Belief Makers

My friend Jonathan's motto is, "How hard can it be?" Having developed everything from flight simulators to advanced telephony systems to chips that block epileptic seizures to devices that prevent heart attacks, Jonathan's motto has served him well and often confounded people around him. I find his motto incredibly useful, not only in what it helps me to accomplish, but also in how it shapes my thinking.

At the core of 'how hard could it be?' is the notion that things aren't as different as they may appear to be, that there are common themes that unite apparently disparate sets of activities, processes and systems. If you find these commonalities, you can take something that appears complex and difficult and make it simple.

In Any Key
For example, pretty much any music that you'll ever hear (all western music and much of contemporary eastern music) relies on just twelve notes. Just twelve little notes and hundreds of thousands of songs. Roughly speaking, songs are written in either a minor key (dark and sad) or a major key (bright and happy). So, 12 notes time 2 keys gives you 24 possibilities for any song.
Typically, songwriters compose songs in keys that are easy for them to sing or perform. A singer will adjust the key of the song so that the notes match her vocal range. Many guitar players will select a key that's easy to play on a guitar. However, if someone else is going to perform the song, they may want to do so in a key other than the one in which it was written. This requires that the song be 'transposed', moved from one key to another.
If the song were written in the key of A and the singer wanted to sing it in the key of C (which is three steps higher), then all the chords in the song would need to be adjusted by three steps; an A would become C, a D would become F, a C#minor would become E minor, and so on. If you're a pianist who accompanies singers, then doing this kind of transposition is commonplace and for many, quite challenging. Essentially, as you play you perform a kind of musical math in your head, transposing the chord you see on the page to the one that needs to be played.
For me, transposing has always been really easy and people often wonder how I can hear a song, play it, and then begin to play it in whatever key the performer wants. Once I've got the song, I can play it in any key, without even thinking about it.

Now, here's the 'how hard could it be' part: I never actually transpose.
Instead, I learn the song in a manner that is key-less. Rather than hearing an A followed by a C# minor followed by a D followed by an E, I simply hear the first chord of the scale followed by the third chord of the scale followed by the fourth chord followed by the fifth chord. A-C#-D-E becomes 1-3-4-5.

Since I never learn the song in a key in the first place, so I never need to transpose it. I just go from key to key playing 1-3-4-5. There aren't twelve keys nor twenty-four keys; there's just one.

Why We Make Things So Complex
One of the biggest contributors to 'making things harder than they actually are' is branding. Now, I'm not just talking about Pepsi versus Coke, or Microsoft versus Apple, or Republican versus Democrat types of branding. I'm talking about the apparent need of so many to have something uniquely identified as their own creation, invention or discovery. People will latch on to small nuances among otherwise identical situations and call it something. By calling it something, they shift the focus from the multitude of common threads to the isolated exceptions.

This phenomenon seems to be most pronounced in academic circles where one has to simultaneously prove orthodoxy (showing comprehensive understanding of and adherence to the tenets of the field) while providing novel insights and discoveries. The result is making much ado about nothing.

For example, the phrases autism, autism spectrum, and pervasive developmental delay are more brands than they are descriptions of specific conditions or sets of conditions. In fact, one might argue that as descriptions, they're pretty terrible (what exactly is autism?), but as brands they've become quite powerful (more people have a strong response to the word autism than can tell you exactly what it is). Even the phrase Asperger syndrome is named for the Austrian pediatrician Hans Asperger who, in 1944, described children in his practice who lacked nonverbal communication skills, demonstrated limited empathy with their peers, and were physically clumsy.

So, on the one hand, you have strong brand recognition of autism (and many of its variants) and very little understanding of what autism actually is (almost all treatments are based on interplay with symptoms not core causes). To top it off, you have all sorts of autism treatment protocols whose purveyors are trying to distinguish themselves in the market with branding.

All this mitigates against understanding and effective results.

To be sure, there are differences among various forms of anything. However, most of the differences are not pronounced and certainly not inherent to the brands

Solve Anything, Solve Nothing
In the movie This is Spinal Tap, a mach documentary about a fictitious legendary rock band, the band's leader, David St. Hubbins, has just been handed a copy of the band's latest release, an all black album jacket with no text or photos. His manager tries to explain why an all black album is a great idea comparing it to the Beatle's White album. St. Hubbins comments:
There's a fine line between making something impossible and making it easy. It all comes down to how complex you make the problem, how you frame it. If you spend your time enumerating differences and isolating nuances, then you'll probably be able to make anything impossible. If you look for common threads and filter out insignificant details, then you can do pretty much anything.

Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler."

I'm not advocating oversimplification; however, in a world where so many 'experts' have a vested interest in the complexity of their areas of expertise, it's not likely that you'll find the simple answer there.

The best source for answers is you. Listen to what the experts have to say, do your research, read and study. Then ask yourself, "How hard can it be?"

Happy Monday!
Teflon

Labels: all blogs, empowerment, mark tuomenoksa, philosophy

Every Friday until November 7, 2010 you will find entries from a series written by Iris about her training to run the New York marathon in 2010. It is something she never aspired to do; she has never run a distance of more than two kilometers in her life. In this series she describes her adventures and how she works on her beliefs to transform her challenges and successes into one great experience.

Hello everyone,

Before I start my rant about my running, I want to direct you to a blog from an amazing writer with a son on the spectrum. Her blog is called Zen Master Quinn. Her newest article made us laugh and cry. It is so fabulously written that I don't want you to miss it. So click the link and enjoy.

If you want to support Jenny's writing, you can become a member of her blog and let her know her musings (I would call them art) are appreciated!

This weeks update...
Tomorrow I will run my first 10K and to my surprise I feel prepared! Over the last two to three weeks I have been able to start running again properly, and I have been able to slowly build up the miles. I have not yet been able to run a full 10K, but I have been able to do a combination of running and walking, so I feel confident that I will reach the finish line! Tomorrow is Teflon's birthday and he might even run with me! Awesome, isn't it!

As a way to celebrate my accomplishments so far, I decided to review some of my beliefs and compare them with where I started two-and-a-half months ago.

Running is Healthy
You might thinking. 'Of course running is healthy! Well duh!', but that is not how I saw it. If I ever saw a person running, I would think, "That cannot be good for you. Stressing out your heart, making your blood pump so fast. Those people are going to die some day because they burned themselves out!"

REALLY! That was what I would think. Now, after a couple of months of training, I notice that I breath better, that my skin is softer, that I have a greater appetite for more active things. After having cursed my gym teachers forever because they "forced" every kid to run two kilometers, I am now grateful that they tried. Yes they did. But I didn't want to listen!

Running Makes Me Breathe Better
Time will give me a better perspective, because I have allergy related asthma and the season is only starting, but I must say that without the allergies around my breathing has become much better. I was never someone who had asthma attacks where you cannot breath from one moment to another. Instead, my breathing gets worse over time and my breathing becomes less and less deep.

