Show contents

Disconnect Saturdays

The challenge.

  1. Turn off your phone when you go to bed on Friday night.
  2. Don't turn it back on until you wake up on Sunday morning.
  3. During that time, also don't use your computers to do anything that requires the Internet (I made an exception for playing Rdio).

Kellianne and I tried it yesterday and we ended up having more interesting conversations and more peaceful relaxation times than we've had in a while. Will definitely be trying it again next week.

Wanna give it a try? Join this branch to talk about it and experiment with it next Saturday.

 
81
Kudos

A Self-Tracking Challenge (draft)

This challenge requires some working knowledge of spreadsheets, and self-tracking. It's also a work-in-progress and is very much open to feedback.

In a spreadsheet of some kind (Google Spreadsheet, Excel, Numbers, etc) rate every day subjectively on a scale between 1 and 3.

1 = exceptionally bad day

3 = exceptionally good day

2 = all other days

Then, come up with a “fitness function” based on objective data (nothing subjective like mood) that is mathematically correlated with the subjective rating over time. Say, over a month or two of data.

In other words, find out what, if any, things that are externally measurable have an effect on your subjective experience of life. Using math.

Use =CORREL(subjective column, objective column) in most spreadsheets to get a number between -1 and 1 that states whether or not the two sets of numbers are correlated. -1 means they are inversely correlated, and +1 means they are directly correlated. 0 means there is no correlation. For the purposes of this experiment, both -1 and +1 are equally valid winning results of this challenge.

Nobody's going to reach 1 or -1 though… I think anything above 0.5 or below -0.5 is a pretty stellar number. I've been trying to do this for the last month and a half and my number is still -0.13. Almost no correlation.

What's the point?

The point is to see how well we know ourselves. Are the things we do daily, on an objective basis, at all correlated to our happiness/fulfillment/etc that we experience on a subjective basis?

Most people would say yes.

It's entirely possible that they are not.

And if they are correlated what are the inputs? How precise are they? Does it matter how many steps I take a day, or does it just matter whether or not I walked to work? Does it matter how many drinks I had, or simply whether or not I'm hung over? Etc.

And also, how similar is Person A's correlation inputs to Person B's? How much variance is there between what makes everyone happy/fulfilled/etc?

I've only just begun trying to answer these questions for myself… and so far am not having much success.

Subjective vs Objective

Is this problem interesting to anyone else other than me? Participate in this branch if you want to be part of the discussion. And for more background on my current thoughts on self-tracking, here's a post on what I'm tracking now and why.

 
105
Kudos

“Behavior change” is an intuition pump

Gary Wolf suggested that the phrase “behavior change” is an intuition pump – a phrase that leads one down a specific set of simplifications and assumptions that ultimately mislead one to making false conclusions.

Gary Wolf quote

This idea is growing on me. Especially after this branch on “If behavior change is belief change” in which I play the role of scorned behavior change-ologist.

Still working on this but I think there's something interesting at the end of this train of thought. I'm not there yet though.

 
26
Kudos

Zoomed out

My father passed away 19 years ago today.

Hurricane Sandy hit the east coast hard yesterday.

Stepping back and remembering that we're all mortal and fragile can bring us closer together.

It makes you want to hug your family, your friends, and even random strangers.

It adds a filter of meaning over everything.

The moments are rare when this reality descends on us collectively, so take advantage of it. Use it to up your empathy not only for the people who are near you, but for all people who are face to face with this realization every day.

What if we could always think and act from a place of respecting the big picture, of being zoomed out and seeing the vulnerability of life?

Dad, I miss you.

Remembering Dad

 
56
Kudos

Has Twitter killed blogging?

Kottke mentioned a theory that I've heard a bunch. New media killing old media (again).

Tweet conversation

Since I've kept all of my tweets and blog posts and everything else on my own server going back to 1999, I thought it would be simple enough to throw some anecdotal information at the question.

Here's a graph of number of blog posts (blue) versus tweets (green) that I've written over the last 13 years.

Blog posts vs Tweets

So, while it seems like blog posts haven't really suffered much as a direct result of the growth of Twitter, it could be that I would've written more blog posts if I didn't have a plethora of other lower barrier ways of self expression.

In fact, that probably applies to the general evolution of publishing in general. Just because a particular line of lizards evolved into birds doesn't mean lizards are going to go extinct. And also doesn't mean that whales will never evolve in the future.

There's more life and more variety all around, and plenty of room for everyone to thrive.

