Get Started for FREE
Sign up with Facebook Sign up with X
I don't have a Facebook or a X account
 Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scoop.it!
From
seths
That story in your head? It’s invented. It has to be. It might be based on some things that actually happened. The story we tell ourselves might be a useful predictor now and then. The story … 
No comment yet.
Sign up to comment
Scoop.it!
Peace might not mean getting everyone else to do what you want them to do. Instead, it might involve understanding that people don’t always want what we want and don’t often believe wha…
Scoop.it!
“How was your day?” It’s tempting to answer with just one word. “Fine.” The same way we try to lump a job, a project or a person into a single emotion. As if thereR…
Ana Cristina Pratas's insight:
“How was your day?” It’s tempting to answer with just one word. “Fine.” The same way we try to lump a job, a project or a person into a single emotion. As if there’s a prize for brevity, and pressure to categorize a lifetime of experiences and expectations into just a few words or a single feeling. Whatever we’re encountering is a combination of experiences and feelings–from extraordinary to banal to absurd. The real question is, “which part are you focusing on?” If you’re focusing on the part of your day that was “fine”, then you’re ignoring the parts that were a miracle, or disappointing, or thrilling. We get what we pay attention to. Our narration determines what we experience and what we remember. If your narration isn’t helping you, perhaps it pays to focus on something else. “Which part of your day are you experiencing right now?”
Scoop.it!
What if today, just for today, we didn’t settle? What if we saw precisely the change we sought to make and sacrificed to make that change? What if we set aside urgencies and focused simply on…
Scoop.it!
I’ve heard from people who have theorized that Tesla’s window-breaking launch of the super-brutal pickup truck was either an intentional fail (look at all the publicity they got!) or a …
Ana Cristina Pratas's insight:
(...)
"The lesson is simple:
Early adopters are thrilled by the new. They seek innovation. Everyone else is wary of failure. They seek trust.
(...)
The thing is, innovation has long-term benefits for all of us. The craven search for attention at all costs does not.
Musicians have figured this out–every new song has to push the envelope, has to somehow make things better and be new enough to matter–but at the same time, they can’t burn the trust of audience they’ve earned to date. The Who can smash guitars and Dylan can mumble, but Kenny G can’t do either.
When everyone is a marketer and when everyone has a platform and when everyone can burn trust to seek attention, this is a useful lesson for each of us. Because in the short run, while attention can feel like a proxy for innovation, when it comes to actual commitments, most customers choose trust instead of commotion."
Scoop.it!
It’s all happening at once, and we have to choose. What to read, listen to, answer? A spam from a scammer An @ mention on Slack A voice mail from the boss An email from a customer A DM on Sla…
Ana Cristina Pratas's insight:
The attention crisis is realIt’s all happening at once, and we have to choose.
What to read, listen to, answer?
A spam from a scammer An @ mention on Slack A voice mail from the boss An email from a customer A DM on Slack A last-minute sale email from a store you’ve never visited A year-old blog post A new blog post A new podcast A …
[sorry, got distracted.]
The idea that we can strip mine attention, wasting what we don’t need, is long gone. Like oysters and oil before it, attention is a scarce resource, and we need to use it wisely. Too often, it feels cheaper to simply take what we can get, but when we overreach, the cost in trust is real.
And each of us gets the same amount of attention to spend each day. It’s a competitive advantage to figure out how to focus it to get something done.
Scoop.it!
Perfect is the enemy of good. Of course it is. But that simple sentence becomes more urgent when we realize that nothing (and no one) is perfect. How could it be? And so, if your hero, your cause, …
Ana Cristina Pratas's insight:
"Perfect is the enemy of good. Of course it is.
But that simple sentence becomes more urgent when we realize that nothing (and no one) is perfect. How could it be?
And so, if your hero, your cause, your holiday, your background, your relationship… if it’s not perfect, does that mean you should hide it? Be ashamed of it? Be afraid of it?
We’re surrounded by injustice, and yesterday was even worse. It’s so easy to find things that are imperfect and criticize them or worse, shame them.
Better, I think, to find glimmers of good and seek to amplify them. Mistakes can be seen, errors can be improved upon, progress can be made. But only if we embrace the chance for good.
The imperfect is an opportunity for better."
Scoop.it!
A friend reached out because she’s thinking of using Kickstarter to fund her new book. That conversation led to a discussion about what Kickstarter is actually good at and how to use it. It t…
Ana Cristina Pratas's insight:
(...) The uses of Kickstarter:
To raise money you don’t have for a project that you’ll be able to build and then ship to your supporters and people who already know you and trust you.
To create a community for an art project that isn’t designed to be a profitable business.
To have a temporary online store (instead of something more permanent, like Shopify), where you can run a pop-up and then be done (and move on to the next thing). It’s an effective way to highlight the tension of go/no go.
