Category Archives: Tradecraft

Last Week and This Week: ZettelKasten, Income Inequality, and I-Corps

I’ve had a pretty good run for January on Deep Work. But February will not be so kind.

This upcoming week I’m going to be training some new I-Corps instructors at GW, so I’ll be working most of the day Wednesday through Friday.

It doesn’t rule out doing any Deep Work on those days, but it’s not going to make it easy. So there’s really Monday and Tuesday only this week.

The week after that I’m joining my wife in Hawaii for her meetings and some… potentially Deep Work, perhaps. We’ll see how it goes.

And the week after that I’m doing more work on the I-Corps trainees as well as returning from Hawaii via SF for a couple of days.

You get the idea.

So I have the same agenda — flesh out the 7 Hard Problems chapter on “Individual Wealth and Commonwealth” — but it’s going to go more slowly than January. I’ll be lucky to finish the Piketty book this week.

And what about the week just past, you may well ask?

Last week I had a big diversion. I immersed myself in the Zettelkasten technique for note-taking.

Huh?

Well, I’ve been unhappy with the quality of my notes for 7 Hard. And the unhappiness came to a head maybe the week before last.

Coincidentally — I think it was from Lifehacker or some other PIM-ish source — I ran across a book about “Smart Notes”, by Sonke Ahrens.  Needless to say, I bought it at once and dug right in.

Ahrens does not have the most straightforward presentation of his subject, but the book eventually covers a note-taking system of stunning interest. I devoted most of the Deep Work last week to grokking it and only on Friday did I take a pass on continuing my Piketty note-taking with the new system.

I will report more as I get more familiarity with it.

(Cool aside: I was googling around for Zettelkasten and found the name of an academic friend who was YouTube-ing as an expert on some of the Zettlekasten software. I viewed his videos with great interest. Nick Cifuentes-Goodbody, thanks!)

How I Gave Up Smoking

I gave up smoking thirty years ago, when my son was born.  It was easy.

I tried to give up smoking for the fifteen years before that.  It was impossible.

OK, you might say.  Birth of your son.  Who wouldn’t be ready to give it all for their child?

Except that my daughter had been  born three-and-a-half years before my son, and I wasn’t able to give up smoking then, even though I wanted to.

What changed?  How did it work?

Well, first of all, all of the things I tried when I succeeded were things I had tried when I failed.  As I recall, I used nicotine gum.  And I put a pack of cigarettes out on the mantle of the fireplace so it was crystal clear that I was giving it up, foregoing this vice.

But I think there were two key things, one of them slow and gradual and one of them sudden.

The gradual thing was that my opportunities to smoke were diminishing.  We lived in California then, which had a pretty staunch anti-smoking portfolio.  You couldn’t smoke in bars.  You couldn’t smoke in workplaces, unless you went outside.  So my smoking habit was experiencing habitat destruction.

The sudden thing was that all of a sudden I was ready to quit.  And I don’t know much more about it than that.  Maybe it was the accumulation of the various restrictions.  Maybe it was thinking of my son becoming a smoker. 

Some switch inside me had flipped, and I was ready.

I won’t say that quitting was easy, but it was a no-brainer in a sense because I was determined.  More than that: going back to smoking was unthinkable.

I’ve tried to use this two-part formula for other vice removal — habitat destruction and recognizing when I’m ready.  I’ve had some luck lately with weight loss.

But I’m still puzzling over what happened with smoking… and how I could bottle it.

The Elusive Search for Focus

Blogging yesterday about the Pomodoro Technique put me in mind of the search for focus, and how it has eluded me.

A good PIM should do (at least) three things for you:

  1. Show the relationship between goals (or higher-level constructs generally) and tasks.  Connect ends and means.
  2. Take all the “open loops” out of your brain (where they nag at you without peace) and put them in a trusted system.
  3. Help you decide what the best thing to do is in the present.

MLO is great for #1.  (Any hierarchical PIM would probably do.)

Any GTD-ish system is great for #2.  That’s the whole point of GTD.

But #3?  Bit of a mystery.

I used a PIM once — briefly — that sorted everything by importance and by what would fit into the open parts of your schedule and then told you what the next thing to do was. 

It was terrible.  All but unusable.  It was too tyrannical, too dependent on the weights you put on everything.

What I do today is gen up the tasks for the day on a list creatively called “@Today” and then pick something from the list each time I come up for air.

(Oh, and I try to get the “@Today” list to be something that could fit in the day.  I run through my list of things in the morning and see what I think I can accomplish.)

That’s where the religion of Pomodoro is supposed to keep you honest.  By comparing what you thought you could do in a day and what you actually did in a day you’re supposed to get “better.”

