Archive for the 'philosophy' Category

A Persistent Thought

Published
by
Ehren
on July 20, 2008
in Aspirations, Interests, Ponderings, Unthinkables, fun and philosophy
. 0 Comments

Ideas never die, but they can be lost.

Even when we may think they are unique or gone, someone else in the world will likely think of it.  The ironic thing about ideas are how people respond to them.  We can break ourselves down into three groups — yes, no, and maybe.

What’s amusing is that an idea itself is neither wrong or right because it is in itself quite intangible.  It carries certain parameters but for the most part and is extremely flexible and adaptable.  The most ridiculous aspect concerning the relationship between human beings and thoughts/ideas are our fascination with what’s right and wrong — what works and what doesn’t.

People approach ideas in many manners.  There are those who strive to construct ideas, those who strive to make them work, and those who strive to dismantle ideas in order to understand why.  We generally don’t stick to one approach all the time but rather slide back and forth on a spectrum.

The problem usually arises when we are required to put ideas into action.  There is a tendency to recall previous experience and knowledge in order to tackle the idea.  The major challenge however is that what IF all that previous experience and knowledge carries little or no relevance?  What IF there is nothing to tackle the idea with?  What IF the idea requires an approach with eyes unclouded?

The following step tends to be to dismantle the idea.  In order to understand the idea, we find that we must break it down into pieces so that it can somehow relate to the previous experience and knowledge that we carry within us.  This works to some degree so that we can understand why.  Yet the problem with this approach is that once we dismantle the idea in our minds, we lose the ability to see the idea as a whole again because we begin to rationalize why certain things will work while others will not — and when we do, we also lose the ability to reconstruct the original idea because our opinions, external realities, and perceptions are blocking the way.

Unfortunately, there is little to be done about that.  You see … ideas are not meant to be dismantled and rationalized — ideas are meant to be built upon, improved and evolve.

Ideas will grow.

Share This

What’s in an Online Identity?

Published
by
Ehren
on July 15, 2008
in Ponderings, Unthinkables, marketing, philosophy, technology and web 2.0
. 0 Comments

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been trying to encourage my friends, my colleagues at work and authors to begin to develop an online identity.  One of those first steps is to create a gravatar for themselves so that everyone can be identified relatively easily.  What really started to get me thinking about writing about online identities was Melanie Mcbride’s write up on Google’s Lively with a brief comparison to Second Life.  I had written about being Googleable before but the more I think about it, an online identity is no longer an option, it is a necessity if you are a citizen in this day and age and work or carry out a lifestyle that involves the web in some form.  My reasoning is that each and every person should be defining themselves in some sense online so that what they do online becomes more than just a part of the web, but rather a part of themselves as well.  I’m less so concerned about the conversations taking place online but rather how people view and represent themselves online.  Conversations are an outcome that results from how people view themselves and others over the internet.

What’s interesting is the reaction and response that I get when I mention the idea of creating an avatar — which ranges from apathy to near-absolute confusion or on the other end of the spectrum, enthusiasm and a outburst of creativity.

Avatars have been a long-standing convention on the internet for individuals to represent themselves in any manner they wish, beginning with a nickname.  It seems the biggest hurdle for most individuals is recognizing the long term implications to having an online identity — the fact that it is connected to building your online identity and wields the power to the gradual creation of your place (or existence) online and allows for a person to formulate value and credibility.

Nicknames were used in IRC (Internet Relay Chat) and message boards in the earlier years of the Internet as well as BBS (Bulletin Board Systems).

It seems that with the Internet becoming mainstream and the fact that Facebook and all social media websites pushing for the use of avatars (or profile photographs), people are confused by the overlap between the online virtual world and real life.  In addition, many seem to be flustered by the fact that there are different worlds that we live in — public, private, and virtual.  In some cases, some people may even suggest multiple “personas” to represent yourself in different circumstances.  One can argue the consequences of personas but I will leave that for another day.  Those who may be interested, Melanie has posted on her site and on twitter numerous times about why people need to be aware of their actions online.  My point however, is focused on why everyone needs step up and work on their online identity.  Being on Facebook and LinkedIn is not enough — unfortunately if you don’t take control of your identity and help define it, others will do it for you.

An easy example that many people can relate to would be the many photographs on Facebook.  How often are we in someone elses photograph and are tagged?  How often do you find those photographs repulsive?  Yes, we usually have control over those tags on Facebook but that’s not always the case.  Very often we don’t necessarily have absolute control over who sees what and we definitely do not have a general control over the open space of the Internet.