To capture the energy and attention of large numbers of people who don’t know your work (this almost never ever works and is the worst of these reasons).*
To give your existing fans and followers an organized way to support you and to see it unfold in real-time.
To have a simple, structured place to put your idea. By limiting your options and giving you deniability, it makes it easier for some to move forward.
To give you a safe place to succeed as well as to not-succeed. There’s a limit on the time and money you can invest because of the structure of the platform.
Most of the time, for most projects, Kickstarter isn’t the answer to the question you’re asking. That’s because it could more accurately be called Kickfinisher–you build a following first, over time, and then Kickstarter is the moment in time that those followers show up for your work."
Scoop.it!
Are today’s 50 richest billionaires happier than the 50 richest people who lived twenty years ago? It’s unlikely. And yet they control many times as much wealth. If you take a date to t…
Ana Cristina Pratas's insight:
"Are today’s 50 richest billionaires happier than the 50 richest people who lived twenty years ago?
It’s unlikely.
And yet they control many times as much wealth.
If you take a date to the fanciest, most exclusive restaurant in Portland, you may find the satisfaction that comes from having done something exclusive. On the other hand, if you were at that very same restaurant in Los Angeles, it might feel like a disappointing compromise. Same food, different status.
A 440-foot yacht isn’t better than a 200-foot yacht, unless we’re measuring ‘better’ in terms of status. And of course, once someone has a 445-foot yacht, then the 440-foot model is a lot less attractive, isn’t it?
And that’s why status-seekers need limits.
The Citation X can fly at 711 miles an hour. And no matter how much you spend, you can’t buy a jet that will go 800 miles an hour. Because the laws of physics (combined with the laws on sonic booms) make it impossible with our current technology. As a result, the owner of a Citation X can find the satisfaction that he has reached the limit.
There are two dangers of measuring happiness along just one axis. The first is that you will be easily disappointed, because the unbalanced approach to maximizing a single variable increases the chance that you will end up behind.
And the second is that you might actually succeed in hitting a limit. And then where will you find your happiness?
We (everyone around us) come out ahead when we create positive externalities for people who are competing to win. When folks are seeking to compete on who can build the most libraries, endow the most scholarships, and yes, pay the most taxes, it leads to a positive cycle of better. And we challenge our sports heroes to beat each other senseless as a form of entertainment.
But only within the rules.
Life without limits rarely leads to satisfaction. And billionaires who pay taxes aren’t less driven or less happy than billionaires who don’t.
For them, for all single-axis competitors, it’s the game, the hierarchy, the rankings that matter. In fact, that’s true for just about everyone who cares about status. Boundaries are what allow games of status to exist."
Scoop.it!
School trains people to work as maintainers. “The sculptures are all here in the gallery, make sure they are still here at the end of the shift… The floor is clean when you start, make …
Ana Cristina Pratas's insight:
"School trains people to work as maintainers. “The sculptures are all here in the gallery, make sure they are still here at the end of the shift… The floor is clean when you start, make sure it’s clean when you finish… The policy manual has seven rules in it, please don’t break them… The next ten patients are going to need allergy tests…” There are customers to be served, standards to be maintained, work to be done. Important work, no doubt, but not thrilling.
A few people somehow avoid these lessons and become instigators, impresarios and disruptors instead. They’re not only dancing with infinity but completely unsure what’s going to work, and yet they are hooked on leaping forward.
I think it’s possible to switch from one posture to the other. I know that it’s incredibly difficult, though. And it’s hard to do both at the same time."
Scoop.it!
Four years at MIT cost about $250,000 all in. Or, you could engage in more than 2,000 of their courses on their site, for free. What’s the difference? When you do education, you pay tuition, …
Ana Cristina Pratas's insight:
How much is that piece of paper in the window?Four years at MIT cost about $250,000 all in. Or, you could engage in more than 2,000 of their courses on their site, for free. What’s the difference?
When you do education, you pay tuition, plus you pay with a focus on compliance. Traditional education requires that students trade in freedom of choice, coerced by tests and exams. And what do you get? You get an ‘A’ and you get a certificate.
The power of that certificate is extraordinary. Students (and their families) will go a lifetime in debt to get that paper. They’ll make choices about time and focus and geography for that paper, ignoring what’s ostensibly possible in exchange for the certainty of acquiring it.
Learning, on the other hand, is self-directed. Learning isn’t about changing our grade, it’s about changing the way we see the world. Learning is voluntary. Learning is always available, and it compounds, because once we’ve acquired it, we can use it again and again.
Many adults in the US read no more than a book a year. That’s because books aren’t assigned after you’ve got your paperwork done.