 
105
Kudos

Hidden Twitter Cards potential

I'm on the team at Twitter that recently added the ability to view images, story summaries, and videos “in a tweet” on Twitter.com, and on the Twitter mobile apps. They did all of this before I joined but it was a big part of the reason that I wanted to work here… there's tons of potential to play around with.

Twitter Cards (developer docs) have been mentioned and hyped up in some interviews recently as quite a big deal. Which I believe it is (and will continue to be).

Twitter Cards

But, I actually think there are a lot of things that can be done with the existing photo card integration that people haven't quite taken full advantage of yet.

Just wanted to write up my thoughts on it in case people weren't fully aware of all of the possibilities.

Attach more data to your tweet

The photo card is interesting because it is data that doesn't necessarily have to be included in your tweet. It can be anything related to the URL that is linked to, and can even include semi-personalized information.

For example, any app or service that you post some kind of check in to probably has a way for you to share that check in on Twitter. That URL probably has some personal information about what you just did, and that information could be turned into an image and attached to your tweet.

Here's an example: Findings (which powers the cool quote image you see above) is doing this in a really amazing way. They wrote up how they implemented the “quote on a photo” card using a really flexible and interesting tool called phantomjs here. The end result is that the quote appears in the tweet, like this:

I really want to see more sites thinking about ways to use photo cards to their advantage like this.

For example, imagine tweeting from the following sites/services and getting cool photo cards attached:

Etc.

I know that I'd personally tweet from apps a lot more if the resulting tweets had more information attached to them like this. Spread the word!

 
204
Kudos

The best pedometer

I think the new Fitbit Zip is the best pedometer / walking tracker out there right now.

It's better than an iPhone app because all of those run your battery down, and therefore can't be on all the time.

It's better than the full-featured Fitbit or Nike FuelBand because every time you have to charge it or sync it or upgrade the software is a chance that it'll get left behind, run out of charge, or get lost.

The best pedometer is the one that's always with you.

You should get one. And friend me.

 
46
Kudos

Behavior change is belief change

Aristotle habit quote

Every behavior change fanatic out there loves this quote. Probably has it on their bathroom mirror.

The formula is so simple.

You = what you do every day

And therefore:

if (what you do every day == excellent)

Then:

You = excellent

And also, if you're trying to solve for excellence…

You + X = Excellence

You now know that

X = do excellent things every day

And…

You + (do excellent things every day) = Excellence

I know what you're thinking.

Be excellent to each other

And more importantly, just be excellent.

And here, it becomes clear.

The quote by Aristotle is actually not helpful at all.

Last night I had a great conversation with @e_ramirez, @cwhogg, and @aarondcoleman over a few beers. It was a thoroughly enjoyable behavior-change app-building quantified-self throw down.

Despite all of us having fairly different ideas about to build RIGHT NOW, given the current state of the market, what we know about behavior change, and what works and doesn't work, there was a moment of clarity when we all agreed on the fact that:

Behavior change is belief change.

You can't change what you do without first changing who you are.

Two parallel universes (and a rather cliched example):

  1. You step on a scale, and don't like what you see, and you wish you could change.

  2. You step on a scale, and don't like what you see because that person isn't you.

In the first parallel universe, you are the person on the scale, and you wish you could read a book, buy a gadget, etc that would help you lose weight and be a healthier version of yourself. This person will have a really difficult time changing their actions, because they first have to change the belief about who they are.

In the second parallel universe, you look at the numbers and you look at yourself and it's like looking at a stranger. That person ISN'T YOU. Even though you are apparently in their body. This person has ALREADY changed who they are, and therefore changing actions to match that will be a lot easier.

The dissonance of having a strong belief, and living in a universe where that belief seems to be false, can create a huge burst of energy that can then be channeled into changing INTO the person that you already believe that you are.

Explosion

This is the pattern that I hear over and over again with people who were able to change their behaviors:

They already believed themselves to be the person who they were changing into.

Now, of course, that just begs the question.

How do we change who we believe that we are?

How do we change our core identity of ourselves? How do we change into “a runner” or “a stair-taker” or “a whole foods eater” or “a meditator” or “an optimist”?

It seems really difficult, right?

That's because it is.

Anyone that tells you that you just need to “walk one more bus stop every morning” in order to be a healthier person has reversed the formula (putting the easy thing first) in order to sell it to you.

In order to be a person who walks to the bus stop every morning you have to change your core identity of yourself into a “healthier person who walks a lot”.