Because it happens over time, it is not very noticeable. I get more tired and think less clearly, but hey, we all have those days once in a while... not! So, when I was working at Harvard, I decided to visit my doctor. I told him that I wanted to have my breathing checked and when he did, he was surprised about the result. Wow, not enough air to make a baby breathe! No wonder I felt tired! Since then, I am one of the "lucky" people who have an inhaler that I use on a "if needed" basis. And I must say, I have not had to use it a lot lately.

Running Gives Me Longtime Health Benefits
I decided that running is not only helping me with short-term things like breathing and softer skin, but it will also improve my health at old age. Some of you may know that I have signed up for at least 93 years and I want to bring them through in good health. I really have lots and lots of plans for the years to come and would rather not delay them because of health issues. I really believe that active people age later and are in overall better health. I want to be one of those women of 80 that is still running around, doing her daily things as though she were 38.

Running Outside is So Nice!
I didn't realize how much different running outside would be compared to a treadmill. You feel the wind; you smell the odors of the places you pass; you hear the sounds of moving animals or cars. People wave at you; birds fly with you; dogs greet you.

To Run, You Have to Balance Your Mind with Your Body
I never understood that my body consists of different systems that are regulated independently. For example, at this point I believe that I got my first injury because I over trained the muscle in my leg. I believed that when my breathing became better, I could run further and harder. I didn't understand that my muscles have their own training regimen that is independent from my breathing. Now I know that my lungs adapt faster to further distances than my muscles, and that I have to say at a certain point, "Hey stop, no more miles today".

I have to take care of my body.

Running is Fun
Can you believe it? It is something I now look forward to. I am enjoying it. I am even reading about it. I am looking up what other people do, reading tips and browsing race opportunities. It is fun! What a total switch from when I started in January.

I am looking forward to starting 9-mile runs! This is a crazy one. I cannot yet do 9 miles, and I must tell you, 9 Berkshire miles are challenging with all the hills here. Still, I am looking forward to that day that I will be dropped in Great Barrington and then run home.

I am looking forward to it! Can you believe it! Maybe it is because I know that at the end of that day I will be so satisfied. Because it means I have reached a level that I want to be at until I am very old!

OK, there are many more beliefs I could type up right now, but it's time to get moving! Speak to you all again after my first 10K experience. Have a healthy weekend!

Iris

Labels: beleifs, empowerment, iris tuomenoksa, marathon

Over the past couple of months, I've come to realize how few people actually know what the heck they're talking about. It's taken me a while to accept this realization as I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt (understatement) and there are so many people who are capable of conducting syntactically flawless conversation without ever having a clue as to what they've said. Nonetheless, I think it's time that we do something about it.

This Internet Thing
I was working at AT&T when the executives of the company finally decided that this Internet thing wasn't just a passing fad and that, as a communications company, they might actually need to address the burgeoning Internet market. AT&T was structured as a large bureaucracy with hords of minions and middle managers who were still reading and responding to email using paper; their secretaries would print the email, they would scribble their responses on the paper and their secretaries would type the responses.

Suddenly, everyone at Bell Labs who knew anything about the Internet was asked to educate the bureaucratic masses on what the Internet was, how it worked and what it meant to them and their customers. People gobbled up 'for dummies' books on all things Internet. Meetings were called, task forces created, and everyone started using also sorts of Internet-related words and phrases.

At one of our biggest customer conferences (where each customer represented many millions of dollars of annual business), I helped prepare a speech for one of the executives who would present AT&T's plans for Internet-based business services. Throughout her speech, she had pause to allow time for rousing applause and cheers as customers enthusiastically embraced and endorsed the company's grand vision for Internet services. As she walked off the stage, those of us who had helped her prepare congratulated her on a great presentation. She responded, "I don't know what I said, but they sure seemed to like it!"

The audience response did not go unnoticed. Before you know it, everyone seemed capable of delivering rousing speeches without a clue.

Pod Speak
As the Internet 'strategy' developed, I would attend meetings (more accurately depicted as convocations) where the agenda would bounce along like the ball at a kids' soccer match. Absurd propositions would be put forth with nary an eyelash batted. Intractable conclusions would be reached without anyone voicing an objection or pointing out the 'then a miracle occurs' steps. The business executive who had brought me into these meetings asked me to observe, but not to say anything. He would later ask me to tell him in private what I thought.

At one particularly delusional meeting, I finally raised my hand to voice a comment. The meetings were not ones in which people raised hands; instead, anyone wishing to speak would wait for dead air or simply interrupt. After a few minutes, the woman running the meeting determined that my hand would likely not descend until she asked what I had to say. In a room full of executives clad in Giorgio and Hugo, I stood up in my T-shirt and jeans, and began talking about the various conclusions that had been reached and the relative likelihood of success. I believe I might have used the phrase, "we'll have time travel before then" or something like that.

I spoke for just a few minutes providing some clarification on what was and what was not the Internet, how the business model was different than charging 20 cents a minute for a phone call, and so on. Then I sat down.

After a few moments of silence, I was thanked for my comments. The executive who had brought me in was bestowed an evil eye from the meeting's organizer, and the meeting ramped up again to full pod-speak.

The Execution
After the meeting, I stood outside the conference room taking in the imperial majesty of AT&T corporate headquarters one last time. As I stood there, one of the senior executives walked up to me and asked if I'd accompany him to his office. I said, "Uhmm... sure..." wondering if they did 'wet' work at AT&T. We walked into his office (the kind with its own bathroom and where the secretary had a secretary) and he began to ask me questions about the Internet: not convoluted, high-level questions, but basic nuts-and-bolts questions.

I answered. The more I answered, the more he asked. As we proceeded, I noticed a stack of Wired magazines on his credenza and I started to relax a bit. It seemed that he actually wanted to understand the Internet, not just to know what to say and when to say it.

We talked for about three hours after which he asked to me to attend all sorts of meetings and to speak up whenever I felt like it.

Not Everyone Was Happy
When I showed up at the next meeting, I was greeted with an interesting mix of quizzical expressions and sideways whispers. The meeting's organizer quickly approached me, but then noticed the executive who'd invited me beckoning her with outstretched palm and motioning fingers.

I had become part of the business group of AT&T and was no longer just a researcher.

Pervasive Cluelessness
Lately, I've started to notice more and more cases of aggravated cluelessness. I'm sure whether I'm simply becoming better at diagnosing what's been there all along or if there's been a significant increase.

While picking up some batteries at Radio Shack, I overheard the manager telling a customer about the new Sprint mobile phone plan. He mentioned that Sprint works everywhere that Verizon works (as Sprint has a deal with Verizon) and that the Sprint plan is much cheaper.

