure, because things in the outside world get depleted, used out, we get tired of them, etc, i.e. are subject to disappearance in one form or the other. As Mr. Ricard points out in his TED talk on happiness, real happiness (not to be mistaken with pleasure) is best sought inside. I've blogged about this before, so I will refrain from going into it again.. (can't hide that it's a favourite topic of mind though :-) Anyway, because of these reasons, the reader never really sees Rob finishing his quest, we rather see him content with his life and not necessarily feeling joyous about it. Maybe in the next book?
It'd be cool to see him go to a Buddhist hermitage for a while... maybe an interesting story could come out of this too :-)

In line with the book environment, my top five favourite moments from 'High Fidelity':
#1: "'Have you got any soul?' a woman asks the next afternoon. That depends, I feel like saying; some days yes, some days no. A few days ago I was right out; now I've got loads, too much, more than I can handle. I wish I could spread it a bit more evenly, I want to tell her, get a better balance, but I can't seem to get it sorted. I can see she wouldn't be interested in my internal stock control problems though, so I simply point to where I keep the soul I have, right by the exit, just next to the blues." (p.67)
I like the pun :-), especially with the blues.
#2: "The other people I like are the ones who are being driven to find a tune that has been troubling them, distracting them, a tune that they can hear in their breath when they run for a bus, or in the rhythm of their windscreen wipers when they're driving home from work. Sometimes something banal and obvious is responsible for the distraction: they have heard it on the radio, or at a club. But sometimes it has come to them as if by magic. Sometimes it has come to them because the sun was out, and they saw someone who looked nice, and they suddenly found themselves humming a snatch of a song they haven't heard for fifteen or twenty years; once, a guy came in because he had dreamed a record, the whole thing, melody, title and artist. And when I found it for him (it was an old reggae thing, 'Happy Go Lucky Girl' by the Paragons), and it was more or less exactly as it had appeared to him in his sleep, the look on his face made me feel as though I was not a man who ran a record shop, but a midwife, or a painter, someone whose life is routinely transcendental." (p.83)
Life, jobs.. it's what we make of them. As a records salesperson, someone might just be sitting on a chair and popping gum, another will be having thoughts like the ones above.. Put your heart into it and it makes all the difference and I love this difference. (Although in only later in the book we see Rob sort of realising that he actually likes his job.)
#3: "It's just that none of us had the wit or the talent to make them into songs. We made them into life, which is much messier, and more time-consuming, and leaves nothing for anybody to whistle." (p.111)
I like the phrasing of this one. This sentence appears when a singer tells Rob about a popular song, whose lyrics tell a story of a popular singer and his girlfriend.

And these are some interesting uses of countries:
#4: "It's only beginning to occur to me that it's important to have something going on somewhere, at work or at home, otherwise you're just clinging on. If I lived in Bosnia, then not having a girlfriend wouldn't seem like the most important thing in the world, but here in Crouch End it does." (p.67)
#5: "I'm starting to remember things now: his dungarees; his music (African, Latin, Bulgarian, whatever fucking world music fad was trendy that week); his hysterical, nervous, nerve-jangling laugh; the terrible cooking smells that used to pollute the stairway; the visitors that used to stay too late and drink too much and leave too noisily. I can't remember anything good about him at all." (p.64)
I will leave those two without a comment ;-)

PS: About the book: 1996 Indigo Edition

Click to read entire post

On thoughts about the future. Cars and schooling.

When thinking about the future, I think about two aspects: first, raising healthy, responsible, and creative individuals and second, ensuring that this planet is healthy for them (here I'm not rating the order of importance). And both of these aspects are of supreme importance when we talk about the future of the people on Earth. In this line of thought, recently I saw two TED talks, which hit exactly these two points in very interesting ways.

Talk # 1: Sir Ken Robinson: Do schools kill creativity?
This is by far one of my most favourite TED talks ever. Very funny and entertaining and very very thought provoking...



Talk # 2: Shai Agassi: A bold plan for mass adoption of electric cars
I am looking forward to this future...




Click to read entire post

To wish or not to wish. And a burning airplane.


