No buggies. No baggies.

Babies with baggies are particularly unwelcome.
Chris Hoover’s blog
{ Monthly Archives }

Babies with baggies are particularly unwelcome.
My sporadic blogging oflate is due to a major change — I’m transitioning jobs, having finished my last day with my previous employer Friday only to get on a plane Saturday, fly to Ireland, and begin my first day with my new employer (based in Dublin) on Monday.
It’s been an amazing experience, not least because the trip has occasioned my first experience driving on the “wrong” side of the road. I’ve been nervous about it for some time; I imagined that I’d arrive in Ireland and my jet-lagged mind would turn the wrong way at the first intersection I encountered.
Well, so far so good. I rented my car, got lots of insurance, pushed and shoved my (modest) suitcase into the smallest car I’ve ever seen, much less driven, and started driving around on the left side of the road.

It’s an odd experience for two reasons. First, I’m not used to *thinking* about driving. It’s something for which I usually rely on muscle memory, saving all other cognitive processes for grumpily judging other drivers.
Second, the muscle memory is still very much there. I’m experiencing a kind of dual-mind in which I’m intellectually telling myself “stay left,” but every unconscious process I have is simultaneously pulling me the other direction. This duality really freaked me out when I was driving down a road and someone pulled onto the road from an intersection ahead of me. The other car turned to travel toward me, and my intellectual mind said “they are turning into the right lane,” but my body erupted in alarms “YOU’RE IN THE WRONG LANE! GET OVER!” My little car began swerving slightly to and fro as I fought with myself, but I made it through without driving off the road into the trees.
Only four more days to go, then I have to try and switch back to driving the “right” way. Ugh.
There’s a fine line with cursing. Used skillfully, cursing is akin to a kind of salt in the sense that it can emphasize meaning almost magically. Jokes are funnier, anger better expressed, disappointment and dispair made richer. In fact, the enhancing effect of this “salty language” (if you’ll forgive me) is so ingrained that many people tend to over-use it, with ruinous consequences. Who isn’t familar with the person whose frequent curses are an uncomfortable non-sequitor?
Anyway, three cheers for Steve Pinker, author of some of my favorite books, including the Blank Slate and The Language Instinct. His new book includes a fantastic exploration of that most favored of hobbies, cursing:
The strange emotional power of swearing–as well as the presence of linguistic taboos in all cultures– suggests that taboo words tap into deep and ancient parts of the brain. In general, words have not just a denotation but a connotation: an emotional coloring distinct from what the word literally refers to, as in principled versus stubborn and slender versus scrawny. The difference between a taboo word and its genteel synonyms, such as shit and feces, cunt and vagina, or fucking and making love, is an extreme example of the distinction. Curses provoke a different response than their synonyms in part because connotations and denotations are stored in different parts of the brain.
I don’t know about you, but I find this stuff pretty fucking interesting.
The subtle emotional coloring of words reminds me of a friend, fluent in Japanese, who described to me the subtle nuances of speaking Japanese in a business environment. “English,” my friend told me, “simply doesn’t have the variety of ways to express heirarchy and respect that Japanese does.” He explained that this difference makes it difficult for a non-native speaker, even if fluent, to successfully negotiate formal conversation in Japan without offending someone.
I took that at face value until I was waiting to board a plane to Tokyo. In announcing that the plane was ready for boarding, the Japanese attendant flicked on the P.A. system and said “Thank you for waiting, UA803 is ready for boarding. First class, YOU GET ON NOW!”
Now, I’m not sure there is a literal difference between saying “We invite our first class passengers to board at their convenience” and “YOU GET ON NOW,” and I’m sure the distinction was lost on the attendent (he certainly didn’t mean to sound rude). The point, though is that English has subtle emotional shadings as well. It actually made me feel better to have the opportunity to be an offended English speaker. Now, if ever I’m able to get into first class, I’m prepared.
Every so often I learn something that challenges something I’ve (almost always unconsciously) held as a fundamental truth. For me, it was a fundamental truth that group activities such as brainstorming are more effective than individual efforts in creative exploration of an issue.
I’m sure the “fundamentalness” of this truth is largely due to the ubiquity of group think in business. People constantly have meetings, and brainstorm, and attempt to arrive at consensus. But it turns out that brainstorming is not only unproductive, it’s very unproductive:
There are a number of explanations for productivity loss in brainstorming groups. Participants may be unwilling to state some of their ideas because they are afraid of being negatively evaluated. Social loafing or free-riding may occur because individuals do not feel accountable or feel their efforts are not needed by the group. Production blocking may result because individuals cannot express their ideas when someone else is talking. Evaluation apprehension, free-riding, and production blocking insure that interactive groups start off rather slowly in the idea-generation process. By means of social comparison processes and a tendency toward downward comparison, this low level of performance may become normative and be maintained throughout the group session or in subsequent sessions even when evaluation apprehension or production blocking may no longer be a problem.
What’s really amazing about this isn’t that brainstorming has been shown as ineffective per se, but that brainstorming remains ubiquitous even through there is so much research about its ineffectiveness (just check out the references section in the paper quoted above). Research that goes back decades. And it’s not just a matter of the research being poorly understood: It turns out that people fully aware of the research (such as psychologists) continue to brainstorm anyway.
The answer, I believe, is that people are fundamentally social: the hard-wired drive to work together as a team is much more powerful than an intellectual knowledge that group-think has many pitfalls. There are techniques designed to overcome the limitations of brainstorming, however; the most popular of which seems to be the unfortunately-named brainwriting.
Brainwriting boils down to brainstorming using written notes instead of speaking, thus creating a kind of anonymity designed to overcome the various social obstacles that limit truly creative thinking. It strikes me that participants in such an exercise are likely to fall victim to Penny Arcade’s Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, to wit: Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad.
So, brainstorming doesn’t work, but we can’t stop doing it, and using alternative techniques just highlights the assholes in the group. What does this mean? I dunno. Perhaps despair is in order.
I am endlessly frustrated by navigating through automated customer service messages. The absolute worst are the voice interaction messages, to which you are supposed to speak your request (instead of pressing “1” or whatever).
The problem is, I’m usually in a car, or at the airport, or in some other similarly noisy place. the stupid machine can’t understand me above the ambient noise. I’m amazed at how irritating this is. It’d be less irritating to just whack me in the head with the phone.
Phone: Welcome to AlwaysLate Airlines. Just speak your request, or say “Help” for a list of available options.
Me: Flight status
Phone: I’m sorry? I didn’t get that.
Me: Flight status
Phone: I’m sorry? I didn’t get that.
Me: FLIGHT STATUS
Phone: I’m sorry? I didn’t get that.
Me: FFFFFFLLLLLLIIIIGGGGGHHHHHTTTTTTTT SSSSTTTTTAAAATTTTUUUSSSS
Phone: I’m sorry? I didn’t get that.
Me: Help.
Phone: I’m sorry? I didn’t get that.
Anyway, check out www.gethuman.com. It’s a great site, with numbers and instructions for getting right to a real human being.
Not only do I work in the software industry, I work in the geekiest corner of the software industry, the one decorated with discarded Mountain Dew cans, one-serv microwavable containers of Beenie-Weenie, and life-size Judge Dredd cut-outs.
Nevertheless, I believe there are people in the world even geekier than I. As evidence, I offer the following:

This man is writing email on his laptop while energetically using a stationary cycle at the local gym. The laptop, balanced on his open left hand, wobbles precariously as he furiously pedals and taps at the keyboard with a single finger.
One can only imagine what he’s writing:
Dear colleaggeegess—
My wwwkeekly uppdat for thehe Cissco accnnnt ffollos…
I travel to Southeast Asia on business every so often. If I have a choice, I’ll always connect through Changi airport in Singapore.
There are lots of nice things about the airport; it’s got a nice transit hotel, a gym, amazing shops, and reasonable food. But there are some things that set it apart. Top five reasons I love Singapore’s Changi Airport:
Reason Five: It’s got some beautiful areas. Here’s the orchid garden, which surrounds a koi pond complete with dabbling brook, nice wooden bridge and huge voracious koi. To give you an idea of how big this “meditation area” is, the woman at the left of the photo is sitting at the edge of the koi pond with her feet dangling above the water:

Reason Four: Free video games and free WiFi(!) throughout the airport. Lots of geeky types congregating in the XBox area, so of course I didn’t stay long.

Reason Three: The bizarro Asian soda you can get at the airport 7–11. Note that the Bird’s Nest Drink by Super brand features “The Best Good Taste,” as opposed to the inferior good taste offered by other, lesser, Bird’s Nest Drink distributors.