On the other hand, if you believe you are that person already, then you've already done the difficult part.

  1. Accept your beliefs about who you think you are now.
  2. Accept your beliefs about who you want to be.
  3. ???
  4. Behavior change.
 
206
Kudos

Who you are vs who you want to be

To accept who you are seems to suggest that there's no reason to gamble it all on who you want to be.

And yet…

To gamble everything on who you want to be seems to suggest that you're really unhappy with who you are now.

This has always been an unsolved paradox in my head as I generally seem, upon inspection, to be both happy where I am, and eager to gamble a lot of it on something bigger.

In the shower today I decided to just let these two voices talk it out, without me getting in the way. And within about 30 seconds they had come to an agreement.

Who I am now agrees to accept who I want to be, and who I want to be agrees to accept who I am now. Neither voice will try to persuade the other on their primary belief, but rather accept that the other belief exists as strongly as their own. Seems obvious, but I can't tell you how many years I've forced one or the other voice to shut up.

Our identities can be made out of paradoxes as long as we don't enforce them to constantly duke it out. It's like an auto-immune disorder of ideas, and it can all go away if we just accept that paradoxes live within us.

I got started on this kick of letting internal voices talk to each other without my getting in the way when I learned about the Internal Family Systems Model. It's weird but really useful sometimes.

 
113
Kudos

Look, look, look

One of the things I love on the internet is this tap-essay manifesto slash free iPhone story app by Robin Sloan: Fish. I return to it pretty often.

The premise is that we have a desire to return repeatedly to the things that we love. And that, on the internet, the deluge of information overload sometimes discourages returning much to individual things. Instead, we collect containers of things, and curations of things, because they're always new.

I particularly love the full story of Agassiz mentioned in Fish. Enough even to want to save the actual text of it here. It was written by Samuel H. Scudder. Originally published, I think, in American Poems (3rd ed.; Boston: Houghton, Osgood & Co., 1879). Enjoy!

“The Student, The Fish, and Agassiz”

It was more than fifteen years ago that I entered the laboratory of Professor Agassiz, and told him I had enrolled my name in the Scientific School as a student of natural history. He asked me a few questions about my object in coming, my antecedents generally, the mode in which I afterwards proposed to use the knowledge I might acquire, and, finally, whether I wished to study any special branch. To the latter I replied that, while I wished to be well grounded in all departments of zoology, I purposed to devote myself specially to insects.

“When do you wish to begin?” he asked.

“Now,” I replied.

This seemed to please him, and with an energetic “Very well!” he reached from a shelf a huge jar of specimens in yellow alcohol. “Take this fish,” he said, “and look at it; we call it a haemulon; by and by I will ask what you have seen.”

With that he left me, but in a moment returned with explicit instructions as to the care of the object entrusted to me.

“No man is fit to be a naturalist,” said he, “who does not know how to take care of specimens.”

I was to keep the fish before me in a tin tray, and occasionally moisten the surface with alcohol from the jar, always taking care to replace the stopper tightly. Those were not the days of ground-glass stoppers and elegantly shaped exhibition jars; all the old students will recall the huge neckless glass bottles with their leaky, wax-besmeared corks, half eaten by insects, and begrimed with cellar dust. Entomology was a cleaner science than ichthyology, but the example of the Professor, who had unhesitatingly plunged to the bottom of the jar to produce the fish, was infectious; and though this alcohol had a “very ancient and fishlike smell,” I really dared not show any aversion within these sacred precincts, and treated the alcohol as though it were pure water. Still I was conscious of a passing feeling of disappointment, for gazing at a fish did not commend itself to an ardent entomologist. My friends at home, too, were annoyed when they discovered that no amount of eau-de-Cologne would drown the perfume which haunted me like a shadow.

Hæmulon

In ten minutes I had seen all that could be seen in that fish, and started in search of the Professor—who had, however, left the Museum; and when I returned, after lingering over some of the odd animals stored in the upper apartment, my specimen was dry all over. I dashed the fluid over the fish as if to resuscitate the beast from a fainting fit, and looked with anxiety for a return of the normal sloppy appearance. This little excitement over, nothing was to be done but to return to a steadfast gaze at my mute companion. Half an hour passes—an hour—another hour; the fish began to look loathsome. I turned it over and around; looked it in the face—ghastly; from behind, beneath, above, sideways, at a three-quarters' view—just as ghastly. I was in despair; at an early hour I concluded that lunch was necessary; so, with infinite relief, the fish was carefully replaced in the jar, and for an hour I was free.