Imagine that it's the middle of the night and you lie in bed awake, turning from side to side and no sleep comes your way. You get up and go by the window, staring outside into the darkness. Many windows of the near-by blocks are dark, as if blinded by the night. Others are well lit, resembling happy eyes. You look around exploring the calmness of the surroundings and you see an unusual light in the sky. Soon you realise that this is an airplane burning and heading down. You are captivated by the sight and you wonder whether you are the only spectator or other people happen to be sleepless and watching as well. You hesitate... should you call the police, should you take some action...

Something like the above scenario is described in a book I read recently, "Saturday" by Ian McEwan (thanks Artur for the lovely present!) And somewhere after this scene comes one of my favourite parts in the book... It doesn't have to do with the story itself, it's more of an interesting thought:
"As he comes away, he remembers the famous thought experiment he learnt about long ago in a physics course. A cat, Schroedinger's cat, hidden from view in a covered box, is either still alive, or has just been killed by a randomly activated hammer hitting a vial of poison. Until the observer lifts the cover from the box, both possibilities, alive cat and dead cat, exist side by side, in parallel universes, equally real. At the point at which the lid is lifted from the box and the cat is examined, a quantum wave of probability collapses. [...] Surely another example of a problem of reference. He's heard that even the physicists are abandoning it. To Henry it seems beyond the requirements of proof: a result, a consequence, exists separately in the world, independent of himself, known to others, awaiting its discovery. What then collapses will be his own ignorance." (page 18)
This reminded me that when I was younger I frequently wondered whether how strong I wished for a particular outcome had an influence on the outcome itself. I used to experiment and sometimes wished just a little bit, other times more, and so on and made notes in my head, correlating wish strength and outcome. I never reached a conclusion, not any that I remember anyway, but it was always important for me to support my desire with strong wishing. 

I got intrigued by the following two sentences, because they offer a different, "no-wishing" approach: "To Henry it seems beyond the requirements of proof: a result, a consequence, exists separately in the world, independent of himself, known to others, awaiting its discovery. What then collapses will be his own ignorance." It seems to me that if we know this for a fact and rationalise it, it will be then pointless to wish for things to happen. However, we people like wishing... ("like" is even a weak word here... wishing is, I could say, intrinsic to our nature). It seems to me that wishing is a realisation of the hope that is always with us, the hope for happy moments, better days, or whatever it is that we are hopeful for. In some cases wishing is one more way of showing to ourselves that we've done everything that we possibly can to influence a certain outcome. And in other cases we just turn our back on facts and wish for a miracle. Maybe there's more than facts as we understand them and the universe's facts are different :-) "Surely another example of a problem of reference." as Mr. McEwan put it. 

Just in case you are wondering, the main character, Henry, never takes some action regarding the airplane, except for frequently following the news throughout the book to check what happens with the crew and passengers (turns out it's a cargo plane, so no passengers are hurt and the pilots are fine too). This is not the major story line of the book, so should you decide to read it, my revelation will not in any way spoil the reading experience for you :-)

Anyway, another favourite quote from "Saturday":
"When there are no consequences, being wrong is simply an interesting diversion." (page 198)



Click to read entire post

On the emotional risks of creativity. Following up.

Since I saw Elizabeth Gilbert's TED talk and blogged about it, writings on the issues she discusses keep coming to my attention, so I've decided to share a couple:

