You can’t be perfect, but it’s easy to be good

by 1 Comment

Reading Time: < 1 minute

In reading Tara Jaye Frank’s book “The Waymakers“, she shared an interesting thought that I think applies to many areas of life. She said:

When I first became a mother at twenty-five, someone gave me a quote on a tiny piece of paper by Jill Churchill that read, “There is no way to be a perfect mother and a million ways to be a good one.”

I see that lesson applied to so many areas of my life, from the sublime to the ridiculous. Parenting is the easy one, but what about these?

  • There is no way to be a perfect boss and a million ways to be a good one.
  • There is no way to be a perfect driver and a million ways to be a good one.
  • There is no way to be a perfect pickleball player and a million ways to be a good one.
  • There is no way to be a perfect Christian and a million ways to be a good one.
  • There is no way to be a perfect citizen and a million ways to be a good one.
  • There is no way to be a perfect developer and a million ways to be a good one.
  • There is no way to be a perfect partner and a million ways to be a good one.

In every situation, know that you’ll never be perfect but you can always work to be the best you can, and likely do a pretty good job of it.

The entire book is fantastic, and I’ll likely share more in the future. I encourage you to check it out.

What areas from your life might fit in the list above?

Interleaving your skills

by Leave a Comment

Reading Time: < 1 minute

A few years ago I wrote about the idea of intentionally making some things more difficult and I recently discovered that this concept has a name: interleaving.

The book “Hidden Potential” has some great examples of that:

I assumed it would be ideal to practice one skill until you make progress, and only then move on to the next one. But rather than repeating the same challenges over and over, Brandon mixes them up. In twenty-minute intervals, Brandon Payne has Steph Curry bouncing from one shooting-and quickness challenge to another. The variety isn’t just motivating—it’s also better for learning. Hundreds of experiments show that people improve faster when they alternate between different skills. Psychologists call it interleaving, and it works in areas ranging from painting to math, especially when the skills being developed are similar or complex. Even small tweaks, like shifting between thinner and thicker paintbrushes or slightly adjusting the weight of a basketball, can make a big difference.

As with many things, my idea was on the right track but it fell a bit short. I did it simply to help mimic real-world performance, but proper interleaving can actually help with learning.

I’ll continue to interleave in my life where it makes sense, like on the driving range, and I can feel even better that it’ll be helping me to improve in multiple ways.

Multitaskers are the worst at multitasking

by Leave a Comment

Reading Time: 2 minutes

A lot of what I write on here is about me, and this post is a great example of that. While I know that true multitasking is a myth, it’s still something I sometimes spend too much time trying to streamline. In his book “Lost and Founder“, Rand Fishkin shares this:

David Strayer, professor at the University of Utah and coauthor of “Who Multi-Tasks and Why?,” puts it nicely: The people who multitask the most tend to be impulsive, sensation-seeking, overconfident of their multitasking abilities, and they tend to be less capable of multitasking.

The last line is the one that shocked me — those that multitask the most are the ones that are the worst at it. I’m not sure why that is, but I suspect it’s overconfidence. Those that multitask less often are likely to only do it in a short-term, focused way, but those that do it a lot just try to multitask with everything that they do and it doesn’t go well. If you have a different thought on that, please share in the comments.

Super dumb laptops

This came to the surface for me because of some recent conversations I’ve been having with Robert. He’s written a handful of excellent books (I encourage you to check out “The Story Cycle“) and his approach to focus is awesome.

Recently he’s been playing with some simple word processing computers to help him write. By using a device like the AlphaSmart 3000 (below), he’s able to write with literally zero distractions.

He can write for a while, and then pull the text onto his computer later for editing. While he’s writing, literally nothing will get in his way on that device. It’s similar to why I love the Kindle Scribe; an iPad has similar features, but distractions are a key feature on the iPad while the Scribe (and AlphaSmart) helps to keep things focused. You can’t multitask on those devices even if you wanted to.

I still try to attempt multitasking more than I should, but I’m slowly inching away from it and things are always improving as a result of that.

Of course we make assumptions about others

by Leave a Comment

Reading Time: 2 minutes

It’s easy to say that we should never assume anything about anyone, and I agree in theory, but it’s not really possible. While we can limit our assumptions to a degree, we’ll never escape them entirely — and maybe we shouldn’t.

In her book “I Never Thought of It That Way“, author Monica Guzman shares this thought on assumptions:

“We can’t not make assumptions about people. Assumptions are how we navigate a complicated world where we don’t know and can’t know everything about everyone. All we can do is notice the assumptions we’re making and ask why.”

Back in the 90’s I worked at a video game store (which I mentioned briefly here), and it was a fantastic job. However, I had one manager there that was kind of a jerk, and at some point he gave me the cheesy line “if you assume something, you only make an ass out of u and me“. I thought he was wrong then, and I still do now.

  • If someone was standing and looking through the games for the Super Nintendo, I assumed they were interested in them.
  • If someone asked when “Warcraft 2” was coming out, I assumed they were a fan of the first one.

