« July 2007 | Main | September 2007 »

August 31, 2007

Friday Link Dump 8.31.07

-NYT: Running an Empire? No Sweat
(Not sure how I feel about the guy. I think I like the idea that he has his job and then he has his life, he does not define himself through the former.)
-Chris Napolitano on George Bush, the State of Porn, and Why Playboy is Still Hot -
(Real PR is just being honest and knowing your space. If you can prove that you believe in what you do, chances are other people will to)
-Meditations on Meaning: She Said Thank You
(About work and dedication and getting it done.)
-Wikipedia: Malthusian Trap
-Wikipedia: Demographic Transition
-Wikipedia: Demographic-Economic Paradox
(Just got turned on to this stuff and am finding it really fascinating. Had to print them out to understand them though.)
-SNL: Centaur Interview
(Quality stuff can go viral at anytime, it doesn't expire)

August 30, 2007

Revolution Time: Looking at the Clock

"Power rarely ends up in the hands of those who start a revolution, or even those who further it; power sticks to those who bring it to a conclusion."
-Robert Greene

I think I am going to tack this up above my desk. Ken Robinson broke down the world situation in a profoundly illustrative way for me in his book. If we were to set up all of time on a clock, with each minute as roughly fifty years, you can start to appreciate where we are today in a "real" way. The internet is less than 15 seconds old. The car is less than 3 minutes old. Literally, less than 90 seconds ago people were living in America were living in dirt houses and sharing pants. Walker Evans didn't just make that stuff up.

Getting there first is important of course, but it really only matters if you Get Things Done. All this idiot talk about how Mahalo is going to defeat Google, or that the iPhone will change the world is just that, idiot talk. None of it matters, none of it means anything. We weren't really designed evolutionary to comprehend time in that way. That's the whole problem with predictions, they don't make much sense to us either. Raynor had a good example: If you predict that there is a 75% chance of rain tomorrow and it rains, that doesn't mean you were right. There could have actually been a 99% chance, or a 1%.

This whole internet thing--though it has forever changed our lives--hasn't changed everyone. It's just getting started. Don't fall prey to thinking that power today is fungible tomorrow or that a legacy just a few years down the road is anything more than whispers and memories. So there are three courses, as Robert outlines: to start, to prolong, to conclude. You can accept this or set yourself up for a fall. It seems to me that in this revolution, we are at the transition between the first and second step. The interim-men in history never win--they have a good time, the made some money but they do not win. Simply by nature of the cycle you destined to be replaced. Knowing this, why set yourself up for transience, when permanence could be yours?

August 29, 2007

Pithy.

"Epithets for yourself: Upright. Modest. Straightforward. Sane. Cooperative. Disinterested."

Marcus says not to try and exchange them for others but I have a few additions:

Empathetic. Open. Diligent. Ambitious.

August 28, 2007

What are the 3 Best Blogs on the Internet?

I read a lot of feeds, but like I said before, the value of those blogs looks a lot like a long-tail graph. I find a buried diamond every once in a while, but for the most part, I find my favorite posts coming from the same writers. So what are my top three and who, if I had to get rid of the rest of my reader, would I keep? It was a really easy decision.

Seth Godin ( http://sethgodin.typepad.com/ )
Seth's blog is one of the common sense, "doesn't everyone think this way?" kind of sites. The thing is that most people don't think that way and what seems obvious is really counterintuitive to how most of us operate. I like to read Seth because he is sort of a second conscience. It seems like every time I start to get cocky or self-important he drops something that forces me to recalibrate. He reminds you that you can't be lazy, that to trick the customer is a short-term gain but long-term death sentence, that in a service economy the ultimate resource is relationships, and that you simply cannot afford to emulate in this fast-paced market. While everyone else is rehashing yesterday's news and speculating on Google's plan, Seth is giving advice on what YOU can do today. As in business, so in life (as RG would say) and thus much of his methodology applies to you on a personal level as well. That you shouldn't overreach and have to save ideas, is just as important at home as it is in the office. These are some of my favorite posts: The Verizon guy who turned down the iPhone, Do Business Books Work?, We don't like you, go away and Changing The Future This video of Seth is really good too. I don't always save his stuff or print it up, but the lessons get absorbed.

Overcoming Bias: ( http://www.overcomingbias.com/ )
Despite its awful design, Overcoming Bias might be the most consistently intellectual challenging blogs I've ever read. And boy is it on a tear lately. It analyzes the social, psychological, cognitive and evolutionary issues that face today's conscious people. Wikipedia can provide you with a list of cognitive bias, but they only matter with context and application--something that OB provides. So much of what we were bred to do--jump to conclusions, stereotype, exclude, hate, accept superficial answers, refuse to ponder important questions--directly contradict the ideals or means of keeping a free society. Only through a concerted effort and collective knowledge can we ever hope to spite these primal instincts. Their stuff on religion gives you the depth of Dawkins without the verbosity and redundancy. The writers really understand how to play with the format and actually make you think. Some of my recent favorites: Update Yourself Incrementally, The Importance of Saying Oops and Tell Your Anti-Story If you want to be a thinker who is free from the missteps, mistakes and subjectivities of your peers, this is the one of the ONLY sites on the net that can help you do it.

The Volokh Conspiracy (http://volokh.com/ )
Volokh is set up similarly to Overcoming Bias in that it is sort of a commune of professional thinkers and writers. Of course, this unfairly contributes to their supremacy of most others, but who cares? I don't have time for handicaps, all I want is stuff that is good. It focuses on a lot of law stuff (which I normally skip) but their exposes on news, trends and moral issues are amazing. Obviously the Socratic Method is huge there, but not in the annoying way you would think. Yesterday's piece on homicides in the Wild West was fantastic and so was this investigation of information cascades. Eugene is probably the best writer in the group, and he asks the best questions. Some of my favorites: Sexual Assault Problem, The Real Che Guevara, Buzz Aldrin on Property Rights in Space. Ahh, and their grasp of the English language is astounding. I hate grammar people but Eugene's posts on what words can be used or where they came from are actually ones I look forward to. Since I'd rather be killed than go to law school, Volokh is a way I can engage in the discourse without having to sit next to douchebags and self-important dweebs.