The ironic thing is that we would readily strive to define our lives in real life yet we don’t take that into consideration or discount the virtual aspect of our lives, where everything is X number of times more connected.  I’m not suggesting that we reveal our private lives or expose our name and hometown but I am saying that one simply needs to represent themselves online in one way or another.  That is how we connect with one another and express ourselves as individuals.

What is identity?

What is identity? (credit: Dominic Sayers)

It’s the importance of our online identities that leads us to the many debates and discussions with regards to OpenID.  This is the second step for those who already have set up their many usernames, nicknames or avatars.  The goal is to ensure the authenticity or privacy of your identity and that the ownership of that identity remains with you, the user.

The consequence of your online identity is the same as how you define yourself in real life multiplied by the number of people who actively engage the world wide web.  So … what do you think of yourself?

Share This

The Dumping Ground

Published
by
Ehren
on July 12, 2008
in Mentions, philosophy and work
. 0 Comments

During my rather long commute home (2 hrs), as is typical of my mind, I was storming up thoughts and ideas.  Then it hit me — why is it that we are usually so keen on delegating work off to people that we don’t want to do or we supposedly don’t have time to do?

The answer: Simple, we want to focus on what is important to us, our goals, our role, and our responsibilities.  This answer includes something along the lines of doing what’s best for the company and the job that we do, etc.

The problem with this solution is that it frequently results in the creation of what I call The Dumping Ground.  This is the area of the office that usually seats the newbie, the assistant, and often mistakenly considered the least important person in the organization or department.  For some odd reason we carry on a tradition and belief that the least important person in the organization or department deserves the most amount of delegated work.  These are the people who are supposedly picking up the slack.

The ironic thing about this is that despite how most people have gone through the turmoil and stress of being dumped upon with the plentiful amount of what is referred to as effectively delegated work, we have no problem doing this to the next person in line — we have essentially accepted the fact that this is the way things are.  Therefore that’s okay right?

Wrong.  We have our opportunity to make a difference — here is that chance.

Here is an example of the typical chain of events:

1.  The HiPPO (Highest Paid Person in the Organization / most important … thank you Google) wants something done.  He or she tells senior management.

2.  Senior management looks at what needs to be done within the context of the bigger picture.

  • Option A:  Go to The Dumping Ground
  • Option B:  Go to Middle Management

3.  Middle Management identifies the steps involved with what needs to get done.

  • Option A: Go to The Dumping Ground
  • Option B: Go to Junior or General Staff

4.  Junior or General Staff either takes care of the problem or looks at how something is going to get done.

  • Option A:  Go to The Dumping Ground
  • Option B:  DIY - Do It Yourself

The problem with passing on work to The Dumping Ground is that there is not enough consideration and thought put into whether or not the work should be taken to The Dumping Ground or if there’s even a simpler way to deal with the work.

Quite often The Dumping Ground is where the ground-level action is taking place — things are getting done that everyone takes for granted.  Of course in the meantime, decisions taking place in management and even amongst general staff that create more projects which in turn, create more so-called effectively delegated work for the folks at The Dumping Ground.

What happens at the dumping ground

Solution:  The Trinity Approach

1. Listening.  Yes, actually listening, not just the token nod.  Listen for what the folks in The Dumping Ground actually strive for and observe how they thrive.  Living is different than thriving.

2. Consideration.  This just brings me back to my point when I had posted about the Employee Bill of Rights.  My #1 rule:

Never forget where you worked and never forget how you felt, and what you did when you started working.

And please don’t say that just because you sucked it up and put up with it means that everyone after you must too.  That’s pretty much saying that you’ll follow lemmings over a cliff.  At least try to change the environment for others.

3. Simplify.  Like fractions, we reduce and simplify.  Don’t make things complicated — accountability does not require bureaucratic-like red tape.  There are almost always a way to do things simpler and sometimes it may even be better to share 10 minutes of workload between five people than have one person deal with that one task alone.

The Result

It’s obvious.  You’ve made a difference that is greater and bigger than you.  Sometimes it isn’t just about getting the project done but how you do it.

Throughout my experience in different workplaces, I’ve been on both the receiving end and the person delegating work so I am just as guilty — I think it’s worthwhile to try and rid ourselves of bad habits.

Share This

Double Take that Fork in the Road

Published
by
Ehren
on July 4, 2008
in Interests, Ponderings, Unthinkables and philosophy
. 0 Comments

I generally hear people say, “every so often, we’ve come across a problem…” — that amuses me to no end because I’d say I run into at least one problem or obstacle per day.  Most definitely more than one.

The solution to the problem is easy because the key to solving any problem is built upon you, me or we.  Which one is it going to be today?  How will you learn from the decision you take?

photograph by ehren cheung

On another note:  Going to test the Tarn 3 this weekend from MEC while camping.  I’ve gotten big recommendations for this three-season tent from people so we’ll see how it fairs.  In the meanwhile, I’m getting ready for my big road trip in August.  One of my goals for this trip is to use and purchase as little as possible — not just for the sake of reducing consumption but also to see how much I can do without.