Since we rely on Verizon Wireless for everything from telephones to our home Internet connection (we can't get cable or DSL where we live), I asked him if the data capabilities on the Sprint phones worked with the Verizon EVDO high-speed data services. This was a question to which there were three acceptable answers: "yes", "no" and "I don't know". After five minutes of buzz words and references to 3G versus 4G, he stopped, looking at me to see if he'd satisfied my request. I told him that I'd understood everything he'd said, but was pretty confident that he'd not answered what I'd asked.

Shotgun or Rifle?
As I've learned more about autism and its treatment, I've started to realize that Pod-speak is perhaps as pervasive and insidious as it had been at AT&T. For years, there has been no foundational theory or blueprint of the physiological basis of autism; instead, treatments have been developed on a trial-and-error basis; a technique or approach is tried and changes are measured symptomatically.

In the absence of a foundational theory, if you want to start helping people right away, then trial-and-error is the way to go. However, if you're using trial-and-error where your only metrics are symptomatic, then you want to be really disciplined in attribution and tracking of what works and what doesn't.

Unfortunately, although a lot of empirical research has been conducted on the causes of autism, most of the work in autism treatment has been conducted outside the lab, or worse, by PhD's in psychology. What you end up with is fuzzy notions of what works and what doesn't, but no exacting specification of techniques and methods. It's somewhat akin to going a doctor who, not knowing exactly which pill will cure what ails you, prescribes a regimen of 100 pills to be taken daily. She knows that something about the combination works, but she can't pinpoint it.

Similarly, if someone prescribes an all encompassing and pedantic regimen designed to help you a person with autism, it's likely that they simply don't know what they're talking about it. It's not that the regimen won't work per se; it's not that they're ill-intended; it's just that they don't know specifically what works and what doesn't, so they prescribe the whole thing.

The problem is that you can end up in a situation where the burden of doing everything just so you can accidentally get to the something that's working often mitigates against doing anything.

What to Do?
I'm not sure why people seem so keen on being perceived as knowing what they're talking about, but it does seem to have reached epidemic proportions. But fear not, there are things that each of us can do to help.

First, if you ever find yourself saying something so as to sound 'smart' or to not be found out, where the easiest answer is simply to say, "I don't know", then repeat after me... I DON'T KNOW. Say it loud. Say it proud. Say it often. You'll feel better. You really will.

Second, if you ever suspect that someone is saying things that they don't fully understand or about which they're clueless, ask them about it. If they throw up the defenses, thank them for their help and move on.

Third, if you've embraced I DON'T KNOW, then you're perfectly positioned to begin learning and discovering on your own. Surely you can gather lots of data by googling and reading; however, don't confuse collecting data with drawing conclusions. Once you've read and talked and discussed, step back and build your own conclusions one step at a time. If there are missing steps, then conduct your own experiments noticing what works and what doesn't. You'll be amazed at all you can figure out on your own.

Fourth, if you really want to rely on the conclusions of someone else, then ask lots and lots of questions.

In the end, clueless is an artifact of neglect, not stupidity.

Have a thoroughly clued-in Friday!

Teflon

Labels: all blogs, autism, empowerment, mark tuomenoksa, philosophy

I guess you could say that my life is pretty busy. We had friends visiting over the weekend and spent the whole time talking, playing music, hiking, eating and drinking.

Since I usually spend a lot of time over the weekend catching up with all the things I 'intended' to do over the week, I got up at 4:00 on Monday morning to play a little catch up. I wrote my blog, coded a bunch of software, worked out, went out and bought a car, went to some meetings, wrote a white paper, and then drove to New Jersey to have dinner with Jonathan, getting to bed at around 1:30.

Tuesday, I got up early and headed to the offices at Angel Medical Systems to catch up with the folks I've been working with and to sketch out the requirements for a new project. After meeting with everyone and flying through my email, I jumped back into the car and headed up to the Berkshires for band rehearsal. I walked back into the house around 10:00PM and spent some time with Iris and our friend Rebbecca who showed up Monday just before I left for New Jersey.

Today looks to be, well, really busy. I love my life.

Shooting from the Hip
While in New Jersey, I sat at lunch with Jonathan and Rich, one of the guys with whom I work quite frequently. Rich is a really sweet man who's also very cautious. He carefully considers all his words. He likes to collect as much data as possible before making a decision. When you ask Rich a question, he'll often spend five minutes providing background and qualifying his answer before actually stating it.

Jonathan is Rich's boss's boss. In terms of being cautious, he is pretty much Rich's opposite. Jonathan will carefully consider his words, but it's usually a bit after he's said them. Being super busy, he makes decisions with as little information as possible. He's good at answering questions with just one word.

So, as we sat at the table, I asked Rich, "What's one thing that you would change about Jonathan's management style."

Rich looked a bit like a deer caught in the headlights (so to speak), but he went for it. He started... stopped... started... stopped... and then closed his eyes carefully considering how to answer the question. He prefaced his answer with qualifications indicating that he'd not spent enough direct time with Jonathan to provide a good answer and that he felt a little uncomfortable with providing an answer given the fact that Jonathan was his boss's boss.

When he did finally get to his answer, it was really good and insightful. He said that he felt as though Jonathan often put him and others on the spot in meetings, that Jonathan sometimes made him feel stupid. As he said this, he was really clear that it wasn't what Jonathan said that made him feel stupid; it was how he was responding to it. He stayed focused on specifics. His response was really good and earnest.

Jonathan then explained why he conducts meetings the way he does. He has very little time and lots of questions to be answered. He listens to people's responses only long enough to know what his next question is. He then interrupts and asks it. He moves things along quite quickly; it's a style that allows him to accomplish all he needs to accomplish.

Jonathan explained to Rich that, if you want to accomplish a lot of things quickly, then it's important to be comfortable making decisions with less information than you might like to have. It was a really great exchange, and Rich, despite his discomfort, was open and engaged.

Chained to the Music
Rehearsal last night was with a new band that I'm really excited to be playing with. We're developing a really funky kind of R&B sound with an amazing young singer accompanied by bass, drums, guitars and horn section. My friend Scott (whom I've mentioned before) is playing trumpet along with me playing sax.

We have an upcoming gig for which we don't have quite enough original material. So, last night we started working on some cover tunes. We did some Michael Jackson and some Marvin Gaye and some Donna Summer. Really awesome music.

Normally, I would write out all the horn parts for Scott as he 'needs' to see the music in order to play it. However, there'd been no time over the past few days to prepare the music, so last night, I simply made up the parts as we went along. I would play a line for Scott that he would listen to and then play back to me. Once he had it, I would add the harmony and off we would go.

Now, since Scott 'needs' sheet music, you might imagine that this would have been a rather long a laborious task as I spoon-fed each note to Scott. It wasn't. In fact, in most cases, I would play a line once and Scott would immediately play it back. Not only that, but as I added inflections and sforzandos and crescendos, Scott would track them completely, in real time. For a guy who can't play by ear, he was absolutely amazing.