Honorable mentions:
-Steve Rubel's Micropersuasion, Nikki Finke's Hollywood Deadline Daily, What Would Tyler Durden Do? and of course, as mentioned here, Copyblogger

What do you think the three best blogs are? It's easy to check, look at which ones you've emailed to your friends the most, printed, starred in your reader, or tagged to your Del.icio.us account? Post 'em in the comments or email me, but I don't think you can beat my selections.

August 25, 2007

No, What You Feel Isn't Important.

I got into a discussion with a friend yesterday over the "Affection Fallacy." The fallacy essentially asserts that a work of art cannot be judged by its emotional impact on the reader. I could buy into the "Affection Bias," or the belief that we often over-favor our personal reaction to a work but that is not the claim here. The claim is that it is FALSE to rely on art's ability to move us as barometer of its value. I asked in my comment:

"It seems like it is a bunch of Academics who don't know what they are talking about. How can you confuse a work and its impact? Aren't they one and the same? Or do we judge art on its grammar and nothing more?"

That is, if we are to exclude emotional impact, what are we leave with? It seems that the alternatives are just as arbitrary and maybe even more meaningless. His response was that:

"The answer, of course, is that people who don't deserve to have their opinions given much thought do exist. for me, if someone is a huge fan of the left behind series of novels, then their opinion on "war and peace" is essentially worthless. to take this example to an extreme, consider the idea of someone who can't read english for some reason who attempts to write a review of "the great gatsby". should we determine that one of the greatest novels of 20th-century america is to some degree confusing and incomprehensible?"

This comes down to the inevitable Locke/Hobbes dichotomy--does the consistency of tyranny compensate for the cases in which it is so dangerously wrong? Or do the risks of group-think that comes from the masses cause greater problems still?

The clichéd argument of course is that it is safer to trust a small group of experts than a million idiots. I think this is the greatest mistake a society can make. The track record of these experts is abysmal at best. Hollywood is the perfect example, it is the epitome of an insulated group of "experts." Look at what they deliver. It creates an "arbiter class." It's the reason that Harry Potter is banned from the New York Times' Bestseller list and it's the reason that time and time again, we see artists die penniless only to find success after death. Snobs are so often fucking wrong that it's not even funny. From their empowerment we get self-fulfilling prophecies like "Men don't read," and "That just won't sell." I don't think that Tucker's book is canon-material, but it does say a lot about its age. That people are laughing--actually laughing as they read--is the cha-ching of value.

Ultimately, I think you have to ask yourself the ultimate purpose of art. Is it not to create a reaction, subtle or overt or otherwise? Instead of trusting the academics, we ought to go straight to the creators and consumers. Robert Evans (of The Godfather) said that Hollywood lost its way when it stopped testing audience response. When they began to judge simply in dollars instead of the boos and cheers, they grew wildly out of touch. He calls today the "age of despair." I say that the gains you get in objectivity by throwing out emotion pales in comparison to the loss in feeling and resonance. Art is a collaborative process, it is the artist, his subject and the viewer in a continuous feedback loop. Now that loop is running at a greater rate of speed. Embrace it instead of running away.

Yes, Hobbes was right when he claimed that we can escape our brutish existence with the "benevolent" guidance of a supreme authority. But Locke's not doing so bad either. To say that the masses are too prone to flights of fancy misses the crucial point: if we aren't producing for the people, who exactly are we producing for? If it just for ourselves then the "affection fallacy" isn't necessary anyway. And from this light it becomes clear that its only purpose is to control and exclude, something that when it comes to art, we cannot afford. For every "Chicken Soup for the Lesbian's Soul" that we keep from literary respect, we drive a John Kennedy Toole to suicide. For every professor we allow to feel important by denigrating a successful writer, we leave "Fight Club" sitting on the table, ignored. I have read maybe 10 good newspaper articles in the last month, but I have read so many profoundly great blog posts that my del.icio.us account is overflowing. So really academics aren't trying to save you from yourself, they are trying to save you for themselves. If they strike emotion from the scoresheet, all that's left is grammar and vocabulary and irony. And how does that give us meaning?

I'm not trying to say that if it makes you cry, it's good. That would be ridiculous. But I think the opposite is even worse. Excluding impact puts the bland on a level playing field with the vivid--a thought that I have no doubt appeals to academics for a reason. Acknowledging how a work speaks to a reader isn't a fallacy, it's judging the content at its most fundamental and basic level. Quite frankly, we've done it their way for about 50 years now and every profound work in that era has been shit on by critics, publishers and distributors. That's all the proof I need to know that we ought to move on....

Edit: Evidence that "experts" are overvalued.

August 24, 2007

Friday Link Dump 8.24.07

-We're rubbish at predicting how what happens will affect us emotionally
(We underestimate how well we will do, and overestimate how much missing that goal will hurt us)
-NYT: The Politics of God
(Understanding the history of Western fundamentalism and the rise of religious freedom so we can combat it in the East.)
-Why Trapped in the Closet is an R. Kelly triumph
(A perfect example of a critic losing touch with reality because the assume everyone else thinks the same way they do. This is the same trap a lot of English professors fall prey to where they assert meaning that makes absolutely no sense given the context. Reminds me a little of the Psychologist's fallacy What's more likely, a sexually deviant, R&B singer wrote a god-awful song that he thinks is good because he has no shame or that it is an attempt at meta-fiction and a comment on culture?)
-Word-of-mouth rampant on college campuses
(As the paradox of choices becomes a problem for more and more people, word of mouth is going to rise exponentially in value--something marketers and publishers have never been good at understanding.)
-The Starbuckian Handbook
(For those of us that use Starbucks like an office, this means a lot. The TMMB did a thread on it here)
- Surprises on the Executive Bookshelf
(A look at what the leaders are reading. Fuck the NYT subscription, read it on the blog instead)

I don't do these posts too often because you can read all the stories on my del.icio.us account. If you like these better, let me know OR just add me to your list on the site. If you want to tag me stuff, I'm always open.

August 22, 2007

How To Email Strangers: Talking With Talent and the New Media Elite

From: XXXXX XXXXXXXX

Subject: give

To: "tuckermax@gmail.com"

Cc: XXXXX XXXXXXXX

Date: Aug 19, 2007 6:38 PM


My office a call. I want to talk to you about TV projects
_______________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Chief Executive Officer
XXXX Digital Entertainment
P: XXX.XXX.XXXX
Assistant: XXXXX XXX.XXX.XXXX

Well, not like that. PR 2.0 and the New Media rest on one thing: Personal Relationships. Actually, forget that. The world now rests on these relationships. They've always been important but now--now, people connect with anyone, anywhere. So if it isn't with you it will be with the next guy.