We’re surrounded by chances to learn, and yet, unless it’s sugarcoated or sold in the guise of earning a scarce credential, most of us would rather click on another link and swipe on another video instead.
The exception: People who have chosen to be high performers. Doctors, athletes, programmers and leaders who choose to make a ruckus understand that continuous learning is at the heart of what they’ll need to do.
“Will this be on the test?” is a question we learn from a young age. If you need to ask that before you encounter useful ideas, you’ve been trapped. It’s never been easier to level up, but the paper isn’t as important as we’ve been led to believe.
Scoop.it!
AI can now easily (8 seconds) change the identity of someone in a film or video. Multiple services can now scan a few hours of someone’s voice and then fake any sentence in that person’…
Scoop.it!
A generation ago, there was a real worry: privileged parents, those with time, education and money, were giving their kids access to the tools of the net while other kids were missing out on the we…
Ana Cristina Pratas's insight:
A generation ago, there was a real worry: privileged parents, those with time, education and money, were giving their kids access to the tools of the net while other kids were missing out on the wealth of interactions and information available online. The fear was that this gap would further magnify differences in opportunity.
Today, as digital tools get cheaper and more widespread, a new gap is appearing:
If a parent uses a tablet or a smartphone as a babysitter, it’s a lot easier to get a kid to sit still. As a result, parents who are busy, distracted or can’t afford to spend as much 1:1 time as they’d like are unknowingly encouraging their kids to become digital zombies, with a constant need for stimulation, who are being manipulated by digital overlords to click and click some more. If a kid can’t read, it’s not clear he should be surfing the web, watching TV or playing a videogame for hours a day.
Boredom, daydreaming, a good book, building in three dimensions, interactivity with other humans–these are precious skills, skills that are being denied kids that are simply given a plate of chicken fingers and a tablet instead.
|
Scoop.it!
They’re not very good at hiding. If you see an elephant in the room, it’s possible that other people do too. The best way to get it to leave is to simply mention that it’s there.
Ana Cristina Pratas's insight:
The thing about elephantsThey’re not very good at hiding.
If you see an elephant in the room, it’s possible that other people do too.
The best way to get it to leave is to simply mention that it’s there.
Scoop.it!
As soon as competitive people start to measure something, there’s pressure to make it better. And once better reaches the maximum level, it’s optimal. But perhaps that’s not reall…
Scoop.it!
Many of the ones I know are terrible listeners. They don’t actively engage, don’t see the people who are right in front of them, and don’t exercise much in the way of curiosity or…
Scoop.it!
The math is compelling. You’re going to lose most of the competitions you enter. How could it be any other way? With a hundred or a thousand or a billion people completing, only one wins. Whi…
Ana Cristina Pratas's insight:
The math is compelling. You’re going to lose most of the competitions you enter. How could it be any other way? With a hundred or a thousand or a billion people completing, only one wins.
Which means that you’re going to be seen and measured by how you lose, not how you win.
The way to win is usually to fit in all the way, to give the judges precisely what they want, to train just like everyone else, but harder.
But the way to lose with style is to create possibility. To be creative. To do generous work that’s worth talking about.
If you’re going to lose (and you probably will), why not lose with style?
Scoop.it!
When someone tells you what you need to hear, instead of what you’re hoping to hear, you’ve found something priceless. This takes care, generosity and guts to achieve. When you offer th…
Ana Cristina Pratas's insight:
"When someone tells you what you need to hear, instead of what you’re hoping to hear, you’ve found something priceless.
This takes care, generosity and guts to achieve.
When you offer this gift to someone else, it might seem like it’s unappreciated. But you didn’t do it to be appreciated, you did it because you care enough to work for a deep connection, one that makes things better.
Best to devote that energy to people and causes that can run with it."
Scoop.it!
The flawed theory is that A+ students become good leaders. There’s no reason to think that this should be true. Doing well on tests, paying attention to what’s being asked, being dilige…
Ana Cristina Pratas's insight:
The flawed theory is that A+ students become good leaders. There’s no reason to think that this should be true.
Doing well on tests, paying attention to what’s being asked, being diligent in short-term error correction–these are three hallmarks of someone who is good at school.
None of these are important once you’re charged with charting a new path, with figuring out what to do next. In fact, they get in the way.
We invented the educational regime to produce compliant factory workers. But the most compliant aren’t always suited to be the bravest, the most empathic or the most intuitive.
Scoop.it!
It’s my favorite holiday for a good reason: It doesn’t matter what country, what culture or what background you come from… Gratitude works. Gratitude scales. Gratitude creates a p…
Ana Cristina Pratas's insight:
If every day were ThanksgivingIt’s my favorite holiday for a good reason: It doesn’t matter what country, what culture or what background you come from…
Gratitude works.
Gratitude scales.