For example, this is what Stephen Covey writes in his book Principle-Centred Leadership on being responsible for one's own actions and reactions. I guess by adding responsible for one's creations, I won't be reading too much into the text (which I find rather inspirational):
"Be proactive is the endowment of self-knowledge or self-awareness -- an ability to choose your response (response-ability). At the low end of the continuum are the ineffective people who transfer responsibility by blaming other people, events, or the environment -- anything or anybody "out there" so that they are not responsible for the results. If I blame you, in effect I have empowered you. I have given my power to your weakness. Then I can create evidence that supports my perception that you are the problem. At the upper end of the continuum toward increasing effectiveness is self-awareness: "I know my tendencies, I know the scripts or programs that are in me, but I am not those scripts. I can rewrite my scripts." You are aware that you are the creative force of your life. You are not the victim of conditions or conditioning. You can choose your response to any situation, to any person. Between what happens to you and your response is a degree of freedom. And the more you exercise that freedom, the larger it will become. As you work in your circle of influence and exercise that freedom, gradually you will stop being a "hot reactor" (meaning there's little separation between stimulus and response) and start being a cool, responsible chooser -- no matter what your genetic makeup, no matter how you were raised, no matter what your childhood experiences were or what the environment is. In your freedom to choose your response lies the power to achieve growth and happiness.
[...] Proactivity cultivates this freedom. It subordinates your feelings to your values. You accept your feelings: "I'm frustrated, I'm angry, I'm upset. I can accept those feelings; I don't deny or repress them. Now I know what needs to be done. I am responsible." That's the principle "I am response-able."
So on the continuum you go from being a victim to self-determining creative power through self-awareness of the power to choose your response to any condition or conditioning."
And this is what Diego Rodriguez writes in his most recent blog post, which touches right on the issue Ms. Gilbert talked about:
"A few weeks ago I ripped off a quick post about Travis Pastrana and the future of the world economy. It took me 15 minutes, I'm not sure where it came from, and it was easy, easy, easy to write. Largely because I wasn't worried about who would read it, words just poured out of my fingers. I just wanted to catch the thought and get it down on paper. The thing is, people liked it. People really liked it, and since then I've been spending a lot of time -- too much time -- thinking about what I could write that would be as good as that one, and in the process of doing so I've stopped writing.

What a mistake. I've fallen in to a classic creativity trap. And I should know better.

The reality about bringing cool stuff to life is that you actually have to bring a lot of crappy stuff to life along the way, and sometimes good stuff happens. And sometimes great stuff happens. But spending your time doing nothing in the name of perfection is a sure recipe for failure. In other words, for something great to happen, things first need to happen. If anything, 2009 is a year for all of us to laugh in the face of perfection and embrace sins of commission. The good stuff will come.

It's hard, though. Be strong."

Click to read entire post

Views on dirty jobs. And a bit on happiness.

This is (below) quite an interesting recent talk by Mike Rowe, co-creator and host of the show Dirty Jobs on the Discovery Channel. I haven't seen or heard of the show, but I was really intrigued by the talk, so I will surely check it out.
The idea of Dirty Jobs is to show (by Mike Rowe getting directly involved as an apprentice) jobs that require some amount of getting literally dirty. Sounds fun, right? :) And as it turns out fro the talk, it could be scary, challenging, and very dirty. What I found particularly interesting in the talk is the part where Mike Rowe says something like "People with dirty jobs are the happiest people I know. [...] These are balanced people. [...] They've got this amazing sort of symmetry to their life." And then he goes on talking about what's wrong with the advice "follow your passion." Some things definitely worth thinking about...



Click to read entire post

A bit technological again.

I started this blog with the idea to write about pretty much anything that interests me and was with the mindset to follow my thoughts wherever they decide to take me. And they decided to take me on the road to figuring out how people think about and figure out happiness. I like that. I like it that I didn't know that's where my thoughts would lead me and I am curious to see where else I will go.

Certainly, happiness is not and will not be the only topic here. Leadership still interests me quite a lot, among other things. Sporadically though, I will write about technology (after all, my major is wireless communications) and some new and not so new gadgets that I find cool. This post, for example, is one of those rare gadgety posts:)

I opened my Google Reader yesterday and there's one new item from xkcd. Cool, because I really enjoy those (from time to time; sometimes I really don't get them). So I checked out the new comic and I saw the first picture and it's about e-books and some kindle thing... and I thought, oh, alright, it's one of those jokes I don't get. And I went on to read some news updates.