What's Your Bias
Each of us enters the world with thousands of biases. Some are biased towards shooting from the hip and others towards careful preparation. Some of us are biased toward reading music to play it and others towards hearing music to play it. Some of us are biased towards staying in the same situation for decades and others towards changing everything all the time. Some are biased towards their left hand, some their right.

As we grow, our biases become more pronounced. Sometimes, it's simply because doing things one way comes more easily than the other. Sometimes it's because we get more of what we want one way than the other. Sometimes it because we're trained one way versus another. Still, after ten, twenty, thirty or forty years, the biases can be so strong that we no longer see them as such; we start to see our biases as 'just who we are'.

As I think about Rich and Scott, I also think about some of the discussions we've had over the past couple of days and the role of bias. For example, in Joy's More Reflections on Burning Bridges, the question really isn't one of whether or not to burn bridges, it's a question of recognizing your bias. Are you someone who's is afraid to let go of relationships or someone who is afraid to hang on to relationships? In regard to Making Commitments and Other Bad Ideas, it's really a question of a bias: translating commitments into judgment-laden obligation or casually making commitments that you never intend to fulfill.

I think it's a great exercise to recognize and consider balancing our biases. As for me, it's always been so much easier just to hear and play that I still can't read piano music. I think I'm going go buy a book of classical pieces and learn to read.

Biasedly, Teflon

Labels: all blogs, empowerment, mark tuomenoksa, philosophy

Last night, I thought more about the 'getting it right' phenomenon I wrote about yesterday in More than You Know. Apparently I was doing much of my thinking while sleeping, because at about 4AM, I suddenly sat up in bed recalling a story about virtuoso jazz pianist Oscar Peterson and virtuoso classical pianist Vladamir Horowitz. As the story goes (whole tone scales playing in the background)...

Horowitz determined that he would to put to rest forever the question of which school of pianists was truly the greatest, the jazz school or the classical school.

Horowitz purchased a copy of one of Peterson's solo recordings and learned to play one of the songs verbatim. Not only did he learn to play exactly the same notes as Peterson, but he also learned to play them flawlessly, even better than the original recording.

Horowitz arranged for a meeting with Peterson. As the two talked about the merits of the schools of music they each represented, Horowitz said to Peterson, I'd like you to hear something. He sat down at Peterson's piano and played the song he'd learned with all the virtuosity and grace of a classical master. When he was done, he turned to Peterson and said, "So, what do you think?"

Peterson who had improvised the original recording, looked at Horowitz and said, "That was great. Play something else."

Getting It Right
Over the years, I've come to realize that no matter what the discipline (music, snowboarding, medicine, business), there are innovators and there are performers. This morning, I came to the
conclusion that the primary difference between innovators and performers is how they feel about 'getting it right'.

Innovators tend not to be too concerned about getting it right. They make lots of mistakes. They're often sloppy in regard to their technique. Their main motivation is pushing the envelope, doing things that haven't been done before.

Performers on the other hand are concerned specifically with getting it right. In fact, not just getting it right, but getting it perfect. Performers may innovate in incremental ways, honing and refining what has been created by others. But in general, their motivations and skills are focused on manifesting the perfect instantiation of something well defined and understood.

Of course, you occasionally encounter someone who is both an innovator and a performer. Bach didn't just compose all those fugues, he could improvise them on the fly. Sean White seems certainly to be redefining the sport of snowboarding while also being the sport's greatest performer. However, people like Sean White and Johann Sebastian Bach seem to be pretty rare.

What's Wrong with Being Great?
Over the years, I've encountered a lot of people who were great performers, but who wanted to be counted among the innovators. In some cases, their being great performers simply wasn't enough for them; they saw being an innovator as somehow better or more prestigious or more important than being a performer.

To some extent, society seems to be of two minds. In the near term, we seem to gravitate to the great performers. However, over the long term, we tend to remember only the innovators. If you were to ask someone about current musicians that he knows, it's likely that all of them would be performers. However, if you were to ask him about musicians from two-hundred years ago, it's likely that he'd list composers, not performers.

The problem with great performers who don't consider being a great performer good enough is that they tend not to be very good at innovating. Getting it right simply gets in the way. Their work tends to be derivative rather than creative, borrowing liberally from what has been done before. When they do 'create', the creation doesn't have the kind of structural integrity found in the work of great innovators. They lack a sense of systemness. They may not even understand the notion of systemness.

In the end, innovation requires a willingness to completely abandon 'getting it right'. In some cases, the path to innovation requires intentionally getting it 'wrong', to break the mold and see what happens. Now, if you're concerned about acceptance or approval or good grades or whatever other rewards come with getting it 'right', then it's likely that you're not going to innovate.

The Innovator's Dilemma
So, how does an innovator deal with the practical aspects of getting it wrong, e.g, not being able to get or keep a job. Well, outside of the simple answer of becoming independently wealthy, one thing that comes to mind is making your passion your vocation and not your occupation.

I have many friends from music school who simply don't enjoy playing music anymore. At twenty, we were all innovators, trying new things and breaking rules. Now that they make their living from music (as teachers, composers, performers or studio musicians), there's very little innovation involved in their work. They're paid to color within the lines and to do so perfectly.

If you put yourself in the position where your livelihood depends on your craft, you're likely to lean towards getting it right. Alternatively, there's always deciding to live on less. It's amazing how much of what we never even considered owning at eighteen becomes absolutely essential at forty.

In regard to More than You Know, Sree commented on the need to get it right being quite deeply seated in most of us. I have to agree that it sure does appear that way. However, from my perspective, it comes at great cost.

OK, I can go back to sleep now.

Happy Tuesday!
Teflon

Labels: all blogs, empowerment, mark tuomenoksa, philosophy

I spent Thursday and Friday in New Jersey working with my friend Jonathan and then hanging out together at night. In the evenings I got to reconnect with old friends and meet new friends. In particular, I got to spend time with and get to better know Jonathan's mom and sisters. It was really fun.

What's with All the Questions?
One of the things that I tend to do when hanging out with people (or pretty much any time I'm with people) is to ask a lot of questions. Friday night, as we sat talking in the kitchen of Jonathan's sister Nancy, I started asking questions of Nancy's friend Lori. Nancy goodheartedly quipped something like, "Watch out, here he goes!"

Now, I get that a lot. People notice that I ask a lot of questions and make different assertions as to why.

Some see all my questions as a kind of shtick which is Yiddish for either a contrived and often used bit of business that a performer uses to steal attention (as in 'play it straight with no shtick') or a devious trick or a bit of cheating (as in 'how did you ever fall for a shtick like that?'). Others, see the questions as a way of hiding whatever my agenda might be, making themselves nervous and spending a lot of time on "why did you ask that?" And still others think that I simply don't like to answer questions, so I ask them instead.