I’ve never given up on the notion that focusing on some small # of things (3? 1? One Thing?) will get more accomplished.

The problem is that I often pick things that are urgent rather than things that are important and end up not having much to show for a day or a week.

Am I just longing for someone or something besides me to tell me what to do?

(I have a trick I do sometimes where I get someone else to set me a deadline.)

(“Dan, please finish a draft of 7 Hard Problems by January!”)

(If I say this to myself it has no impact.  If someone else says it to me — even if I tell them myself to tell me — it has much more effect.  Go figure.)

It seems like a simple problem: figure out which tasks are most important and then do them.  But as I’ve struggled with trying to do just that over the past thirty-five years ( which was when I first started using software to help me manage my todo list) I have to admit that the goal remains elusive.

Why Both Science and Philosophy Are Important

Warning: This post is a little arcane.  tl;dr

Most of us understand why science is important, even if we don’t explicitly study it ourselves.

First of all, there’s the unbelievable track record of scientific research paying off.  Health.  Productivity of industry and agriculture.  Longevity.  Well-being.

Well, that’s an argument for somebody studying science, but maybe not us ourselves.

Then there’s the scientific method itself.  The basic idea:

  1. Theorize something true: e.g., “what if vaccines caused autism”
  2. Devise an experiment that will show if the theory is false: “see whether significantly more vaccinated children are on the autism spectrum”
  3. Perform the experiment: No Significant Difference
  4. Adjust the theory based on the result: “Vaccines probably don’t cause autism”

Note the “probably” in #4 and the “false” in #2.  You need multiple independent reps of the experiment in order to be pretty damn sure about it.  And you can never prove a theory right; you can only prove a theory wrong.

The scientific method is worth implementing in your everyday life.  You have a hunch why your toilet doesn’t run?  Do the experiment, observe the result, rinse and repeat.

You have a hard time finding stable relationships?  Why might that be so?  Try an experiment to see.  Rinse and repeat.

So science has some legs, both for all of us and for each of us.

What about philosophy?  Isn’t that just a bunch of people asking, “how do I know if reality is real”?

Well, yes and no.

Philosophy is a bunch of people sitting around asking dumb, obvious-sounding questions.  But it isn’t just a bunch of people asking dumb questions.

It’s cleaning the mind for better scientific theories.

Mark Twain said a ways back:

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble.
It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so

That’s what philosophy is for, cleaning out your mind so that you don’t think you know something for sure when you should have a bit of doubt (ok, a lot of doubt).

It’s what we call a “reality check” when we do it with our feelings.  But with philosophy we’re doing it with our thoughts.

Maybe another analogy is strength training for the mind.

How can you start a practice of thinking philosophically?

One easy thing to do is to ask yourself “why” 5 times about your answer to any big question.

“I have trouble with relationships because I care too much.”

“Why?”

“Because I think that love is all about both people caring more for one another than they do for themselves.”

“Why?”

“I need someone else’s validation to approve of myself.”

“Why?”

OMG.  Great question.

That was only three “why’s” and it led to a true Moment of Zen.

Try it.

Three Things I’ve Learned About Writing

I’ve learned three basic things about writing over the last forty-five years that are worth passing on.

  1. Real Writers Write, Would-Be Writers Moan About Not Being Able to Write

I learned this lesson from Judith Viorst, when I was just turning thirty.  I saw her at a party in TriBeCa and we walked about my writerly ambitions.  I don’t remember exactly what she said but this phrase is what I took away.

(Judith Viorst has written numerous terrific books in a welter of genres.  I’ve always particularly loved Alexander and the Terrible Horrible No-Good Very Bad Day and Necessary Losses, an irritating discouraging but ultimately hopeful book about why losing everything is good for you.

At first I was furious with her for saying this, but as I thought about it over months, I realized that, first of all, it was good advice: writing (as opposed to moaning about not being able to write) was within my power, and relatively easy to do (more on this later).  I also realized that it was literally true: if all you did was moan about not being able to write, you would never be a writer.  You would only be a wannabe.

So I started writing essentially every day, a practice I’ve kept up until now.

2) Writing Is Different From Rewriting

When you are doing the first draft of something, you are working against an internal critic I called — in my thirties and forties — The Censor.  The Censor wants to edit everything you write, I observed, and can paralyze you when you’re trying to get a first draft down on paper.

Once you have something written, The Censor becomes your friend.  And the work changes from getting something, anything, down on paper to getting it right, getting the right thing down on paper, getting the right effect.

These are two different jobs and they require two different philosophies, two different practices, and two different sets of techniques.

Writing — the first draft — requires a philosophy of toleration.  You have to subvert The Censor by pretending that everything you are putting on paper is peerless.