I was actually talking with a colleague today and unfortunately, I can’t remember who stated this, but it went something along the lines of “your actual freedom is determined by not what you can do, but what you can do without…”  Some people will include the who, but I think that’s a little extreme…

Share This

Their Master Plan

Published
by
Ehren
on June 29, 2008
in Mentions, Ponderings, Unthinkables and philosophy
. 0 Comments

Funny. Friends, loved ones, family, and colleagues have consistently discussed our own so-called master plans.  Whether it may be for life, for our own companies, for the businesses we work for, or for the causes we fight for — I often wonder how everyone else fits into the master plan.  Similarly, parents, families, businesses, managers, and leaders have plans for us that we are not necessarily aware of. For Google, their plan involved us — people from around the world.  We don’t really know what their master plan is but watching this video about Google’s Master Plan reminded me of the film The Man Who Fell to Earth.

So despite the fact that we use Google and the many products or services they offer, the lack of transparency and accountability clouds the trust that people have for the company. Do we choose to endorse their master plan somewhat blindly or do we question the means with which they do things? When we create our own master plan that involves the people around us — do we expect them to jump on board unquestionably? Would we do the same for others?

The answer is likely not simple one, but the essence of that answer is: if you want me to become apart of your so-called master plan, then you will have to inform me of what that plan is.

Participation is not required.

Share This

Drawing Direction from We the Robots

Published
by
Ehren
on March 16, 2008
in Ponderings, fun, philosophy and politics
. 0 Comments

I thought I’d share this little strip from an excellent comic — We the Robots — that I ran across during my occasional visit to the Animation Show website.  I’ve been eager to check out Animation Show 3 (still in progress…)!

Art is a funny thing and from art we draw expression, inspiration, emotion, and ideas.  Has there ever been such a thing as art that was wrong or right?

Similarly do we all have a right or wrong way to learn?  I think we’re still stuck in a hole when it comes to education.  Still stuck on grades.  Still stuck on how things we think should be done rather than how things can be done.  The common argument that grades are the only effective method of measuring success is overused and out of date.

The amount of information and knowledge out there continues to increase at an insanely exponential rate yet we insist that children follow a rigid method of learning that is based off of the major section of a bell curve whom receive the excellent marks.  The smaller sections outside of majority manage to keep up somewhat but are they able to utilize their potential?  We are not helping generation after generation of kids by defining them through IQ, EQ or whatever measurement we like to apply on to a person.  You may refer to my belief as too holistic but I think in order to really determine the potential of a person, don’t we have to really get to know them?

Chris Harding the creator of We the Robots had posted this on a recent blog post that I wanted to share.  I’d recommend reading the introduction to We the Robots for more fun!

By Chris Harding

Share This

Changing it up - How do you define your happiness?

Published
by
Ehren
on March 8, 2008
in Interests, Mentions, Ponderings, Unthinkables and philosophy
. 0 Comments

It will happen soon — in the meantime, check out this article from the Medical News Today. It claims that happiness is dependent on genes.  Would you believe that?

I believe that if we truly believe happiness is dependent on genes, then we are letting ourselves be defined by factors we don’t have control over. Here’s an interesting blurb from the article:

“The researchers found that people who did not worry too much, were sociable and conscientious tended to be happier, and they suggested that this combination acts as a buffer, an “affective reserve” of happiness, that shields them during stressful times or when they need to recover.”

It is interesting that researchers consider these as factors to their research. In my opinion, we decide what we want to worry about. I’ve often had arguments with friends about whether or not it is possible and I firmly believe it is — we have the ability to either worry about all contentious issues surrounding the world, or we decide to tune some out and focus on the issues we care most about. If this is possible, then we can definitely decide what we want to really worry about and ultimately — whether or not something is worth drawing from that so-called “affective reserve of happiness” as the researchers put it.

So if you’re in Toronto, you can choose to worry about the snowstorm but for the meanwhile, I’m just enjoying watching the snow storm in Toronto from the window. Check out the snow building up on the roof!

Snow on the Roof

Share This

Marketing is about Helping

Published
by
Ehren
on February 24, 2008
in Aspirations, Mentions, Unthinkables, marketing and philosophy
. 0 Comments

Stupid marketing is about taking advantage. Smart marketing is about helping others. Helping others creates possibilities and potential. Possibilities and potential are the key to success. An example would be Bill Strickland’s story…

Share This

Close
E-mail It
Clicky Web Analytics