Indeed, to the extent that doing something frequently qualifies as shtick, then perhaps shtick it is. However, although I'm aware of various questions that I seem to ask more frequently than others, I'm not aware of any specific pattern or series of questions that I use repeatedly. The agenda part is always funny in that I'm typically simply interested and curious about the other person, not driving towards anything in particular, but just seeing where the questions and answers will take us. I'm not sure why people find it hard to believe that you're just curious about them, but a lot of people do (find it hard to believe).

The Gorge of Eternal Peril
As we talked about my questioning, Jonathan, referring to Monty Python and the Holy Grail, asked, "What's your favorite color?"

In the movie, King Arthur and his crew approach the Bridge of Death that spans the Gorge of Eternal Peril. To cross the bridge, one must correctly answer three questions put forth by the bridge keeper. If answered correctly, one may proceed. If not, one is cast into the Gorge of Eternal Peril.

Sir Launcelot
The first to approach the keeper of the bridge is Sir Launcelot.

KEEPER: Stop! Who would cross the Bridge of Death must answer me these questions three, 'ere the other side he see.
LAUNCELOT: Ask me the questions, bridge-keeper. I'm not afraid.
KEEPER: What is your name?
LAUNCELOT: My name is Sir Launcelot of Camelot.
KEEPER: What is your quest?
LAUNCELOT: To seek the Holy Grail.
KEEPER: What is your favorite color?
LAUNCELOT: Blue.
KEEPER: Right. Off you go.
LAUNCELOT: Oh, thank you. Thank you very much.

Seeing that Launcelot has crossed safely and that the questions were easy, Sir Robin goes next.

ROBIN: That's easy!
KEEPER: Stop! Who approaches the Bridge of Death must answer me these questions three, 'ere the other side he see.
ROBIN: Ask me the questions, bridge-keeper. I'm not afraid.
KEEPER: What is your name?
ROBIN: Sir Robin of Camelot.
KEEPER: What is your quest?
ROBIN: To seek the Holy Grail.
KEEPER: What is the capital of Assyria?
ROBIN: I don't know that! Auuuuuuuugh!

Poor Sir Robin is cast into the Gorge of Eternal Peril. Sir Galahad approaches the keeper.

KEEPER: Stop! What is your name?
GALAHAD: Sir Galahad of Camelot.
KEEPER: What is your quest?
GALAHAD: I seek the Holy Grail.
KEEPER: What is your favorite color?
GALAHAD: Blue. No yel-- Auuuuuuuugh!

When it comes to questions, I think that many of us treat the answers as though getting them 'wrong' might result in our being cast into the Gorge of Eternal Peril. We start to wonder what's really motivating the questioner. We start to second guess our answers. We start to wonder if our favorite color is blue, no yel--auuugghhh.

Dumbing Ourselves Down
Whatever the motivation is, being concerned about getting answers 'right' has this amazing effect of making us stupid. Oftentimes, the answer that first comes to mind is simply amazing, and yet, we're not sure about it, so we say, "I don't know."

Many of us will play a game of 'wait and see' to make sure that it's 'safe' to answer or to say what we think. We know that we have something to offer, but we hold back.

Indeed, there are many times when people who ask questions do so with hidden agenda. There are many times when people are simply performing shtick. Nonetheless, why hold back, denying yourself and others all your brilliance inside that's just busting to get out.

One of the biggest limiting beliefs that many of us have adopted is, "I have to get this right!" I have a couple of alternatives to suggest:

1. Very little that we do is set in stone, irreversible or unchangeable.
2. Getting it 'best' works much better than getting it 'right'. By getting it best, we simply make each answer the best we have at that moment. A moment later, we can get it best again (making it even better.)

Happy Monday!

Teflon

Labels: all blogs, empowerment, mark tuomenoksa, philosophy

So, when it comes to new relationships, new opportunities, new ideas and new adventures, are you the kind of person who jumps first? Or, are you the one who waits to see what others (or the other) will do?

Maybe you're someone who proposes to jump 'together'? Together may be a way to encourage someone to go with you. Together may be a way to manipulate someone into going before you. Together may indicate a willingness to wait or a lack of willingness to go it alone. Some people can appear to go together when in fact they're so good at watching others that their delay is imperceptible.

Of course, you can never really go together unless each is willing to go alone.

Let's Be Friends, You Go First
Over the past few days, Iris and I have had amazing opportunities to experience all sorts of relationships, potential relationships and former relationships. Last night, as we talked over dinner, Iris commented on what she was seeing as a common theme: who goes first?

Who goes first has lot's of variants. For example, some people play who goes first kind of like you would that Olympic 'sport' curling; they don't really push and they don't really pull, they just keep the other person in play with promises and innuendo like brooms brushing ice around a rock. They're not ready to commit, but they're also not ready to let go.

Others play who goes first by running rapidly towards the edge of the cliff where it's either fly or plummet. They run fast enough to inspire confidence, but not so fast as to lose the person trailing them. They race ahead and then pull up at just the last second, allowing the other to pass them. If the other stops, so do they; if not, they follow on.

Others jump, but they have a hidden parachute strapped to their backs.

Some people adopt the business mantra, 'he who goes first loses'. For example, if you're negotiating a salary or a deal or the purchase of a car, whoever clearly articulates what they're willing to pay or what they're willing to take, loses. For many, this is part of the art of negotiation. They hold their cards close to their chests, revealing no more than what is absolutely required to stay in the game.

Some are more manic, pushing hard sometimes and then suddenly withdrawing.

And then there are other people who don't hesitate whatsoever; they seem not to know that there's a game is being played. Cards face up on the table, they say what they want, they tell you what they'll do, and then they go for it.

How do you approach new relationships and opportunities?

Holding Out for More
I think one of the motivators that drives the who goes first game is a form of playing not to lose that is more like afraid that I could have done better. I can't tell you how many people I know who've held off on committing to a relationship because they felt like, perhaps, just maybe, they could 'do better'. It's amazing how the idea of 'doing better' can get in the way of doing great.

We do this in situations from evaluating our significant relationships to purchasing a house to looking for a new job. I've often called it the fruitless pursuit of perfection; the perfect becomes the enemy of the awesome. In in the end, I imagine it's no different than cocaine addiction or golf, always looking for that high or that round that will surpass (or even be as good as) a previous one.

Delaying Execution
Of course, some people are simply full of crap. They're so concerned about what others are thinking about them that they'll say pretty much anything to keep others in the game. They'll promise, they'll cajole, they'll manipulate, they'll distract and they'll misdirect. They'll say whatever it takes to get another chance. "Just one more day... Just one more time... It will be better, you'll see!"

The toughest part of this is that the best players tend to be the most sincere (in the moment). Although many of us believe you can't lie to yourself (it's kind of definitionaly impossible), there are still cases where people have such strong powers of denial so as to be delusional. They could see through their own lies, but, well, they don't.