The practice appropriate to getting words on paper is write <X> pages of text a day without regard to its quality.  Quantity matters; quality does not.

A technique that corresponds to this is what Peter Elbow called “freewriting” in his terrific (and still relevant) classics Writing Without Teachers and Writing With Power  When you freewrite, you just keep writing, even if (as sometimes happens) you write the same phrase over and over again like Stephen King’s character in The Shining.  To be fair, it doesn’t usually happen that you repeat page after page; you usually start gushing again after a few lines, not unlike restarting a jammed pen.

A variant of this is Calvin Trillin‘s vomitout strategy which is such a good name I’ve taken it over as the generic name for my first-draft efforts.

Rewriting requires putting The Censor back in charge.

(BTW, rewriting is not the same thing as “checking punctuation, spelling, and grammar”.  That’s great stuff, but that’s after rewriting.  Rewriting is whipping the first draft into shape, getting it to achieve exactly the effects you want it to achieve.)

The practice appropriate to rewriting is write for <X> hours a day without regard to the quantity of rewriting you finish.  If you spend 4 hours dithering over a comma, so be it.  If, on the other hand, you read over 10 pages without making any changes, you are probably not rewriting hard enough.

Writing can be done in a notebook or on a computer.  Rewriting usually requires space.  You have to spread out the whole work, look at the whole thing, put the whole thing up on the wall or out on a table.  It also requires what Cal Newport would call “deep work”: big blocks of uninterrupted time spent worrying the material.

3) Everyone has The Censor, and His Aim is to Keep You From Doing Your Work

Have you read The War of Art yet?  No?  Buy it.  Read it.

Mastering a Subject Quickly, 80/20-style

I’ve gotten pretty good over the last twenty years at mastering a subject quickly.  I want to share some of my tips.

I used this skill as a VC to rapidly understand a new business sector.  One of the joys and terrors of working in early-stage tech companies is understanding new stuff that comes along:

  1. What It Is: New technologies don’t come with a user manual.  It takes a lot of people experimenting in a lot of different directions to figure out even what a new discovery is.
  2. What It Can Do: Once you figure out what it is, you need to know what it can be used for, which involves trying it out in a bunch of different business areas.  Usually a new technology comes with some assumptions about what it’s good for, but these are often wrong and need to be revisited.  Again, a lot of people do these experiments.
  3. How It Fits In: Last is figuring out how the innovation will become the Next Big Thing in one of the sectors where it’s good for something.  By this time the innovation is usually known to the sector, but it is not (yet) well-known; in particular it is not known what the business of bringing it to market will have to be.

I’m fond of using the PC as an example of these three stages when I teach classes in innovation and entrepreneurship.  In the case of the PC:

  1. Microprocessors arose out of calculator chips
  2. It took a while to figure out that you could make a general-purpose Turing Machine out of a calculator chip because it took a while to figure out why you might want such a thing
  3. The fledgling PC was “unlimited in its uses”, meaning no one had a use for it… Until Dan Bricklin wrote VisiCalc and the spreadsheet was born.
  4. The PC went from “Nice to Have” to “Must Have”.

So, let’s say you come along in Phase 2 or 3 (which is often the case with an innovation) and you want to know, “what’s happening with PCs”?  Here are some steps I’ve found useful:

  1. Find the right search terms to exhaustively trawl the ‘net about the subject.  The right search terms are ideally MECE (a McKinsey-ism: “Mutually Exclusive/Collectively Exhaustive”.  None of the terms describes any of the others, and together they describe all the entities.  What mathematicians would call a “basis,” a linearly-independent spanning set.  Finding these search terms involves a lot of experimentation.  Each experiment yields a broader set of relevant search results until you reach a point of diminishing returns, where additional search terms either don’t add new pages or add “false-positive” results.
  2. Use the search terms to find 3 good reviews of the topic, preferably not by deep technologists but by journalists or other good generalists.  Nothing wrong with technology mavens but journalists are quicker to see connections between the technology and potential business uses.
  3. Talk to one or more of these sources.  Presto, you’re an expert, or at least you can play one on TV.

Some giants have also worked this territory.

I want to particularly call out Tim Ferriss, whose Four Hour Chef book is subtitled “The Simple Path to Cooking Like a Pro, Learning Anything [emphasis added], and Living the Good Life.”  Ferriss discusses some very similar approaches to characterizing the key elements in a subject area.  Read his book.

I’ve also read books by Josh Kaufman (“The First 20 Hours: How to Learn Anything”) and Joshua Waitzkin (“The Art of Learning”).  Waitzken’s book is much deeper and more inward-looking, but both are of interest.

Enjoy!