Like I said earlier in the week, I signed my first client. In a space with behemoth competitors who do nothing but scout for a living, you'd think it would be next to impossible to speak with the talent. That is a mistake. For one thing, no one else is actually speaking WITH the talent, they're speaking DOWN TO the talent. It is actually very easy. There is hardly an important blogger or site out there that hasn't at least gotten an email from me. Sometimes it has been about stuff that helps me but a lot of time it hasn't. I've talked to pretty much everyone--and look at me, I'm a nobody.

In actuality, the pitch has devolved instead of evolved. It has been pared down to its purest form: The Connection. That's PR--the bond. What do you bring to the table right then and there, what can tear down the suspicion, the resentment, the fear? In most cases, genuineness is the cheapest and best route. Instead of tricking the talent into thinking you like their art, what if you actually liked it? Instead of creating the illusion of history or of research, what if it was already created?

If you break down the email situation above, it is very easy to see what happened and then what could have happened. Tucker probably popped up on the CEO's tracking grid--someone told him he was hot. And because the CEO has the words Chief and Executive in his title, he figured it was a safe bet assuming that he was more important. He didn't know his space. He didn't bother to look that the traffic of his online video service had half the traffic of the client he couldn't bother to write a professional email to. Probability said that some smuck on the internet couldn't have already made the rounds in Hollywood (and wrote about it) and stated loudly his terms for any future negotiations.

The thing is that those metrics--the probabilities, the assumptions and the fancy titles--they don't mean as much as they used to and they certainly aren't as accurate. The glory days are over. No question, Hollywood still has power, tons of it. But it would be a mistake for them to conclude that nobody else does. And that is the current source of conflict and surest ticket to obsolescence. Old school or new school, humility and a keen sense of reality are now the ultimate assets.

So when I send emails, or made cold-pitches to new people I make sure that respect is my number one priority. Tell me where you can go wrong treating people that way. It makes them feel good and it makes me feel good. You can't feign respect--only obsequiousness. I enter the conversation informed or I don't enter at all and I always, always have something to offer. Again, that something can be respect. Your email should be real. It should have real words; words that people use. No one wants to hear about your plan to "maximize all existing and possible revenue streams by leveraging strategic partnerships in the, various applicable niches." They want to see that you are a master of your space but aware enough to realize that not everyone else is. They need to know that you are personable and honest and are prepared to give before you receive. That means giving a taste of what you have to offer and having the confidence to know they'll want the whole thing. And being big enough to know that sometimes they won't and that your only loss was helping someone.

Think back to ultimatum games; people don't live in a vacuum and they don't always act in an economically rational way. You have to think that in America, in an atypically wealthy sector of the population that is predisposed towards intellectual and artistic activities, things like dignity and emotion are going to mean almost as much as money. There is more at stake here than dollars. All your reaches need to be run through that lens because then and only then will you be able to establish meaningful connections with the people who matter.

Normally, someone would hide these methods from the public eye. I don't have anything to lose. Ultimately, I am supremely confident in my ability to connect and contribute to the necessary influencers in the right communities. You should be too. This isn't the stock market and I have inside information. This is a strength competition--whoever works harder wins. Do you know your space or not? If you don't, someone will do better. Put in the time, bring authenticity to the table and you will be accepted.

By no means am I perfect here. I fuck up all the time. I've rushed emails before truly researching or I have snapped to judgments without getting the full picture. But, when that happens I ALWAYS admit it before I am called on it. Because if they notice first then it is over. And if it isn't, then they aren't worth dealing with. And I have never, ever sent anything close to the email spotlighted above.

Conclusion: Be respectful. Be knowledgeable. Be honest and always apologize. With those (genuine) traits in your pocket you can have real access and real opportunities with anyone you can think of.

August 21, 2007

What it's like to chase while the others are resting

depression.jpg

My post earlier in the week wasn't exactly the most uplifting, so I thought I would continue that theme again and try and make sense of it.

There are times when you wake up and think that you are just utterly mediocre. And that--for many of us--is worse than feeling like a failure. Because failing, or fucking up, those are just the risks that come along with pushing forward. But to doubt for a second that perhaps you don't have what it takes, that for all the hard work you just don't have the talent to make it happen; that is terrifying.

It takes on many forms. It might be a stasis, a period of inactivity or slowing of progress. It might be an inkling that you just aren't as good as the models you are emulating. Or it could be clues that the goal simply isn't physically conceivable. Worse yet, maybe it's beneath you. The competition might have shown itself and after comparison, your assets no longer seem so rare.

It's weird to think that this is a good thing. It's the resistance. It's the point at which most people give in. They get depressed, they get doubtful, and then they quit. Often, these feelings are evidence that you're onto something. When you start to think that you can't handle it--then you've discovered something challenging. These are the extra reps that you just didn't think you could handle But ultimately, it's where you build the muscle. Conversely, it can be a hint that you're traveling down the wrong path--that you need to stop. Here, it's the warning before the injury.

I like to remind myself of two (conveniently delusional) things. One, most people don't consider these things at all. They lack the self-awareness to be attuned to their emotions and then fall prey to them. The benefits of being self-conscious never reveal themselves, leaving them ignorant and oblivious to the finer details. Or in never pulling back, they get overextended. Two, many people overreact. They get down and quit. Someone says something derogatory and they just never recover. Perhaps they only reason they've entered the game at all is for validation and then they become beholden to it.

For me, the solutions to these feelings requires addresses both poles. I remind myself that I am on the right path and that I developed myself precisely for the pursuit. Yet I proceed with caution. I understand that this is where many others have go awry. And when you examine the bones of these fallen comrades, you can learn from their mistakes. Lastly, I use the doubts to reestablish my foundation. You could call it a preparatory splurge, where you make the fears irrelevant by addressing the root problems. Upon which you simply wait for the next wave and go through the entire process again.