Tethered
Then there are the people who actually have no intention of ever fully pursuing their stated desires. They speak of them and flirt with them. They race toward the edge as though to jump only to be yanked back at the last moment by whatever it is that ties them down. It could be a previous commitment, a lifestyle, money, comfort or simply what others would think of them.

I know people who for years have talked on and off about starting their own companies. Yet I'm confident that they'll simply never abandon the comfort of a regular paycheck.

I know others who say they want to do more for the people in the world around them, but their stuff (their possessions, their status, their lifestyles, their relationships) always gets in the way.

I have friends who out of concern about what others might think, stay in relationships with their partners even though both of them want out. They don't have the will to make it work, nor do they have the will to leave it behind.

Depressing?
As I read my post to Iris, her comment was, "Wow, this post is really kind of... depressing!"

I hadn't thought of it that way, but I think I can see her point. If in fact, most people don't simply jump in, but instead, feign jumping while waiting for others to go first... well, you could view it as depressing or as an opportunity to grow and change.

So, are you someone who decides to go for something and then goes for it with complete abandon, or do you hesitate waiting for someone else to lead the way? As you take off on a new adventure, do you strap a parachute to your back or ensure that there's a safety net waiting below? Maybe you talk the talk, but your walk is hampered by the tethers that snap you back to your status quo?

In the movie Gattaca, Vincent explains to his brother Anton how he was able to swim a large expanse of water despite his physical limitations and apparent lack of capacity to do so.

You want to know how I did it? This is how I did it, Anton: I never saved anything for the swim back.

I believe that we often deny ourselves the best we could experience, simply because we hold back, we watch, we wait, we ration, we save our strength for the swim back.

Happy Tuesday!
Teflon

Labels: all blogs, empowerment, mark tuomenoksa, philosophy

Turn this thing around
I will not go quietly
I will not lie down
I will not go quietly

Don Henley, I Will Not Go Quietly

I've recently been doing some work that required me to provide history about myself and the things that I'd done. Since I developed a penchant for being in the present, I haven't done a very good job at cataloging what I've done previously. So, I decided to google myself to determine my history.

Through the course of my googling I found that I'd been awarded nine patents that I was completely unaware of. One of them goes back to work I'd done with an amazing group of people back in the late 80's and early 90's at Bell Labs. I found that I'd even filed a couple of patent applications with Arno Penzias who won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1978.

It was fun to research myself as a third party might and my resume now looks way cool. One of the patents I found took me back to an amazing time in the late 80's.

US Patent 5724590 - Technique for executing translated software
In the late 80's, Don Henley wrote a song that became a theme song of sorts for my advanced development group at Bell Labs. This was a point in time where the computer industry was in flux. At that point, IBM was still a computer company that owned the mainframe market and created the PC market. The Apple Macintosh was a relatively new entry in the fray, and a long gone company call Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) owned half of Massachusetts and most of the mini-computer market.

AT&T had recently divested itself of the operating companies that were called the "baby bells". At that time, these companies were named New England Telephone and Illinois Bell and so on. They went on to become companies like Verizon, Cingular and Qwest. The reason AT&T had let go of these subsidiaries was so that it could launch new businesses focused on the burgeoning computer market. Unfortunately, the business minded folks at AT&T had no clue about the computer market. At a point in time where the leaders of AT&T Computer Systems might have purchased either Apple or National Cash Register (NCR) to get into the computer business for about the same price, they purchased… well, they purchased NCR. Sigh…

That Ain't Squat
Anyway, my group of seven engineers had been working on what would have been the next generation computer for AT&T. We had an operating system developed at Bell Labs called UNIX and a new processor developed by a company called MIPS which was later purchased by Silicon Graphics which became the computing engine for many of the high-end special effects companies in Hollywood (movies like True Lies and Apollo XIII). I had a an amazing visionary boss who said, "In order to have a computer that can win as a late entry into the computer market, it's not enough for it to run UNIX applications (of which there were few); it must also run all Windows and Macintosh applications!!"

Now, he was an amazing visionary with a great ability to inspire and somehow manage technology mavericks, but he had no clue as to how he might accomplish this. So, we set out, it never occurring to any of us that it was impossible, just something that we didn't yet know how to do.

As we developed our new computer, we came up with a system that could literally translate the software running on one system and run it on a completely different system in a way where it was impossible for anyone to see any differences. For example, we could run Macintosh applications and Windows applications and Unix applications all on the same computer at the same time.

Now, this isn't like the virtual machines of today that let you run say Windows on a Macintosh. The systems today count on both systems using fairly similar architectures (for example the same processor). In this case, the hardware systems were completely different from one another. (For fellow geeks out there, one was running on Intel x86, another on Motorola 68xxx and yet another on the MIPS R3000.) The other really cool thing was that our translated applications ran much faster after translated than before translated, i.e., our virtual applications ran about 5-times faster than the originals. Even today, the virtual applications are never quite as fast as the originals.

In addition to this, we developed all sorts of advanced media processing capabilities, text readers, voice processing and so on. It was an amazing time and there seemed little we couldn't do. Our little desktop machine could do the work of many computers and was more powerful than a Cray supercomputer.

We called our new computer squat so that no one could say, "That ain't squat."

Everyone Wanted to Help
As word of our little project started to spread, different people began knocking on our door to see if they could help us. It turns our there were whole research departments dedicated to different pieces of what we had done, departments dedicated to speech processing technologies, departments focused on reading text, departments focused on new operating systems, departments focused on compiler technologies (the technology basis for translating applications).

However, in many instances, the offers of help were in fact suggestions that we not use the technology that we had developed, but instead, use the technology developed by the various "helping" organizations. Some of these suggestions were made quite strongly to the point of being perceived as demands. I started to learn about the politics of academia and research.

Essentially, no one believed that a small group of just seven people could have accomplished as much as had and that we should avail ourselves of the work of these much larger organizations. We were open to doing so, but only if what was there actually worked and worked better than what we had. We didn't find much evidence of that and said, "Thank you, no."

Oops... next thing you know, we were the subject of a technology audit by some really high-powered people from the research organization. It was their job to review what we'd done and see whether or not it was real. It was fascinating.

The Inquisition
So one afternoon we were visited by an amazing group of people including Al Aho, Peter Weinberger and Brian Kernighan (the namesake of the Unix program AWK), Larry Rabiner who ran the speech research lab, and Arno Penzias (the head of Bell Labs Research). We walked them through everything that we'd done providing demonstrations, presentations and fielding questions.

To say that these guys really knew their stuff would be a bit of an understatement. They asked specific and insightful questions about various aspects of the project and gave up little in the way of the impressions they were taking away. As we progressed through the afternoon, the folks on our team would check in with one another wondering how things were going.

Finally, as we gathered around a monitor for one of the final demonstrations, Peter Weinberger leaned over to me and softly said, "You know, this is really impressive."