This morning, as usual, I opened the Google Reader and I saw this: "Reinventing the Kindle (part II) from Seth's Blog by Seth Godin" and also this "kindle 2 thoughts coming from John's Blog by John" (John is John Lilly, the CEO of Mozilla, and Seth Godin is a popular author of business books.) Alright. So now I feel a bit out of touch. What is this Kindle? John writes "on kindle overall, still a bit of a niche device, with flaws, but i would not give mine up for really any amount of money. improves my life immensely." Niche device? OK, now I am really curious. Not that I wasn't before, but now I really need to see what it is right now. So I type kindle in my Google search bar and open the first hit (out of, wow, 34,100,000), which is on amazon.com and oh, now I see, it's a digital reader. It's like a digital book collection. And it seems quite cool. (demos below) How come I never heard of it? Did you? So I go to Wikipedia to see when it was out and how come now everyone is writing about it. It turns out that it was released in the US 2007 (however, "Plans for a launch in the UK and other European countries are being delayed by problems with signing up suitable cellular operators.") and Kindle 2.0 was just released on Feb. 23, 2009. If you are wondering what cellular operators have to do with digital books: the Kindle includes free wireless access which allows you to download books, blogs, newspapers, etc.

By the way, from what I saw Kindle seems to me a really really cool gadget to have around. And not just cool for the sake of it, but cool meaning very useful and handy. I would definitely get one at some point.

AmazonKindle Demo:



AmazonKindle 2.0 Demo:



As it turns out (no surprises here), the Kindle is not one of a kind. Sony has also released a digital reader in 2006. The newest model is available in the UK since September 2008. And I am sure there are quite a few others. Well, the MP3 players became a big thing. The digital readers might not become as huge, since I am guessing far fewer people like to read than listen to music, but it looks promising. There are events to encourage reading. Like this one:



By the way, I am curious how the issues of rights are managed. A Wikipedia article on the Sony reader says, "The digital rights management rules of the Reader allow any purchased eBook to be read on up to six devices (at least one of those 6 must be a PC). Although you cannot totally share purchased eBooks on other people’s devices and accounts, you will have the opportunity to register five Readers to your account and share your books accordingly. At this time Sony has no plans to introduce time-expiring books in the U.S."

Fyi and for the sake of completeness, (from the same source as the above) "The sony Reader competes with other e-paper devices - the Amazon Kindle, iRex iLiad, the Jinke Hanlin eReader, and CyBook by Bookeen."

Click to read entire post

On the happiness of the Earth? And on helping ideas worth spreading.

I have been writing quite a lot about happiness of the human being... of the individual. How about the happiness of this place we inhabit which we so recklessly exploit and ruin day by day? We all need to think about how to do our bit for environmental protection (and continuously improve) and we need to start now, if we haven't done so already. But I won't be writing here about this. I would rather show. The following is a talk by Sylvia Earle -- TED prize winner.



In addition, I would like to draw your attention to a recent initiative by TED to make TED talks available to the whole world by translating them to different languages. Anybody who wishes so can get involved and translate. All you need to do is sign up with TED and with dotSUB. You could find out more information on TED Blog.

Click to read entire post

On emotional intelligence and the road to happiness. There is no road, really...

Some posts ago and many more days ago, in one of my posts on happiness I talked briefly about Matthieu Ricard and posted his TED talk. I recently stumbled upon another talk which was on the same day as Mr. Ricard gave his presentation. The talk is by Dan Gilbert, a Harvard psychology professor. He talks about happiness (actually so far I have seen two of his TED talks on happiness, both great talks, which I have posted below). And at some point Mr. Gilbert said something like:
With all apologies to my friend Matthieu Ricard, but a shopping mall full of zen monks is not going to be particularly profitable because they don't want stuff enough.
How nicely said and how true. I have for quite some time observed people around me (and myself) and noticed that wanting things is O.K. but there is a fine boundary which when crossed starts making things a bit ugly. Why should wanting something and trying to get it lead to suffering of any sort and kind? Shouldn't the pursuit of our dreams and desires be a happy place on its own, not just a means to an end? A questionable end, mind you. In this regard the title of this post says, there's no road, really. Because I believe that happiness should be with us when we follow our desires, when we get what we want and when we don't. Seems like a difficult task... when I imagine working towards something and working really hard and at the end not getting whatever it is I worked towards. How can I be happy and not frustrated or disappointed? I guess that's what emotional intelligence should teach us. There is no road to happiness, as happiness just is. In any way, troubles usually seem more minor after we have gotten some distance. Then it would be a great and healthy approach to keep our cool about problems even before we have got the distance.