August 20, 2007

Some Weekend Announcements:

-There will be more details on this later, and I can't really get into it but I just signed my first client. It is a major, major online star who hopefully will be one of the rare few who are able to translate pageviews to sales and views into box office dollars. Obviously I had no idea how to close, or how the process went but the people who showed me the ropes know who they are and I really appreciate it. In this case the real hurdle was access, not negotiation. And I got it in the same way I get access to all the people I've dealt with: HONESTY. I was upfront with who I was--age and all--and it ended up being an area that fostered a personal connection. Too, when I messed up I admitted it and managed to turn a potentially catastrophic error into only a minor embarrassment. A whole bunch of strategies are currently in the works and you'll hear about them soon--here and all over the web.

-You might have noticed that the page switched over from rch.rudiusmedia.com to ryanholiday.net. We are slowly in the process of migrating this over from an employee blog to one of the Rudius sites. I'm not really sure how to express my excitement over this. I first found Tucker's site in 2004. I was a junior in high school. All my friends were into Maddox and I was happy to finally read someone who wasn't a nerd. I couldn't really verbalize it, but I knew that it was significant to me at the time--that it was possible to be smart and say whatever you wanted and be rewarded for it. When FesteringAss came, I decided I wanted to be a part of it and now, a solid 3 years later I am--in both senses. The design looks really fucking good. I'm not sure how long it will take to go up but I'll post when it does. The RSS stuff will stay the same, but if you haven't subscribed, I'd appreciate it if you did.

August 18, 2007

What if the Web Doesn't Win? Thoughts that give me the Fear

"You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning...

And that, I think, was the handle--that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense we didn't need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting--our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave...

So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark--that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back."
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
Hunter S. Thompson

I read the book 3 or 4 years ago and haven't really thought about it since. I remember it being influential in my Tucker Max column, but apart from that it had slipped into being a vague memory. Then about a week ago, the quote above slipped into consciousness and has been echoing in my head since. If you want to break the book down--find the root of the escape or the demon Thompson was chasing--this is the place. Vegas in the late 60's was the hollow, empty hole in America. It was the Gatsby parties for a new era, the place where people pursued pleasure instead of acknowledging pain. The idealism and the vision of the time crested and crashed in the Nevada desert.

I think this is relevant now because we are in a very similar cycle. The rhetoric and the revolutionaries have never been louder. All sorts of wild promises are being thrown around--the end of newspapers, the citizen journalist, the fall of Hollywood tyranny, a brand new world. Well what if it's all just talk? What if it doesn't happen? TheExecutive is fond of saying that the "Studio is like the house, and the house always wins." A lot of these predictions just have no chance of coming true. Can technology really change people? Can a new delivery system ever deincentivize laziness or the tendency to rush art? Won't we always be susceptible to sensationalism? And aren't many of our consumer habits based on social motivations instead of personal tastes?

One of the questions I keep coming back to is "What happens if we don't win?" What will become of all this progress if it doesn't crush its enemy totally? I read a cool script a while back called Terra Firma and the short plot of it was that revolutionaries began to speak in this new telepathic language to connect with each other directly--instead of through the clogged lens of corporate advertising, bias and capitalism. Well, the catch is that you find out that advertisers were the ones who created it, and now they had access directly to our thoughts.

As the Web 2.0 wave rushes through us and we buy into it, we are in essence creating a whole new game. It's a world where the typical barriers between consumer and creator have come down, where our tastes are right out in the open, and where the costs of production fall to almost zero. The same men who ruled the last one can come back to power here--or at the very least, their tendencies can come to roost in the next generation of leaders. And what worries me is that all the idealism has left us unprepared to deal with the possibility. Not only that, but we've created an infrastructure designed to be taken advantage of. A massive high is almost always followed by a massive low. Have we considered this? The exuberance won't die easy, but anything less than what we've demanded is going to be crushing. That's the thing too, for the first time we've really asked for something--and we asked for a hell of a lot. We sat at our computers and poured our hearts out and wrote down exactly what we wanted. But what if they don't listen? What then? There is that Xenophon saying "it's not for the conquerors to surrender their arms." I've spent a bit of time in Hollywood now and both sides think they've got the power. Which might just leave the world with a compromise or a long war of attrition; neither are great options. We've ventured way out into Persia and if we have to battle our way home, most of us won't make it back.

I'm not saying that I've lost faith, but I think I am getting the Fear. But like Thompson said, that's what happens when you get real close to the savage heart of the American Dream. It's not as simple as playing the Reveille and watching as the world changes. We must got to the mattresses if change is to really occur. And even then, it's still a long shot. So temper the rhetoric with a taste of history every now and then or you'll see it happen again right before you.

August 16, 2007

Thoughts on Productivity.

pen_paper.jpg
Simplicity is where you find productivity. That being said, there is no reason for an introduction. Here are some productivity methods that I use and have helped me.

This is something I came across in the Moses book and really liked:

"Having a large table instead of a desk was insurance that this procedure would be followed. Since a table has no drawers, there was no place to hide papers; there was no escape from a nagging problem or a difficult to answer letter except to get rid of it one way or another. And there was another advantage: when your desk was table you could have conferences without even getting up."
Robert Caro on Robert Moses.

-At home, I have a big glass desk with out any drawers at all. There, I was probably the most productive I've ever been. I have to go buy a new one soon for my new house and I am probably going to get a dining room table. It will be big, open and sturdy. This is what I love about my Mac. The first thing I did when I got it was wipe the harddrive and reinstall only the basics. The background is a grey screen. I extended the no drawer analog to my computer. I have maybe 10 mp3s on the entire thing. My folders are as follows: Movies, Music, Documents, Journal, Photos.

-I take all my notes for class or meetings on yellow legal pads. Every few months, I go to Wal-Mart and buy a huge pack of them. Each topic has its own pad--never mix. Then when they are full, I box them up and ship them home. All personal writings go in my Moleskine.

-I will never put a TV in my bedroom again. Chris Anderson is right. My freshman year of college, I'd watch reruns of "Just Shoot Me" instead of reading. Or I'd watch CNBC instead of writing. I've probably seen every episode of Law and Order at least 3 times. For me, the television contributes to my life when it is a destination instead of a foundation. That is, when I go into another room to watch it rather than it always being one.

-I have a Whiteboard in my room where everyday I write down what I need to do. It monitors the immediate present for me. Depending on the context it will be as general as "Come up with ideas" to as specific as "Read last 76 pages of ______, review notes." For the week or month ahead, I have a desk calendar. But I think I am going to graduate to this tip from Jerry Seinfeld.