I felt as though I'd been holding my breath for three hours and had finally exhaled. My whole body relaxed in a way that let me know that I'd been carrying a lot of tension.

We were officially audited and approved.

Project Canceled
At the end of 1990 going into 1991, AT&T purchased National Cash Register (NCR) for $7.5 billion. The idea was to quickly enter the computer business by purchasing a cash register company; it ended up decreasing the wealth of AT&T shareholders by between $3.9 billion and $6.5 billion. Anyway, when AT&T made the acquisition, they decided that we didn't need to be developing new computers anymore and to "redeploy" the members of our team.

It was a really amazing group that had a great working chemistry and I had no intention of disbanding it. I made various appeals up the chain of command to no avail. As the deadline approached, I found another organization within the company that had defined some new, funded projects that desperately needed a strong working team with the kinds of skills my team had. Without asking permission, I transferred each of them to that organization.

A few weeks after the transfer was effected, I sat in my office the lone remaining member of my team on the organization chart. My phone rang. When I answered, I heard the voice of the executive assistant to our senior vice president talking into what was clearly a speaker phone surrounded by other people. He said, "Mark, I want you to think very carefully before answering the following question. How is that your team ended up in thus-and-such organization?"

I wasn't particularly good at taking advice, and without hesitation I said, "Because I transferred them there?"

Life After Life
Well, eventually they got over it and I ended up getting a job in the basic research group thanks to the new relationships I'd established through our technology audit. AT&T later ended up selling of NCR and exiting the computer business and then being purchased by one of the operating companies that it had dumped years earlier.

My team ended up doing some amazing work creating a system that was purchased by Apple to move many of their applications from the Motorola 68xxx to the PowerPC and I had a grand time in the research group.

It was nice to think about those times and remind myself of not lying and not going quietly.

Teflon

Labels: all blogs, empowerment, mark tuomenoksa, philosophy

Talking with Mark and Katya last night, Mark thanked me for laying out argument and forms of fallacy in such a clear and concise manner, "Now that I see it laid our so clearly, it will be easy for me to effectively construct illogical and fallacy-laden arguments with a near zero rate of anything that makes sense!"

A Better World through Argument
Sigh... I guess that argument is like any other powerful tool; it can be used and it can be misused. But, nonetheless, I was thinking that (despite anything my dad might tell you) I would love to be surrounded by people who's skill at argument far surpassed my own. Why?

1. In order to argue well, you must think clearly and speak from understanding. I've mentioned before that when people say something is so complex that it's difficult to explain, it's not because the subject is complex; it's just that the person speaking doesn't fully understand the subject. If you're not only explaining, but arguing, then understanding is no longer optional.
2. Because argument exposes places where we don't fully understand what we say we understand, it creates new opportunities for growth and learning. People who actively and successfully argue their perspectives and beliefs know their stuff.
   
3. For me, people who really know their stuff and are open to arguing and learning are much more interesting and enjoyable to be around. Alternatively, spending time with people who lack strong argumentative skills feels like playing basket ball on sand or pool on a warped table; they're either unresponsive to new ideas and musings or they take them down nonsensical pathways to irrelevant destinations . It's not that you can't have fun in either activity, it's just not my preference.

So, I selfishly want people to become great arguers because, people who are great arguers aren't boring. Of course, there are other good reasons for having people argue well like ending war, poverty and hunger. But, for now, I'll settle for people becoming more interesting.

Activities
As I've received feedback on For the Sake of Argument and Fallacy, a common thread has been the recognition of places where people routinely experience poorly constructed argument or the use of fallacy.

One friend said, "Wow, I had a boss who would constantly use Appeal to Authority, Appeal to the People, Ad Hominem and Genetic Fallacy. I always knew that there was something wrong with his arguments, but could never put my finger on it."

Another said, "I've never seen argument as a way to build consensus and agreement. I always thought it was about getting what you want and winning!"

And yet another said, "After reading your articles, I've been hearing what people say completely differently. I was listening to a commentator on the news and realized that he was using all sorts of fallacy as the basis for his conclusions."

So, if you'd like to join me in my quest to make my world more interesting to me, here are some steps that you can begin taking today.

Step One: Listen Critically
One of the things that you might want to do is start to listen to what you hear (on the radio, at the coffee shop, at work, in meetings) with a more critical ear regarding the construction of argument and the use of valid propositions. You don't need to respond or argue, just listen and see if you can map various statements to valid or invalid proposition. If the proposition is valid, ask yourself why it is valid. If it's invalid, why?

Step Two: Practice
Step two can be conducted alone using a recorder or better yet, with a partner also interested in honing their skills. The basic idea is to take an opinion that you hold that may be a bit controversial and argue it, presenting what you believe in a logical manner without fallacy.

Start by proposing premises that you and the person who is hearing your argument agree to. From there, draw inferences and slowly build towards your conclusion (your opinion). The role of your partner is to either accept or decline each proposition. If your partner declines, then it's your job to re-frame, change or discard your proposition.

Of course, in all likelihood the process will not move from premises through inferences to conclusion, but instead will bounce back and forth starting with your conclusion and determining what propositions are required to support it, then the propositions required to support those propositions, and then finally moving forward from the base premises.

Step Three: Perform
Step three is my favorite part. At dinner or in a meeting or at a party or anywhere that you find yourself in a discussion where two clearly independent perspectives are being expressed (yours being one of them), invite everyone to join in formal argument between yourself and the proponent of the other perspective. Quickly explain the rules of engagement (building one brick at a time) and the concept of fallacy (you might even have a little sheet that lists various forms of fallacy). You could treat the whole thing like playing pictionary or charades.

Each of you can then present your arguments to the other whose only job is to accept or decline. The other participants serve as the adjudicators validating whether or not you've stuck to the format and whether or not your propositions are valid.

This might be a great exercise for corporate team building or even conflict resolution. Collect a group of interested parties, present them with a sheet that provides the rules on the front and the list of fallacies on the back, and then have at it.

Setting Out
My interests aside, seeing as we all experience argument on a daily basis, we might as well become good at it.

So, spend this week listening with a critical ear and making note of the various forms of fallacy you hear. You might even write down your own version of the rules of engagement and the definition of various fallacies. If you feel inspired, share your observations with others and ask them to join you.

I'd love to hear the insights you garner. I might even begin working on a completely non-trademarked and open to anyone, Argument, the board game.

Carry on,
Teflon

Labels: all blogs, empowerment, mark tuomenoksa, philosophy

Over the past months I've had some rather enthusiastic and energetic discussions with many of you regarding the idea of an independent body of independent people who might serve as a peer review group regarding Option and the dialogue. In this article, I'd like to propose the creation of such a peer group.

Peer Review
Peer review is a process by which the creative work and/or performance of an individual may be evaluated by other people in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the quality of the work or performance. The basic ideas is that a larger and more diverse group of people will usually find more weaknesses and errors in a work or performance and will be able to make a more impartial evaluation of it than will just the person or group responsible for creating the work or performance.