To point out a few other ideas from Mr. Gilbert's talks, which I firmly believe in: Wanting things at all costs makes people unhappy and causes suffering. Obtaining things at all costs makes people just lose face. Actually, Mr. Gilbert showed this quote, which is right on the spot:
"The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life, seems to arise from over-rating the difference between one permanent situation and another... some of these situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others, but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardour which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice, or to corrupt the future tranquillity of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse from the horror of our own injustice."

Adam Smith
"Turgid Truth", Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759

Is it possible that the artists I talked about in my last post just want it too badly? Whatever "it" might stand for... maybe living up to expectations (theirs or someone else's) or the lost inspiration. Whenever the ego is at stake, things tend to get serious, maybe too serious. Not surprisingly, one of the first things that the book "Happiness: a guide to developing life's most important skill" by Matthieu Ricard talks about is letting go of the ego. Seems to me that could be the very key to a happy artist... not to get a genie, but to forget about their ego.

And these are the two talks by Dan Gilbert I referred to in this post for you to enjoy:





By the way, I mentioned emotional intelligence only once and this post is under the title of emotional intelligence but I never really defined what emotional intelligence means, only sort of hinted the meaning by titling the post. For the sake of completeness and in case you are wondering, this is the Wikipedia entry:
"Emotional Intelligence (EI), often measured as an Emotional Intelligence Quotient (EQ), describes a concept that involves the ability, capacity, skill or (in the case of the trait EI model) a self-perceived ability, to identify, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups. "
Now there is something which slightly bothers me about this definition (especially managing emotions of groups) so I checked out a few more web pages in search of something that better suits my understanding. This is what I found:
"Emotional intelligence represents an ability to validly reason with emotions and to use emotions to enhance thought."

"We define EI as the capacity to reason about emotions, and of emotions to enhance thinking. It includes the abilities to accurately perceive emotions, to access and generate emotions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions and emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote emotional and intellectual growth (p. 197 of this article)."

"Emotional intelligence refers to an ability to recognize the meanings of emotion and their relationships, and to reason and problem-solve on the basis of them. Emotional intelligence is involved in the capacity to perceive emotions, assimilate emotion-related feelings, understand the information of those emotions, and manage them. (p. 267 of this article)"


Click to read entire post

On the emotional risks of creativity.

Do you think that being creative is emotionally risky? I mean, do you think that leading a life throughout which you devote yourself to creative work (pottery, art, anything that is conceived in your own mind, from start to finish) puts you in a risk somehow?

I am not sure what I think yet, but let's start anyway, and I hope by the end of this post I will figure it out.
I watched this TED talk, which basically addresses the idea that being creative puts enormous pressure and responsibility on the fragile human psyche. This enormous pressure and responsibility is to blame for the death record of writers and painters in the 20th century. Ms Gilbert (the person who gave the TED talk) suggests that in order to relieve the burden, people may think of a divine power of a sort (a genie), which is there to share the responsibility of the success as well as of the failure of the creative attempt. If one writes a book which is awfully successful then they know they are just some kind of a tool and if the next book is a failure, well, then it's not their fault.



I found the talk quite interesting and intriguing. It made me think. So, if I could just break down the subject matter: the problem is that creative people are burdened by their success or/and failure and the solution is to find a getaway for the mind in a genie. These are the parts of the talk that made an impression on me:

"Aren't you afraid that you are never going to be able to top that?"
"Is it rational, is it logical that anybody should be expected to be afraid of the work that they feel they are put in this earth to do?"
"I have to create some sort of protective psychological construct"
"Emotional risks of creativity"
"Couldn't take all the credit for it"
"Too much responsibility"

Alright... so is it just me, or is there something fundamentally wrong here? First of all, why should anybody really be expected to be afraid? I mean, what does it mean to be expected to be afraid? Literally, of course, it is clear. Put practically, when I think about expectations, only bad things come to mind. And when I think about the great creative minds of our time suffering because they did not on time realise to think about the genie... wow, even worse things come to mind. Worse things about our society, I mean. What does it mean for our society today if people really need getaways for their minds in order to function without wanting to kill themselves?