-Emails that I need to respond to are starred, so I have time to think about them instead of rushing a less than satisfactory response.

-As I said before, when I read I carry a highlighter (with tabs) and a pen. Quotes and passages are marked with flags on the right hand side. Terms to define, topics to investigate and books to buy are marked at the top. Thoughts and tie-ins are marked with the pen. If I need to define a word immediately, I use Google SMS by texting "Define ________" to 45546 or Wikipedia on my Blackberry.

-I also started drinking a lot more water--a minimum of two bottles before lunch. Besides the strange looks caused by the bathroom trips, I've been feeling more energetic and more alert.

As always, am looking to absorb any of the productivity knowledge the rest of you have accumulated. Post 'em if you've got 'em.

August 14, 2007

Well son, what do you want to do with your life?

I am now at a point where I have to make some rather serious decisions about my life. And it is with these sort of questions that I am at my very best and my very worst. I obsess over them--I consult everyone--I consider every possible angle. I write best in these moods. I take time for reflection. The menial and trivial seem to slide away. But I also get down. The signs of futility start to spring up. The inevitable indulgence in despair is one I rarely pass up. "What if with all this thought--all this effort--I end up just degrees from where I'd be if I'd let it all go?" "What if control is just an illusion?" Some of this is outside Rudius, some of this is about which position inside Rudius.

For me, I've always told myself: whatever you want to do, that's what you'll end up doing. What happens when someone offers you that chance? Do you have an answer ready? I keep coming up blank. "What do I want to do?"

So I decided to break it down in smaller questions. What do I like? Well, I this blog. I like expressing myself. I like predicting what will happen and making moves to be there before everyone else. But I also like leaving when that gets boring. Let others sort out the details; I like the big picture. I like money. I like the feeling of fluid mastery--of the point guard taking the ball from right to left and then spinning as someone reachs in for it. The move that no one sees coming, but meticulously planned. And more than that, I like work. Sometimes, during the day, I fantasize about running until I vomit, wiping my mouth and running some more.

What don't I like? Well, I hate office shit. I hate being constrained and having to run every little idea through other people. I hate waiting. I hate busy work. I hate having to tolerate people who social inertia has forced me to tolerate. I hate the Peter Principle. I hate the feeling of ripping people off, of delivering what they'll accept as opposed to what they deserve. I hate school and I'm thinking about quitting. I hate the idea that what you do and who you are must to be entirely separate things.

What do I need? I need time. I need an understanding that creativity must be nurtured--and that almost everything is secondary to its incubation. Someone who comprehends that the war for talent in a service economy will be a costlier engagement than any that have come before it.

In the end, I'm sure a lot of you have the exact same desires. And some of the despondency comes from realizing that most jobs pretend they don't exist. The idea that the level of bullshit is at its highest in high school and declines the further you move from it is sadly untrue. I see the same shit I hated in people now, that I did when I was 11.

So those of you who have already made this decision: What advice can you offer? Those of you who are making it now: What steps are you taking?

I'm reading a book by Ken Robinson right now and one line has been echoing in my head "Being good at something isn't enough reason to do it for the rest of your life." Penelope Trunk wrote a few months ago that you ought to figure out EXACTLY what you want and demand it from your job. The only thing you have to lose is unhappiness and an ill-fit. Machiavelli wrote that fortune must be thrown down and struggled with, that opportunity can be molded to your whim. But first--as is the current dilemma--the whim must be discovered and defined. I feel like I am closer, yes, but not close enough.

August 11, 2007

Great content is king

A few articles recently have really codified the ethos of the content model. I don't want to give too much away but all the smart people I've talked to have said the same thing--that in the end, the only thing that really matters is the shit you put on the screen. And by that logic the screen is almost entirely irrelevant.

Good News for Marketers With Eye on Digital Content

Believe it or not, there is something more annoying to online video watchers than advertising: poor quality.

Gaming Consoles are for Playing Games; All the Rest is Flash

Build a big, powerful, muscle-bound machine with a billion features and people will be willing to pay a premium price for all this added functionality beyond gaming. No, I said. People who buy gaming consoles want to play games.

Scoble Leaving Podtech? No He Is Not

"I generally agree with the basic points in his points about podcast/videoblog networks needing to focus on content first. As much as I like John Furrier personally, I also can't name a second Podtech show off the top of my head. Every time I hear of a company like PodTech or Podshow or Odeo getting multi-million dollar investments and going through it, all I can wonder is how they are spending all that money. Isn't the thing that makes this medium interesting and available to all of us its low cost of production?"

It's paradoxical in its ridiculousness. Today, content is cheaper to produce than it was yesterday. Tomorrow, it will be cheaper still. And yet, all anyone wants to talk about is distribution. So I ask you, when we figure it out, when its finally possible to be blue-toothed new singles straight to your phone, when major cinematic movies are beamed via satellite to your local theater and then you pick up a copy for home on the way out via your portable DVR/iPod, what exactly will we be watching?

I'll be real fucking frank with you, I don't want it to be "Who's Your Caddy?" Why is the Wii succeeding? Because they made games people like, things people have been asking for. Why is PodTech failing? Because they bet on Robert Scoble instead of Robert Greene. Pre-roll/Post-roll, advertising, no one cares. They want to watch stuff that is good. Commercials have always been a burden that people bear to get what they want--and now NBC thinks they can create a portal that shows nothing but ads? This is insanity.

In the end, we will have very little impact on HOW our content is delivered to us. So many variables outside anyones' control dictate it. Cheaper prices here, the price of oil there, an innovation in screen technology, a new codec, a massive investment from some biased source, government regulation. But just about anyone can have an impact on WHAT that content is. Why? Because you can make it. You can sit down tomorrow and develop a story arc that will change media for ever. You can skirt the rules, barrier of entry, taboos, and go straight to the source. But most importantly, the field of combat has been vacated. The competition has ceded the market. They've left content on the table. They just want to deliver it.

August 09, 2007

Beware of "we" people

At the paper where I am editor, a grating, obnoxious kid was (by process of elimination) selected to fill my old position. It's pretty clearly going to end as a train wreck; the only variable is the carnage. How do I know? By his use of "we..."