Gratitude creates a positive cycle of more gratitude.
When in doubt, default to gratitude.
[And, for the fourth year in a row, we’re offering the free Thanksgiving Reader. You can print it out at home and have it ready for the holiday, wherever and whenever you choose to celebrate. It’s a modern tradition.]
Scoop.it!
In 1805, if you listened to music, you heard it live. Every time. Today, perhaps 1% of all the music we hear is live, if that. In 1805, if you listened to a lecture for school or work, you heard it…
Ana Cristina Pratas's insight:
In 1805, if you listened to music, you heard it live. Every time.
Today, perhaps 1% of all the music we hear is live, if that.
In 1805, if you listened to a lecture for school or work, you heard it live. Every time. Today, that’s still true.
That’s crazy.
Ten years ago, Sal Khan pointed out that thanks to the internet, we should have students watching best-in-class lectures at home, after school… and doing their homework together, with teachers, during the day. (HT to Alison King who wrote about this 26 years ago). That hasn’t happened yet, but it should.
If we’re going to persist in creating hyper-expensive live lectures for millions of people every day, perhaps it’s time to change the dynamic. Imagine that there’s an app (I’ll call it Backchannel) and that the lecturer or her assistant has a dashboard.
Every student already has a phone. Let’s put them to use.
The Backchannel app begins by blocking all other apps–by reporting student participation. If we’re going to do this expensive lecture process in real-time, at the very least you can stop checking Facebook.
Second, the lecturer can at any time ask for students to answer a simple question about what’s being discussed. If a lot of students can’t answer the question, time to slow down. On the other hand, the Backchannel app can also act as a tool for students to anonymously let the lecturer (and the system) know that they’re bored. It’s hard to embrace how obvious this is, and yet it doesn’t get done.
The app can show via the dashboard how active each student is, by percentage or even by name.
Questions can stream in from the app, so the lecturer can get a quick view of what needs to be covered.
Students can have a discussion with one another (no private chats, though) about the last few minutes of what was covered. It’s asynchronous and can lead to far more airtime for people who might not be brave enough to raise a hand.
And of course, just as the school is rating the students (that’s a core tenet of the education-industrial complex) the students can rate every lecture, every time. What a dramatic shift in power, in attention and in reporting.
If we ended up with a classroom where the lecturers were on their toes, where students were actively engaged at all times and where the interactions were far more in sync, wouldn’t that be worth the hassle of putting our devices to better use? We can build this and start using it right now, not someday.
If we insist on lectures being the way they’ve always been, which is a one-way recitation, then let’s simply have students watch best-in-class recordings instead of the wasteful act of recreating them live, every time. But if we’re going to do it live, then let’s actually do it live.
Scoop.it!
Writer Seth Godin explains why it’s absolutely fine if you steal his ideas … you have to promise to make them better.
Scoop.it!
Tell a story that is about the listener, not about you. Tell a story that is worth sharing. Tell a story that’s unforgettable. And tell a story that makes things better. Storytelling is a ski…
Scoop.it!
If you want to change the mind of a scientist, do more science. Do better science. Get your hands on the data set and prove your assertions. If you want to change the mind of a bureaucrat, bring mo…
Ana Cristina Pratas's insight:
If you want to change minds…If you want to change the mind of a scientist, do more science. Do better science. Get your hands on the data set and prove your assertions. If you want to change the mind of a bureaucrat, bring more power. If you want to change the minds of the nerds, build something that’s new. If you want to change the mind of a teenager, amplify the other teenagers. If you want to change the mind of the audience, put more emotion into your story. If you want to change the mind of a believer, bring in the perceived authorities. If you want to change the mind of a banker, eliminate risk. If you want to change the mind of an engineer, build a prototype. If you want to change the mind of a hustler, show the money. If you want to change the mind of a sports fan, win the game. Other people don’t believe what you believe, and they don’t see what you see.
Scoop.it!
Leaders create the conditions where people choose new actions. The choices are voluntary. They’re made by people who see a new landscape, new opportunities and new options. You can’t ma…
Ana Cristina Pratas's insight:
"Leaders create the conditions where people choose new actions.
The choices are voluntary. They’re made by people who see a new landscape, new opportunities and new options.
You can’t make people change. But you can create an environment where they choose to."
|
"That story in your head? It’s invented.
It has to be.
It might be based on some things that actually happened. The story we tell ourselves might be a useful predictor now and then. The story might even have been put there against our wishes, over time.
But it can’t possibly be a complete and detailed understanding of everything. That’s why it’s a narrative. It’s a shorthand, a map–not the territory. It’s filled with shortcuts and mindreading, a personal myth about you and your role in the world.
If we find our story isn’t helping us, if it’s inaccurate or distracting or enervating, we can work to change it."