I think that once the problem has been realised, i.e. creative people are put under too much pressure, we should rather address the question of why. And after that has been answered, only then can we talk about what the solution is. So why are creative people put under too much pressure? I think the key here is expectations. Because society expects from them. Society expects that their next artwork is success, or that their next artwork is better than the previous one, or that the artist is afraid because the artwork is not up to the standard they've already set. Even if the person is not famous yet, they know how they will be seen through the collective eyes of society. From that virtual point the person is under the pressure of expectations. I think even that the notion of expectation is so deeply rooted into our minds that mostly we don't even realise that this is why we are unhappy (or suicidal). And I don't even think it's just about creative people. But I won't go there now. So.. expectations. Let's say I want to (or need to) do something. But I am expected to do something else. Which way am I supposed to go? This conflict can be pretty disastrous and pretty harsh on the mind (as well as simple as a non-conflict). Why do we need it? Why do we burden others with our expectations? Can't we just not expect? Just think about your daily life and about how often there are conflict situations which are caused by expectations... expectations not met, expectations too harsh, expectations which are purely wrong and unfair...

I think it is up to us. Change the world by changing yourself. If you stop burdening others (and yourself) with your expectations and if you stop taking others' expectations seriously but instead just follow your heart and mind. I dare you not to seek getaways in genies. I dare you to take responsibility for your own actions. I dare you to stop expecting and take things as they are. And they are not that serious.

And finally, I saw this talk by chance and I found it quite relates to the topic of this post and I thought, this is a lady who takes full responsibility for her artwork and does not take it as seriously as to need a getaway:




Click to read entire post

On contradictions that complement each other.

If you checked out the two talks I posted one post ago, then your response could have been, "Could this be more ambiguous?" Or maybe not and I watch too much Friends. Anyway, the post I am referring to is meant to be ambiguous.

The gist of the first talks is: there is this guy who figured out that there is no one single favourite spaghetti flavour. Instead, there are clusters of people who tend to like one flavour or another. This guy made people happy, because people were able to identify and consume their favourite sauce. Or rather, because they were able to exercise their freedom of choice. Yey!

The essence of the second talk is that there is way too much choice about everything. "Is this good news or bad news?" "-Yes."
Yes, because choice brings individual freedom and individual freedom maximises our ability to act on our own. Good stuff, no?
And yes again, because people get frustrated and unhappy because there is so much choice that decision-making becomes hard.

So don't the ideas of the two talks contradict each other? On the one hand choice=happiness and on the other hand, choice=unhappiness.

The way I see it, the two ideas actually complement each other. If we analyse the decision-making process, we could point out the following:
  • Let's say that there is a choice to be made. You do not have the slightest idea about your preferences, i.e. you lack them. At the same time you see that you have unperceivable amount of options. At this point you might get frustrated. Wouldn't it be much much easier if there was just this one option, hence obviating the need for you to decide? But hold on. If you really care about this choice that needs to be made, you may exploit all the freedom this world has granted you and research your options.
  • This brings us to the happiness brought about by the ideas discussed in the first talk. You decide what you want and you go ahead and dig in and find it, among all the stuff that the modern world has to offer. Yey! To avoid the frustration discussed in the second talk, you really need to first know (i.e. find out) what it is that you want and then get it. Otherwise you will end up wondering if you could have made a better pick. Which is bad, because then the opportunity cost will be subtracted from your overall joy and your happiness will go into the negative zone. And who would want that?
  • Alternatively, maybe you don't care too much about this choice that you have to make. In this case, you just make a pick at random, sort of .. or a simple educated guess. And in this case you know that your pick is not important so you would not be prompted to enter a discussion with yourself (or with others) whether you made the right decision, right? So, no frustration brought about by the immense freedom should be exhibited.
What I am saying is that I tend to disagree with some of the ideas presented in the second talk. Freedom and choice are a good thing. I have already sort of talked about this in a previous post of mine. The frustration that the second talk discusses is, in my opinion, due to the fact that people are used to a different sort of world, where choice is not that abundant. The necessary adjustment we need to make is to catch up with the world and with the freedom we are offered and adjust our decision-making process accordingly. We absolutely cannot invest time in all the decisions we need to make. Some need to be quick and some need to be well researched. It is a conscious choice to pick which one is which. And it is not healthy to wonder whether we made the best choice post-factum. Should we somehow discover that our choice wasn't optimum, we just need to equip ourselves with a useful lesson learnt and go on.