Just days after being hired, the above-mentioned employee was caught explaining the hiring process that "we" (emphasis on his role) had decided on for recruitment. "What WE look for in a new employee is..." "We'd love to have you work with US." It was if he had been working there for years instead of being not much fresher than the targets he was talking down to. And then of course the progression led to remarks about a company culture that he had yet to contribute to, implying about power he simply didn't have, and generally ignoring every unwritten rule that people hold dear. As is usual for these types, they quickly absorb and draw from the past even though they've yet to establish themselves in the present.

We-people are worse than "Yes" men because at least the latter defers to your authority. For them, there is no "you," only an "us" or a "we." And by that they really mean "I" and "me." We-people by their very nature consider themselves to be your equal--and soon to be superior. It implies rather overtly that since they've so quickly included themselves as an integral part of the group that their upward trajectory will soon make them its leader.

More than anything it symbolizes a presumptuousness and a lack of respect that almost always ends badly. It takes a certain lack of shame to simply shrug off the social cues that come along with joining a new organization. This is a lethal combination. It is almost always followed by regular efforts to take credit for things they had no part in. They'll begin to discuss accomplishments logged long before their entrance, they'll mention "decisions" and the reasons they were made despite not have having any role in making them. And then, like a virus, they start to attach themselves to bodies whom they have no influence. "When we do _______, we like to consider _______." Which of course is news to the people who actually do the considering. Their authority becomes whatever authority they've decided to include themselves as part of. Their role is whatever they've chosen it to be.

When you hear that first premature "we" make a mental note--it could have just been an error. If it starts to become a pattern, get out while you can. Or you'll be dealing with their ego and obliviousness for the rest of your life. Just cut them out completely. They are leeches. They've indicated an ability to act unethically and insultingly and that is never a positive. The real danger though is in what they bring out in other people. Their subtle threats bring out the turf-warrior in even the most laid-back people. It leads to gossip and scheming when that energy ought to be spent elsewhere. Riding on the coattails of "we-men" are epidemics of suspicion, anger, disgust and diminished credibility. And I think that is rightfully so, because more than workplace strategy this is a personal defect--an indication of a real douchebag.

And of course, everyone makes mistakes. Sometimes it's just a slip of the tongue. People say "we" in a respectful, deferential way all the time. Not that this is about due paying or anything as petty as that. Nor is it ultimately about respect It's about how that person conducts themselves and how they treat people and then how that affects their productivity and value. Ask the same questions about your friends. It ought to be examined in a larger context--do they exhibit the other symptoms, have they begun to sidle up into territory they shouldn't. Would you consider them to be respectful? Do you like them as a person? If the answer is on the fence for any of these, cut your losses while you still can.

Final Note: This is an especially important topic for young people. No adult wants to feel like you're plotting on the side to push them out of the way. You do NOT want to be the asshole kid with no tact, no respect and a bad attitude. Whether you like it or not there are certain leagues and age often determines your entry. Always remember--if you've been lucky enough to skip ahead--that you ought to treat it like the privilege that it is. Until it's time, there is no "We."

August 07, 2007

Lessons from Public Transit

groupie_wideweb__470x309%2C0.jpg
On Friday I took a bus in LA (which of course I didn't pay for--tragedy of the commons my friends) and I ended up talking to one of these ladies. Miss Mercy, actually, a famous groupie from the 60's and 70's who slept with Chuck Berry, Al Green, Johnny Otis, Frank Zappa, Brian Jones (of the Rolling Stones) and a whole bunch of others. She was best friends with Pamela Des Barres who wrote "I'm With the Band" and "Let's Spend the Night Together," and a couple others. In fact, there is a while chapter dedicated to her in the latter book. As far as girls in LA and the party scene, they were IT and everyone knew so.

But let me tell you, Mercy is haggard. Absolutely haggard. At the risk of making a straw man argument, I did a lot of thinking about her. These groupies were products--if not the idols--of the Sexual Revolution. These were the role models and exemplars for an entire generation of teachings about sex, gender and health. When we were told "women are just the same sexually as men" these are the women they used as proof, or when they said "gender is a social construct," this was the living, breathing, contrary information. "See, once we through off the yoke of sexual conservatism, we can all be happier." Well, Mercy didn't exactly turn out that way. In fact, it drove her to speed, heroin, LSD and the poverty, darkness and waste that comes 'long with them.

The most fundamental declaration of evolutionary psychology is that, theoretically a man could have an infinite number of children a year--each ejaculation inside a woman is a potential pregnancy. A woman, even with the same of amount of sex, can only have one child a year. And that, leads to profound evolutionary implications. It simply creates a different system of pressures and rewards. A male has an incentive to be able to mentally handle multiple partners, where as a woman need only handle a substantially smaller number. It's not good or bad, it's simply fact and it is one that must be acknowledged.

Well it wasn't acknowledged (in many cases it has yet to be). The idea that these women could sit down and write sexual conquest lists as though they were expecting Christmas presents is one of the biggest lies liberalism has ever created. I forgot to mention something about Mercy, she doesn't just look haggard--she works at Goodwill. Is that the sort of case-study we want to emulate? Trust me, there is more than just a correlation with the drug use and alcohol. These are mechanisms that exist almost solely to drive and rationalize the engine they were tricked into riding on.

Step into a Women's Studies department at any university in America and you will hear what are essentially the same delusions that they have been teaching for nearly a half-century. Concepts that have been widely contested--that STDs affect all sexual orientations equally, that gender doesn't really exist, that gender roles are the product of modernity, that it's merely a coincidence that across all societies ever men who had promiscuous sex were exalted while women who did it were derided, that rape has no sexual traces to it at all, that men and women think in the exact same way, and on and on and on. Of course it is very difficult, sometimes heartbreaking to admit these things. But is it any worse than the veil of righteousness used to blind people into pursuing lifestyles that ultimately end badly? Ask Dr. Drew, Samantha from Sex and the City did not see her happy ending in real life. Look at Mercy--she wasted years of her life in homelessness at the depths of a crack addiction because popular culture and academia glorified something they shouldn't have. (To preempt a Tucker mention, there is a very key difference that I won't get into, but even then there is a reason that that is not my life.)