To obtain an unbiased evaluation, the peer review process depends on the independence of the reviewers to discourage potential favoritism shown to relatives, colleagues and friends. Typically, the reviewers are not selected from among the close colleagues, relatives or friends of the creator or performer of the work, and potential reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Peer review helps maintain and enhance quality by identifying potential flaws in work and recommending alternatives that might correct those flaws.

Monopolies
I'm not familiar with the process by which folks who have carried on the wonderful work of Bruce Di Marsico determine what is included in the canon of the Option Method nor am I aware of how or whether or not they have process by which people are certified to conduct Option Dialogues. I'm somewhat more familiar with the approach taken by the Kaufmans have put into place.

In particular, the Kaufmans' approach to review and certification is essentially the opposite of peer review; certification and review are conducted by a single group who assert exclusive ownership of the process and it at least appears to favor family members and friends. Further, certification of the quality of performance and/or creative work is lumped together with control of where and how one might practice the skills for which one has been certified. Several certificate holders have told me that they were told by staff at the Institute that that they would not be re-certified or not invited to participate in certain parts of the process simply because their activities were not viewed as "supportive" of the Institute.

Of course, the Kaufmans can do whatever they want with their certification; after all, it's their certification. However, the philosophy, the methods and the dialogue are not. Therefore, I'd like to establish an independent process that is owned by no one in particular and focuses exclusively on the quality of the work or performance.

Getting Started
At first blush it seems that there are two or three basic tasks that are required to get all this underway. These tasks involve the creation of original work that would not be beholding to anyone or any group.

The Philosophical Canon
The first thing I'd like to create and have reviewed by peers is a canonical representation of the core Option philosophy. Over the past couple of weeks, I've started to take a cut at various pieces of this and have been thrilled with all the feedback I've received, some reinforcing what I'd written and other challenging it.

I'd like to take the process beyond my musings on various aspects of what is and what isn't Option and collectively create a more formal thesis on Option. I'd be happy to work with others in any number of ways to do this. From taking a first cut myself and then asking for feedback from others, to creating an outline of the entire work and then dividing the work up among us, to simply coordinating the work of others.

My goal would be to have a clear, concise and immensely useful guide to Option that would be owned by no one in particular and available to anyone free of charge (electronically) or for minimal charge (to cover costs) were we to create a physical book. A peer review process would be employed to ensure the quality of the work. Not everyone would have to agree on every item; however, wherever there were significant disagreements, we would always present the minority view along with the majority view.

Application via the Dialogue
The second order of business would be a similar document regarding the application of the philosophy in the form of talk-therapy referred to by many as the 'dialogue'. I would love to come up with a basic 'How to' guide for the applying the philosophy in the form of talk therapy, a sort of "Dialoguing for Dummies" kind of book (though I'd love to replace dialoguing with an actual verb).

Much has been written about the dialogue and there are many bits and pieces floating about that identify types of questions, types of experience (e.g., thoughts versus feelings versus beliefs), or techniques to be applied under various sets of circumstances. However, I am unaware of any clear and systematic presentation of the techniques that would survive formal scrutiny of peer review process.

I would love to create something that is clear, concise and simple, while also being comprehensive and systematic. As with the canon on the philosophy, I would like this to be done in a collaborative manner in which the results would be owned by no one in particular and available to anyone free of charge or at minimal cost where costs have been incurred.

Certification Process
The third task would be to establish a set of criteria and process by which practitioners might be certified in teaching the philosophy and/or providing talk therapy. Documentation of the criteria would be based upon the two documents I've outlined above. The review process would be conducted by a subset of peers selected at random so as to preclude cronyism.

The trickiest part would of course be getting started or bootstrapping as we call it in the software business (pulling yourself up by your bootstraps). My thought is to create a volunteer group of anyone who has been previously certified by Bruce's or the Kaufman's organizations to conduct dialogues, and then as a group to determine the criteria and the process.

It could be that initially the intersection of the sets of ideas and beliefs is much smaller than the union; however, I also believe that through open exchange and in the absence of motivation to promote any specific brand of philosophy, we could arrive at a common set of criteria that we all agree upon.

Our goal would be to move toward consensus, identifying criteria upon which we agree and criteria upon which we don't. I believe that the result would be something that no one has yet fully conceived and that the result would far exceed the sum of the parts.

Once the criteria were established, the first task of the group would be to certify one another. Once a body of certified individuals were established, we could establish a process by which others might be certified.

In the case of certification, I would make all the criteria and documentation free of charge. However, I would want to at least minimally compensate individuals who spend their time reviewing the work of others as part of the certification process.

Open Source
In software, their is a concept called "open source". It's a process by which writers of software can make their work available to anyone for free and simultaneously protect the work from being picked up by others and marketed and sold as their own work, or even more importantly claimed as their own. I believe that many of the principles of open source apply to what I'm proposing here. There are standard licensing agreements that cover this type of work. I'll do a bit of research to ensure that whatever it is we come up with will remain in the public domain and cannot be copyrighted or trademarked by anyone else.

Interested?
I believe that the Option philosophy and its application in the form of talk therapy and thought process can have a profound effect on our world. However, based upon the number of people familiar with the philosophy and its application, I believe we have not been good stewards of what we been given. I'd like to change that.

If you would like to join me in taking this to the next level, please leave a comment, but more importantly, please email me at mark@tefsoft.com as blogger isn't always great at ensuring that comments actually show up. Even if you're not interested in what I propose per se, I'd love to hear alternatives to what I've outlined above.

Happy Wednesday!
Teflon

Labels: all blogs, empowerment, mark tuomenoksa, philosophy

Exactly one year ago, I started the A New Option blog. I was insecure about how to present the teachings I had learned and how to explain the ways in which I personally had changed my life by using these tools. I was starting my own little business, and realized soon that I was not able to explain properly the concepts of my coaching to the people that contacted me. I was trained well in my coaching, but had no idea about how to present my skills in a way that empowered others.

When I started writing I learned very quickly how powerful writing was for me. I had to verbalize what I had learned. I had to develop myself into a teacher that could convey ideas and concepts in a useful way to others. Now I recognize that I held myself back by constantly activating childhood beliefs that said that I was not good at language and expressing myself.

As a kid language was challenging. I wrote right to left, wrote inverted, reversed and confused letters. I could not copy sentences without mistakes for quite some time. I also had problems bringing my words into in thoughts, and was regularly misunderstood when I tried to convey my thoughts. For a long time I felt that my thoughts and feelings were dismissed as unimportant, to which I responded with upset and frustration. Have you ever seen a five-year-old turning red and screaming from the top of her lungs or crying non-stop because she felt frustrated that she could not explain what was going on in her mind? That was me!

Empowerment

Labels: all blogs, empowerment, iris tuomenoksa