Click to read entire post

For Linux fans: Tux fun.

Tux


In light of my recently rediscovered inclination to be a fan of Linux, I played around with Inkscape, an .svg image of Tux I found here, and some logos of popular software I found on the web to create a few application icons. Feel free to download and use them if you like :)

Click to read entire post

On sauce. And choice. And happiness?

How do you like your spaghetti sauce?




Would you care to make a choice?



Sometimes. When it matters. The rest is vanity. (imho)


Click to read entire post

On ducks. Or not so much.

This post is in the spirit of quote of the [choose your time unit here]. Today I came across this post on Seth's Blog and I liked it, in particular this sentence:

"Getting your ducks in a row is not nearly as powerful as actually doing something with your duck."

How nicely put.

Click to read entire post

On something new.


A round of applause for Motorola and Kodak, who co-created something new and original -- a phonecamera, the Motorola/Kodak Zine ZN5. This new gadget boasts a full featured phone as well as a full featured camera with loads of tweakable options. I'm saying it's something new, because usually so far the market has been full of cameraphones with cool phones and not so cool cameras, at least not as cool as the real thing. Anyhow, for a review of the Motorola/Kodak Zine ZN5, check out this Herald article. And for a quick demo, check out the Youtube video below. Looks impressive to me, however, I must admit that I am biased being a Motorola fan as well as a Kodak fan :)




Click to read entire post

On complexity and simplicity. The versus bit.

Mr Maeda nicely pointed out in his TED talk that humans love complexity, but they also cherish simplicity. This got me curious to try and define (to any possible extend) when we tend towards one or the other.

So let's start from complexity. Humans appreciate complex scenery, when the colours nicely blend together, to form a phenomenon of a sort. For example, the picture below (courtesy of The Big Picture) -- of Nacreous clouds near McMurdo, Ross Island, Antarctica on August 28, 2004 -- shows the power of nature in creating amazing, terrific, breathtaking landscapes. What we see here is by no means simple and we are speechless before this setting.


However, still if we see a clear blue sky in the morning, we can admire its beauty as well. It might not have the complexity of the colour combinations we see above, but we might still find the clear blue sky breathtaking. I think that we are fascinated by nature and its creations -- be it animals, little bugs, the shapes of clouds, or the colour of the sunset. We appreciate nature. We do not strive to understand exactly how the colours are formed, what sort of physical reactions are behind them, etc. We can appreciate the beauty without necessarily having a scientific understanding but by just looking and absorbing.

When talking about human creation, however, the story is slightly different, I feel. We need to differentiate between human creations generally classified as a type of art and as a type of non-art. In other words, if the public can appreciate a human creation by using sensual information then that's art. Like paintings, poems, stories, movies, theatre plays, etc. For the non-art creations we can talk about science. Now, I don't mean to start a debate whether science is art or not... Just bear with my vague definitions here :) So, in the scientific/technological world, if someone creates something amazingly complex, they most probably will be labelled as quite smart/geeky. And most probably a limited number of other people (i.e. the specialists in the field) will be able to understand and appreciate the nitty-gritty part of the complex creation in all its glory. However, generally speaking, a sophisticated concept can be broken down into its composite parts and each composite part can be made analogous to something that the general public can easily grasp such that the whole convoluted bit is also made graspable. OK, so why is that appreciated more than the convoluted bit? Well, I guess because once the complex concept is made understandable, people can actually say "Wow!" (can be quite rewarding sometimes) and can somehow distantly relate to whatever the invention is.

So, I think that part of the art of creating something really convoluted is also making it available for the public to appreciate and make use of and feel comfortable with it. Why is that? In my opinion this holds because it requires the capability to get out of the scientific/technological/specialist world and put oneself in the shoes of someone who does not have a clue about the theories, ideas, etc that one is otherwise used to dealing with every day. This means imagining that one does not have any of the knowledge used in creating the convoluted invention. And then explaining it. Not that I have invented something so complex, but in my short research experience I have discovered that this can actually be a really challenging task. And quite a healthy one too, as it brings a different perspective and an interesting insight on things; it makes one question their methods, assumptions, etc.

