Great people talk about ideas.
Average people talk about things.
Small people talk about other people,
and then, sadly, there are the people who love to talk about themselves.
[ via @gapingvoid ]
Great people talk about ideas.
Average people talk about things.
Small people talk about other people,
and then, sadly, there are the people who love to talk about themselves.
[ via @gapingvoid ]
The problem is that often less takes longer than more. It’s the irony of less. Less is more powerful but it’s often harder to produce.
[ via When in Doubt, Leave it Out (Why Less is More) | Both Sides of the Table ]
Interesting guest post by Ryan Holiday on Tim Ferriss‘ blog:
What we could accomplish personally if, like Montaigne, we spent those 20 hours (whether usually spent on news sites, games, or Lost episodes) examining ourselves and learning what makes us tick?
[ via The Experimental Life: An Introduction to Michel de Montaigne ]
What if, however, our focus was on others rather than ourselves?
Note to self: explore Bradford-Hill criteria (Epidemiology) as model for exploring ‘spreadability’ of an idea.
Warning: remember, epidemics are bad, so what would make this more like a movement than an epidemic?
- Strength: A small association does not mean that there is not a causal effect, though the larger the association, the more likely that it is causal.
- Consistency: Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect.
- Specificity: Causation is likely if a very specific population at a specific site and disease with no other likely explanation. The more specific an association between a factor and an effect is, the bigger the probability of a causal relationship.
- Temporality: The effect has to occur after the cause (and if there is an expected delay between the cause and expected effect, then the effect must occur after that delay).
- Biological gradient: Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect. However, in some cases, the mere presence of the factor can trigger the effect. In other cases, an inverse proportion is observed: greater exposure leads to lower incidence.
- Plausibility: A plausible mechanism between cause and effect is helpful (but Hill noted that knowledge of the mechanism is limited by current knowledge).
- Coherence: Coherence between epidemiological and laboratory findings increases the likelihood of an effect. However, Hill noted that “… lack of such [laboratory] evidence cannot nullify the epidemiological effect on associations” .
- Experiment: “Occasionally it is possible to appeal to experimental evidence”.
- Analogy: The effect of similar factors may be considered.
Instead of impressive people attempting to impress each other, I found a group of people willing to be human, willing to be honest and vulnerable in admitting the broken parts of their stories. There were confessions of mistakes and questions and doubts.
[ via To Write Love on Her Arms ]
A homeless guy helped my neighbors move their stuff in. They gave him $20. He said, “Money for a little bit of work? Hey, that’s not bad!”
[ via @Eric Fisher ]
I had a thought the other day:
“I wonder how many college students are looking for #cmtymgmt #octribe internships? Thinking about creating “community college” =)”
I have not nailed down all the details yet, but I’m trying to live my life as a draft, so I’m thinking out loud here.
Essentially, I’m trying to collect a group of folks interested in community cultivation, but who might not have quite the amount of experience many companies are looking for. We would talk shop about community cultivation, and I would be available as a resource to both the company and the intern, but the intern would get a TON of hands on experience.
My mind works while I sleep, and dreams while I am awake–which has done wonders for my productivity and creativity.