On my return, I learned that Professor Agassiz had been at the Museum, but had gone, and would not return for several hours. My fellow-students were too busy to be disturbed by continued conversation. Slowly I drew forth that hideous fish, and with a feeling of desperation again looked at it. I might not use a magnifying-glass; instruments of all kinds were interdicted. My two hands, my two eyes, and the fish: it seemed a most limited field. I pushed my finger down its throat to feel how sharp the teeth were. I began to count the scales in the different rows, until I was convinced that that was nonsense. At last a happy thought struck me—I would draw the fish; and now with surprise I began to discover new features in the creature. Just then the Professor returned.

“That is right,” said he; “a pencil is one of the best of eyes. I am glad to notice, too, that you keep your specimen wet, and your bottle corked.”

With these encouraging words, he added, “Well, what is it like?”

He listened attentively to my brief rehearsal of the structure of parts whose names were still unknowns to me: the fringed gill-arches and movable operculum; the pores of the head, fleshy lips and lidless eyes; the lateral line, the spinous fins and forked tail; the compressed and arched body. When I finished, he waited as if expecting more, and then, with an air of disappointment, “You have not looked very carefully; why,” he continued more earnestly, “you haven't even seen one of the most conspicuous features of the animal, which is a plainly before your eyes as the fish itself; look again, look again!” and he left me to my misery.

I was piqued; I was mortified. Still more of that wretched fish! But now I set myself to my tasks with a will, and discovered on new thing after another, until I saw how just the Professor's criticism had been. The afternoon passed quickly; and when, towards its close, the Professor inquired, “Do you see it yet?”

“No,” I replied, “I am certain I do not, but I see how little I was before.”

“That is next best,” said he, earnestly, “but I won't hear you now; put away your fish and go home; perhaps you will be ready with a better answer in the morning. I will examine you before you look at the fish.”

This was disconcerting. Not only must I think of my fish all night, studying, without the object before me, what this unknown but most visible feature might be; but also, without reviewing my discoveries, I must give an exact account of them the next day. I had a bad memory; so I walked home by Charles River in a distracted state, with my two perplexities.

The cordial greeting from the Professor the next morning was reassuring; here was a man who seemed to be quite as anxious as I that I should see for myself what he saw.

“Do you perhaps mean,” I asked, “that the fish has symmetrical sides with paired organs?”

His thoroughly pleased “Of course! of course!” repaid the wakeful hours of the previous night. After he had discoursed most happily and enthusiastically—as he always did-—upon the importance of this point, I ventured to ask what I should do next.

“Oh, look at your fish!” he said, and left me again to my own devices. In a little more than an hour he returned, and heard my new catalogue.

“That is good, that is good!” he repeated; “but that is not all; go on”; and so for three long days he placed that fish before my eyes, forbidding me to look at anything else, or to use any artificial aid. “Look, look, look,” was his repeated injunction.

This was the best entomological lesson I ever had—a lesson whose influence has extended to the details of every subsequent study; a legacy the Professor had left to me, as he has left it to many others, of inestimable value, which we could not buy, with which we cannot part.

A year afterward, some of us were amusing ourselves with chalking outlandish beasts on the Museum blackboard. We drew prancing starfishes; frogs in mortal combat; hydra-headed worms; stately crawfishes, standing on their tails, bearing aloft umbrellas; and grotesque fishes with gaping mouths and staring eyes. The Professor came in shortly after, and was as amused as any at our experiments. he looked at the fishes.

“Haemulons, every one of them,” he said; “Mr. Scudder drew them.”

True; and to this day, if I attempt a fish, I can draw nothing but haemulons.

The fourth day, a second fish of the same group was placed beside the first, and I was bidden to point out the resemblances and differences between the two; another and another followed, until the entire family lay before me, and a whole legion of jars covered the table and surrounding shelves; the odor had become a pleasant perfume; and even now, the sight of an old, six-inch, worm-eaten cork brings fragrant memories.

The whole group of haemulons was thus brought in review; and, whether engaged upon the dissection of the internal organs, the preparation and examination of the bony framework, or the description of the various parts, Agassiz's training in the method of observing facts and their orderly arrangement was ever accompanied by the urgent exhortation not to be content with them.

“Facts are stupid things,” he would say, “until brought into connection with some general law.”

At the end of eight months, it was almost with reluctance that I left these friends and turned to insects; but what I had gained by this outside experience has been of greater value than years of later investigation in my favorite groups.

 
47
Kudos