A good example of making complex issues understandable that comes to mind is the Financial Crisis 101 whiteboard talk I referred to some time ago. I still need to view it a couple of more times to fully grasp it, but I like the methods used there to bring the point across.

Alright... lots of writing, so what are the conclusions?
  • When it comes to nature, we tend to appreciate its creations. After all, it wasn't us (humans) who created them.
  • Talking about human creations: On the one hand, we appreciate the forms of art, because we can see it/feel it/hear it, i.e. experience it, directly. No rocket science to crack there ... no need of a mediator between us and our experience. On the other hand, we appreciate complex technology/science made simple so that we can grasp it a bit and sort of relate to its complexity. Clearly, there's the need for a mediator (the "crazy" dude(ss) who likes digging deep), someone to simplify and clarify, but the reward is us feeling a wee bit more informed and more understanding of the world around us. To us humans that seems quite important.
I need to casually mention at this point that when talking about complexity and simplicity, there is also the issue of consumer electronics. Well, there has been a lot of talk about this side of things already, so I will casually skip it :) Obviously, we as consumers like simple things which work. It's as simple as that. And there have been some companies who have realised this rule already and are therefore doing quite well.

Click to read entire post

On life and simplicity.

The Balm of Simplicity
"Having a simple mind is not the same as being simple-minded. On the contrary, simplicity of mind is reflected in clarity of thought." (page 165)

It's interesting how it can be very hard to make something simple, while making the same thing complex could be much much easier... The above is again a quote from Happiness: A guide to developing life's most important skill. I have mentioned simplicity before (remember the TED talk of David Pogue Simplicity Sells? If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it) and decided to do a little follow up.

Google swiftly (or not, depending on your internet connection) returns 31,300,000 hits on simplicity... the first one is some sort of store (not really of interest here), but the second one catches my attention: John Maeda's Simplicity. And I'm thinking I have heard the name before... so I remembered there was a TED talk I saw some time ago, which was quite cool. The talk is titled Simplicity patterns and I'm sharing it with you below:





Click to read entire post

On daring and renunciation.

I have been faced with some situations recently which teach me to calmly accept that not everything is in my own hands (no matter how hard I try) and that life has its own ways. Weirdly enough, until now I tended to believe otherwise and there was nothing to prove me wrong. The book I keep mentioning in this blog space, Happiness: A guide to developing life's most important skill, offers some valuable insight on this topic:

The Intelligence of Renunciation
"Renunciation is a way of taking one's life in one's own hands, that is, of becoming fed up with being manipulated like a puppet by selfishness, the scramble for power and possessions, and the never-ending quest for pleasure. She who practices genuine renunciation is well informed of all that goes on around her. She does not flee the world because she is unable to control it, but knowing how prejudicial pointless worries are, she has no interest in entertaining them. Her approach is eminently pragmatic. The renunciant shows no weakness, only daring." (page 164)

Click to read entire post

On Happiness. The meaning.

I already referred to Matthieu Ricard in the context of happiness. As a follow up to, I quote a few (inmo beautiful and insightful) snippets from Mr Ricard's book, Happiness: A guide to developing life's most important skill, in order to reflect on the meaning of happiness:

Talking about happiness
"By happiness I mean here a deep sense of flourishing that arises from an exceptionally healthy mind. This is not a mere pleasurable feeling, a fleeting emotion, or a mood, but an optimal state of being. Happiness is also a way of interpreting the world, since while it may be difficult to change the world, it is always possible to change the way we look at it." (page 19)

A way of being
"... it [happiness] is the purging of mental toxins, such as hatred and obsession, that literally poison the mind. It is also about learning how to put things in perspective and reduce the gap between appearance and reality. To that end we must acquire a better knowledge of how the mind works and a more accurate insight into the nature of things..." (page 23)

Everything you need to be happy
"Happiness is a state of inner fullfillment, not the gratification of inexhaustible desires for outward things." (page 31)

Click to read entire post