So what's the tie in to the internet? Well there is no "internet," only life. And the key to getting past all the bullshit is listening to that little voice inside you over the mass of noise coming from the "experts." They are wrong, almost always. But that voice? Well its served your genes for hundreds of thousands of years, and since you're here thinking about it, it's done a better than average job. If you're in college, and you like what you're doing, then by all means continue. But if you don't--if you're having doubts--well then fucking quit. Just because that's how all your friends act, doesn't mean they're happy and it certainly doesn't mean it will make you happy. Just because they tell you they're having a good time doesn't mean they actually are. And just because the Campus Health Center says a behavior is healthy doesn't mean that it is. If you're in a business and it all seems counterintuitive and hollow, then it probably is. For one of the few times in history, these major industries are faced with the possibility of having to start completely over again. This is your chance. More importantly though, new generations of revolutionaries have a terrible track record when it comes to being correct. So you can drink the kool-aid and become the next Mercy or you can think about it intelligently and emotionally and choose the sustainable, healthy and fulfilling path. This isn't about sex or lifestyles--it's much bigger than that. It's about understanding that very often the things people say a more a reflection of what they want to believe as opposed to what they actually know. If we're capable of tricking ourselves about sex, capable of deceiving ourselves into defecating into a bucket because Chuck Berry says so, what aren't we capable of believing?

August 04, 2007

The Power Broker: How Power and Personality Interplay

iotw.2003.08.18.inside.jpg

Last week I finished The Power Broker by Robert Caro, an enormous tome on the effects of power, vision and drive. It took me 15 days to do all 1,165 pages of the hardcover monstrosity that chronicled the rise of Robert Moses. You've probably never heard of Robert (I hadn't), because his philosophy was very similar to Boyd's--that you can get a lot done if you let others take the credit. Like Boyd, you might not know him but you know of him. Moses built Shea Stadium, Lincoln Center, Jones Beach, the United Nations headquarters in New York, the 1964 World's Fair, Jones Beach, the Henry Hudson Parkway--fuck, he literally invented parkway--the Central Park Zoo, Bryant Park, the Triborough Bridge and just about every other major modern construction project in New York city with the exception of the Brooklyn Bridge and the Subway.

He was the "Master Builder" and as the book describes him, his achievements are on the level not of any Roman emperor but of Rome, and not so much of any generation but of entire civilizations. He had more power, more money, more tangible, physical property to his name than just about anyone...ever. His vision was majestic, inspiring and immortal. He turned swampland into world powerhouses and slums into pristine parks--congested streets into towering highways. As an unelected, untrained and salaryless public servant he molded perhaps the greatest city in the history of the world to his view. The public couldn't stop him, the mayor couldn't stop him, the governor couldn't stop him, and only once could the President of the United States stop him.

But ultimately, you know where the cliche must take us. Robert Moses was an asshole. His vision, although appearing heartfelt, was simply an evolutionary tactic that gave him the means and justification for his drive for power. He was different, but not that different. He may have had more brain, more drive, more strategy than other men but he did not have more compassion. And that was his undoing.

"For once Moses came into possession of power, it began to perform its harsh alchemy on his character, altering its contours, eating away at some traits, allowing others to enlarge. The potential had always been there, like a darker shadow on the edge of the bright gold of his idealism. With each small increase in the amount of power he possessed, the dark element in his nature loomed larger."

It is an absolutely fascinating book--both from a strategy and human-study perspective. You MUST read it. (I'll even link it again) But if you don't, I think a few of the themes of the book are worth looking at:

-Above all else, You Cannot Lose Touch. Moses took to power because he understood the complexities of his industry. He'd studied more, read more, knew more than anyone else. In fact, he regularly capitalized on the fact that funding goes to the person with the plans right now as opposed to a vague vision for tomorrow. But what served him well on the rise was forgotten. The man who designed ALL of NY's highways didn't even know how to drive. He'd never even been in a traffic jam. He didn't visit the neighborhoods he was renovating, nor did he listen to the emissaries who had. As Caro the author writes "The mind was brilliant, but even a brilliant mind is only as good as the material--the input--fed into it. Bob Moses climbed so high on his own ego, had become so hidebound in his own arbitrariness, that he had removed himself almost entirely from reality and had insulated himself within his own individuality." His problem was simply that he lost the grasp of the world that had delivered him his power.

Which is something that applies not just to government but to nearly every other part of life. It's a mantra that Hollywood has forgotten, universities have never really had, and many other businesses have but a tenuous hold on. If it happens to me--well then, I deserve every bit of the fall--because I read it and understood it here at 20.

-Resting too much is an inefficiency, but not resting at all is the greatest inefficiency. Moses never stopped. Ever. And it was probably the biggest contributer to his downfall. He rose to power because he had a vision and a reason. But when the power came he lost it--and the power eventually followed. As the author put it: ""Robert Moses had never, since he has first come to power, allowed himself any time for reflection, for thought. Reflection, thought, is in a sense no more than the putting to use of a mind, and the unique instrument that was Robert Moses' mind could conceive wonders when it was put to work that way."

"Why?" was not a question often asked by Robert Moses. It is no wonder then that the results of his life look like a cocktail of addiction, rage and lust. How can a direction or purpose of been the result when it was never part of the process? Humans--like all things--are limited by the law of diminishing returns. Impetuousness becomes stupidity when there is no rest between battles, and snap judgments becoming increasingly less accurate when their results are never looked at empirically. It was the unexamined life that Socrates so adamantly warned against. To think that an extra hour in the office is more important than half of that spent in reflection is the mind of a menial labored and not a leader.

-You can find power anywhere. For Moses it was in Parks. He found that no one was against parks, and thus their controller would largely go unchallenged. It is the same in all things. Where there is the lowest demand, you will find the lowest prices. You can kill yourself in the high cost, low margins game of politics, military or Law or you can find the uncontested niche and turn it into your domain. So why follow the masses and fight the traffic, when you can carve your own path and watch as they have to turn around and come to you? Does this sound familiar?

-It's easier to keep something going than to start something new. I've written about this before, and it is the way that almost all people govern their lives. Moses' most successful tactic was grossly underestimating the cost of a project in order to get funding and then laying its foundation. Politicians, who answer to the people, cannot afford to spend money without results and thus they were obligated to fund it until completion. It may not be the most ethical approach but all the "doers" will tell you that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. If you can play loose with fact to get approval, you'll find that they'll be more likely to continue yours then to start something new. Remember, as Moses did, that this is bet on your own predictions and you better be confident of a payoff.