I could have been wrong in either case, but there’s a 95% chance I was right. Plus, the stakes were low and being “wrong” there wasn’t a big deal. The assumptions were beneficial.

Stakes

I think the stakes are the key here. If I assume someone was interested in Super Nintendo games and I was wrong (maybe they were just wasting time while mom shopped next door), it didn’t hurt anything.

On the other hand, bigger assumptions can lead to bigger problems. It reminds of a scene in “The Office” where Michael sees a man walking toward the building wearing a turban and immediately assumes the worst. I couldn’t find the clip, but here’s what it looked like:

While the show made light of it, those are the kinds of assumptions that can lead to real problems.

In almost every case, though, the best move is to follow Guzman’s advice and “notice the assumptions we’re making and ask why.” Being self-aware is powerful and is the often the best way to improve yourself.

Do you think there’s ever a good side to making assumptions? Or should we try to cut them out of our thoughts to the greatest extent possible?

Finding material to deploy attention

by Leave a Comment

Reading Time: 2 minutes

In Daniel Kahneman’s classic book “Thinking, Fast and Slow“, he said something simple that I’ve been chewing on for a long time. He said:

“Intelligence is not only the ability to reason; it is also the ability to find relevant material in memory and to deploy attention when needed.”

The reason this stuck with me is because it’s something that I strive very hard to do, but continue to struggle to reach. I don’t think it’s something that can be accomplished, but rather it’s a tension that will always exist. I’ll keep pushing toward it, and while I’ll never get there, I’ll always be improving.

Specifically, it’s the idea of being able to “find relevant material in memory”. What can you do to improve that? For me, it’s a few things.

At its core, it’s the struggle between fresh and repeat content. I’m always reading more and trying to learn new things, but better understanding of the things I’ve previously learned is likely even more important.

Anki + Readwise -> Blog

More specifically, two of the tools I use to help with that are Anki and Readwise, both of which I use at least a little bit every day. Anki is where I review specific topics and ideas that I want to remember, and Readwise is a way to resurface items that I’ve highlighted in books over the years. Both are fantastic and are helping me move forward, but I have a long way to go.

Of course, this blog factors in heavily as well. I hope you find value in these posts, but they’re also super valuable for me as a way to resurface old topics (like today’s quote from a book I read four years ago) and unpack them a bit further.

I hope to continue to improve in my ability to “find relevant material in memory and to deploy attention when needed“, and as long as I feel I’m not all the way there that’ll give me the inspiration to keep pushing forward.

The Sunday Summary: Word of mouth is in person, tracking everything, and Makers vs Managers

by Leave a Comment

Reading Time: 2 minutes

In an effort to help me keep up with everything I post each week, here is my latest “Sunday Summary” of my posts from the week.

Mon, September 16: Just a little bit can ruin your day
“Our study revealed that individuals who watched just three minutes of negative news in the morning were 27 percent more likely to report their day as unhappy six to eight hours later.”

Tue, September 17: Almost all word of mouth is still offline
How much word of mouth happens online? Most people guess 50% or more, given the popularity of social media, but the real number is much lower. In the book “Contagious“, author Jonah Berger shares that it’s just 7%.

Wed, September 18: But how will we track it?
Tracking can be quite important, and we track all that we can, but it can lead to bad decisions. Rather than choosing the direction that is best, we often resort to choosing the direction that is easier to track.

Thu, September 19: The “Maker’s Schedule” vs the “Manager’s Schedule”
My schedule undoubtedly should be a “Maker’s Schedule” at this point, but it’s still a “Manager’s Schedule” for the most part. It’s something I need to work on, and this simple framework is helping me push it forward.

Fri, September 20: Who are you working for?
“Do you work for the algorithm or are you committed to working for the people who want to go where you hope to take them?”

Sat, September 21: You can’t fix it later
“The idea that one can go all in on career and then later reconcile it with life’s other critical priorities is both popular and seductive. It has one major shortcoming, who has ever successfully done it?”

I hope you found some value in this. If you ever have questions, ideas, or disagreements regarding anything I write, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

You can’t fix it later

by Leave a Comment

Reading Time: 2 minutes

In listening to the Founders podcast, one big theme runs through almost every story that is shared — the founders become incredibly wealthy, but lose their marriage, children, and/or health as a result of it.

An example is Larry Miller, who owned the Utah Jazz. He had it all, but he had nothing. From the show:

All he did from the time his eyes opened until the time his eyes closed, he worked, did not take care of himself to the point where he’s health is so bad that he is in a motorized scooter wheelchair on the floor of the Utah Jazz, he couldn’t even move.

Eventually, he’s writing the book because he knows he’s dying, they’re chopping off parts of his body, legit, there’s no circulation in his legs, they’re like chopping off his foot, there goes your fingers. This billionaire started decomposing when he’s alive, then he doesn’t even survive long enough to finish the book, so his co-author writes last few chapters and the worst indictment and so Larry Miller says my life is cautionary tale.