Reason Two: Free Movies, playing 24 hours a day in a real theater. “It’s Pat” was playing when I took this picture. Had I stuck around, I could have caught “First Blood” followed by “Porky’s.”

And the number one reason Changi is the best airport in the world:

Here’s the kicker: when I took this picture, there was no one monitoring the whiskey tasting station. Just a bunch a booze and a stack of paper cups. I’m not kidding.
Interesting article in Scientific American about a study that shows the brain is hardwired such that people fit into two behavioral categories. (More likely a continuum, but for purposes of illustration I’ll keep it straightforward).
In one category, people are predisposed to alter their behavior based on new information. In the other category, people are less responsive to new information, and tend to maintain the same behavior. Although the context of the study was political (this isn’t a political blog), I think that the study is equally interesting from a business perspective as well. A quote:
Amodio says that the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a forebrain region, “serves almost as a barometer for this degree of conflict.”"People who have more sensitive activity in that area,” he notes, “are more responsive to these cues that say they need to adapt their behavior,” reacting more quickly and accurately to the unexpected stimulus. On average, people who described themselves as politically liberal had about 2.5 times the activity in their ACCs and were more sensitive to the “No-Go cue” than their conservative friends.
“They are more sensitive to the need for change and more sensitive to the need to change their behavior,” Amodio says about the politically left-leaning subjects.
At an overall statistical level, I suspect that having a disposition one way or the other is not a good predictor of business success. All other things being equal, two entrepreneurs of opposite dispositions have an equal chance to succeed at the beginning of a new venture. Where it does matter is how a person copes with the unique challenges the new business will face.
For example, a person that tends to maintain the same behavior despite conflicting information may have the tenacity and drive to stick with a business plan no matter what until it succeeds. She will have the steadfastness necessary to keep the business moving forward even when everyone is a naysayer. In some business contexts, this is exactly the right person needed at the helm; the business would fail if the leader was endlessly second guessing and altering course.
On the other hand, a business plan into which people have poured blood, sweat, and tears, may be fatally flawed. In this case, the leader must be flexible enough to honestly appraise new information that conflicts with the existing business plan, and alter the course of the business based on this new information. Here, the leader that stubbornly maintained the status quo would fail.
How do you know which leader is right for which challenge? You don’t, except in retrospect. As Nassim Taleb points out, most of what happens in life is random; all you can do is put in your best effort. A person plays much less a role in their own success (or failure) than they give themselves credit for.
I’m a procrastinator. I’m a little embarrassed to say this, though I don’t consider it a personal shortcoming (I mean, I don’t think procrastinating per se makes someone an asshole). Procrastination smacks of immaturity, of unprofessional slacking. And god knows, “unprofessional” and “immature” are the absolute last things anyone would think about me .
Here’s the thing: procrastination works for me. Always has. When a deadline is close enough to begin to cause a little anxiety, I can tackle a project with a focus and flow that is harder to find when there’s no time pressure.
Imagine my surprise (and a little relief) to discover that I’ve stumbled upon a pretty effective — and clinically proven — strategy. Stress, it turns out, causes blood levels of cortisol to increase. Too much cortisol is a bad thing, but just the right amount boosts interest, attention, and motivation, producing maximum cognitive efficiency and achievement. By procrastinating until a deadline began to loom, I am creating a “sweet spot” of stress during which my performance is better than it would be had I not procrastinated.
With procrastination, though, there is a fine line separating the sweet spot from a negative downward spiral. Procrastinate too much and you risk stress levels climbing high enough to produce a feeling of outright fear. At this point, the more stress escalates, the worse mental efficiency becomes.
This cortisol “sweet spot” phenomenon has implications for leading teams. It implies that leaders must introduce gentle stress into a team to effectively motivate them, to help them reach their full potential. I say “gentle” stress to distinguish my suggestion from the stress caused by the red-faced-table-pounding behavior favored by the Steve Jobs or Larry Ellison wannabes among our corporate leaders.
“Gentle” stress means establishing specific, moderately aggressive deadlines for each project, and then frequently following up with the team member to assess how he/she is doing against the goal. Defining a deadline itself is important (work always expands to fill the amount of time available), but the (lets call it what it is) nagging creates a sense of urgency around the deadline. You are reinforcing that the deadline is meaningful, that you care about it. Creating a sense of urgency and meaning can take the team to the productivity “sweet spot.”