-Use a table instead of a desk. I am going to do a full entry on this because I liked the advice so much.

This book is something you just have to read. I think you'll find a renewed faith in the 48 Laws after you finish. It might be long (and way too heavy to carry around) but it's worth it. But more than that, it is a confirmation of the necessity of the search for meaning. Ambition is an admirable thing, but does it trump self-discipline and self-respect? It's like that hole that Doc Holliday talks about in Tombstone--you'll never be able to steal, kill or hurt enough to fill what is left in their absence. Like I was talking about earlier in the week, what does this mention of Moses even mean? Does it alleviate the self-loathing and hatred that permeated his existence? Does the grudging respect and physical immortality make up for the lives he ruined and the people he hurt? These are just words, those buildings are just concrete and steel--none of it, NOTHING trumps being a good person. And Moses might be rare in that he could DO, but rarer still is the man who can DO and BE. But he never tried.

(If you want to read the rest of the quotes, they are here)

August 02, 2007

Recenter on Success and on Failure

In June, I wrote about how when I get off track I like to pick up The Meditations and recenter. In fact one of the primary messages of the book is that you cannot despair at every slipup, flaw and gaff--and that all you have is to get up where you've fallen and try again. And in reminding yourself of this you can stop the self-perpetuating slide and regain traction.

Well I like to go through the same process when things are going well. After a few successes--no matter how small, I like to flip through the pages and recenter. Remind myself the answer to a few major questions: Why? What for? How? And with who? We find that time and time again, ego is more destructive than low esteem, that we lose our vision the closer we come to attaining it.

Soon you'll be ashes or bones. A mere name at most--and even that is just a sound, an echo. The things we want in life are empty, stale, trivial.

The chase toward immortality is alluring--even more so when you're young, idealistic and inexperienced. So that cannot be the "Why," life cannot be the means to that end. When you break down those things you covet--truly see them for what they are--they lose their gilded varnish. I like to read this not to corrupt the dreams but to temper them. It prevents exaggeration from overcoming hope, and allows you to more fully examine what you're after. Is it fame? Or is it a chance to influence from that pulpit? Is it adulation or is it respect? Is it freedom from or freedom to? Is it to be or to do? It must always be the latter options.

"Never regard something as doing you good if it makes you betray a trust or lose your sense of shame or makes you show hatred, suspicion, ill-will or hypocrisy or a desire for things best done behind closed doors."

The "How" and the "With who." My favorite piece of advice ever--do what you love and be a good person, that is all you have. So now, as a clean slate, I try to preserve those more than anything else. What value is there in learning this young if you refuse to make it your foundation? Epictetus once wrote that knowledge--like strength--must be measured in what you're about to construct with it, not simply what you can life. Anything else is vanity, hypocrisy. Again, as real, life-lasting decisions become more apparent, you must increase the stringency of this benchmark. Do I get red in the face when I think about someone discovering what I've done? Then I probably shouldn't do it anymore. Have I been totally honest about my intentions--either maliciously or out of shyness? Then I must stop now, and be blunt. Am I more empathetic today than I was last month? Then I am traveling down a bad road.

For now, I'm please to say that this standard has not been violated. As I predicted, I am happier AND finding that others are equally pleased with my work. My advice here is to be as temperate in your relative successes as you are in your failures. Never use a good mood as an excuse against introspection. And never let the downhill--the momentum--dictate your speed. However you recenter is up to you--it doesn't have to be Meditations, in fact it probably shouldn't be. But find a rock to which you can return, be it a person, a book, a quote, an image, a thought, and use it maintain control. Prevent straying from Siren or by despair, for they are equally dangerous.

August 01, 2007

Kill 'Em All.

I just finished Dave Grossman's "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society." It's an interesting read--about how realistically, violence is a much rarer human trait than we think and that we actually have an aversion to killing. In fact, he asserts that most PTSD cases stem not from fear of dying but from regret from killing (or almost killing).

Couple of thoughts:

--He talks about how that contrary to what we've believed, attrition bombing is not effective. That the fear of being killed from afar is drastically less than being killed up close. He called this the "Winds of Hate" effect. The most traumatizing things that happen to us are the ones that ones that happen up close. Hatred staring you in the face is perceived as much, much worse than a greater hatred from behind a computer or far away. And not because it's less dangerous but because it's personal. Which I think anecdotally, has a lot to do with some of this Hollywood/New Media business. It's very easy (or easier) to sit back and watch as your market share diminishes. You can ignore the audience shifting online--you can even make some moves to prevent it. You will only be motivated to action however, when you someone comes onto your turf and really kicks the shit out of you. No one has done that yet. Still the internet new media has competed mainly from afar, never really striking in the mainstream realm. That will soon change and I think a lot of the bluster and ignorance will go away. But for the nerds THAT'S WHY NO ONE CARES.

--He brings up an example about a soldier ordered to execute a line of enemy soldiers who protested and refused to do it. He was instantly charged with treason, lined up and killed along with them.

Grossman exalts this as "hope for mankind" which totally misses the point. He doesn't bother to consider the sad, sad paradox of this example. That in simple game theory, in the most basic evolutionary sense, goodness failed and evil prevailed. The man who resisted died, childless. Had he murdered, he would have lived and reproduced.

Which of course contradicts the basic premise of the book--that only in looking at darkness can hope to change it. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that very often what is best for our reproductive purposes is not aligned with our commonly agreed moral code. That being a good person isn't always the best way to be a good human (animal). Which I think ultimately is the major moral question that modernity faces: Will the individual abandon those evolutionary tendencies--a sort of well-intentioned eugenics? Or, despite the posturing and the progress are we always going to be inhibited by the sucker's payoff?

Those are the real questions the book ought to be addressing, but it doesn't. It rarely acknowledges the role of evolution and the intense affect war has on natural selection. He casually drops the fact that in Berlin, an estimated 100,000 children were born from soldier rapes--like that doesn't have MASSIVE implications. When we examine why behaviors exist we must first consider how they are rewarded. What he shows time and time again (without noticing) is that evil behavior--rape, condoning of execution--have reproductive benefits while resistance or simply the status-quo does not.


More on another book later tomorrow...

Subscribe to this blog's feed