I have a 30,000-square-foot house on the hill on a mountain in Utah. I own the Utah Jazz, everything. I’m perfect. And he’s like don’t do it, don’t be me. He’s like, I didn’t even have any fun in life. What’s the point of having money then, that doesn’t make any sense to me. And so what happens is the author — the co-author is talking to his wife. The last chapter is the biggest indictment.

And she’s like, well, yes, we miss him, but it’s not like he was here when he was alive. I don’t care that he had billions of dollars. He’s a failure. That’s a failure. When your wife and kids are like, I don’t even know who he is. For what? A chain of car dealerships and movie theaters and basketball teams, you have one shot at life and that’s what you did with it?

As host David Senra shared in an interview on “The Art of Investing”, of the 363 founders that he’s shared only three have done it without losing their family or their life. In David’s estimation, they are:

  • Sol Price, known for starting the “warehouse store” model, like Costco.
  • Brunello Cucinelli, who started an Italian luxury fashion brand.
  • Ed Thorp, a hedge fund manager (among other things).

The challenge for all of the rest is that they think they can ignore their families and their health for decades while they build their career, and then magically put it all back together later. From the show:

“The idea that one can go all in on career and then later reconcile it with life’s other critical priorities is both popular and seductive. It has one major shortcoming, who has ever successfully done it?”

It simply doesn’t happen. In all of the episodes that David has shared, there is literally not one example of someone who pushed everything aside, made a bunch of money, and then pulled everything back together to live happily ever after. If you want to be a Sol Price, Brunello Cucinelli, or Ed Thorp, it all needs to happen at the same time. Those men all “missed out” on some career goals because they prioritized other aspects of their life, but they still made more money than they could ever spend.

It can be tough to keep it balanced, but don’t fall prey to the idea of “I’ll just fix it later”, because no one has ever been able to do it that way before, and likely no one ever will.

Who are you working for?

by Leave a Comment

Reading Time: < 1 minute

People talk about “the algorithm” incessantly, and for good reason. If you’re sharing content online you want it to be seen, and the algorithm is a big piece of that in many cases.

Chasing the algorithm is one way to approach business, and it’s one that we certainly take from time to time. Depending on your goals, that might be a necessity. However, there’s another choice that should be considered every time. From a recent post by Seth Godin:

“The alternative is to be uncomfortable. To create remarkable work and leave scale to others. To figure out how to show up in a way that is generous and distinctive, and to refuse the bait that others take when they decide that feeding the algorithm is their best option.“

As he shares throughout the post, you can’t serve both the algorithm and your users. Are you going to be generous and distinctive, or are you just going to feed the algorithm?

I’ll end this post sharing the same words he ended his with, which I think is a fantastic question:

“If you’re posting on social media or any platform with an algorithm, the real question is: do you work for the algorithm or are you committed to working for the people who want to go where you hope to take them?“

The “Maker’s Schedule” vs the “Manager’s Schedule”

by Leave a Comment

Reading Time: < 1 minute

When I was reading Josh Kaufman’s “The Personal MBA“, he shared this interesting viewpoint about our calendars from Paul Graham. He said:

Paul Graham, a venture capitalist, programmer, and essayist, calls this batching strategy “Maker’s Schedule/Manager’s Schedule.” If you’re trying to create something, the worst thing you can possibly do is to try to fit creative tasks in between administrative tasks—context switching will kill your productivity. The “Maker’s Schedule” consists of large blocks of uninterrupted time; the “Manager’s Schedule” is broken up into many small chunks for meetings. Both schedules serve different purposes—just don’t try to combine them if your goal is to get useful work done.

My initial reading was that most of us should work to have a “Maker’s Schedule” so we don’t kill our productivity, and perhaps that’s true, but there are big exceptions.

It reminded me of someone I worked with years ago when he was a project manager. He was a great guy and worked hard, but he tried to have a “Maker’s Schedule” and that just didn’t work for his kind of role. If you’re a project manager, you have to live by more of a “Manager’s Schedule”, where context switching IS the role. Ultimately, it led to him moving on to a different company (and a very different role) where a “Maker’s Schedule” was the proper fit for what he did.

This also has me thinking about my schedule and role. My schedule undoubtedly should be a “Maker’s Schedule” at this point, but it’s still a “Manager’s Schedule” for the most part. It’s something I need to work on, and this simple framework is helping me push it forward.

What kind of schedule do you have? Is it the right one for what you do?

But how will we track it?

by Leave a Comment

Reading Time: < 1 minute

I recently saw a popular post on LinkedIn that said “To kill a great marketing idea in six words or less, just ask ‘how will we track it?’“

Initially, it sounds like a valid thought. If you can’t track it, why do it?

Tracking can be quite important, and we track all that we can, but it can lead to bad decisions. Rather than choosing the direction that is best, we often resort to choosing the direction that is easier to track.

It’s related to the idea of lift vs attribution. It’s convenient to only do things where you can track the attribution all the way through, but you’ll often miss great opportunities if you focus too hard on that.

Track everything you can, for sure, but don’t let that be the deciding factor on for your next marketing idea.