Morgan Giddings - Reimagine Your Life - Latest Comments

Re: Trading batteries… until you kick the bucket

Giovanna — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 23:35:33 -0000

How about stopping the testosterone-fueled wars? How about considering the evidence that stress makes people 11 IQ points stupider? The "best and brightest" overloaded and stressed are equal to commoners. So why not working in a more inclusive way? Is this attitude worth for the advancement of society or does it please the status quo to have subservient people running the mill?

Re: How to be a massive success, idea #1: don’t get reactive

Morgan Giddings — Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:03:31 -0000

Hey William,

This conversation is an academic one for you. That's fine and all - but it's a distraction from the benefit that actually DOING this in one's life has. It's fine if you want to make your own success an "academic" matter rather than a "doing" matter. However, it's not fine that the people reading this might be distracted and/or confused by it, and hence further paralyzed. So I would encourage you (and anyone reading this far) to TRY this practice rather than "academize" and "philosophize" it into oblivion, while staying stuck doing the same old things that are not working (which means continuing to be reactive).

Because I love a good academic debate, I'll respond to that portion.

You made a nice tautology: "if everything is connected, then nothing is truly unconnected :-)"

And your evidence to the contrary is....???

Then you say: "It only suggests that these non-deterministic effects are rarely projected into conscious thought, completely independently of the deterministic influences of memory and experience."

Yes, thank you. My point EXACTLY. With practice, we CAN project these non-deterministic effects into the brain. That is what I'm referring to as proactivity (and creativity). Just because most people don't do this on a regular basis, doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done.

The brain is like a car on the road of life. There are outside influences, like trees and other cars. There are inside influences, the main one of which is the driver. Both influences CAN be powerful. i.e. if you run into a tree or a car, it will profoundly affect the functioning and momentum of the car. If the driver spins the wheel, it also profoundly affects the direction and momentum of the car.

However, most of us are living lives where those external influences determine 90% or more of our directionality. If we go through life merely playing the act of "dodging obstacles" (which is reactivity) we're very unlikely to get to a worthwhile destination.

However, if we go through life with a clear vision for where we want to end up, and then accumulating the tools it takes to get us there (such as GPS, map, good driving skills), then we are very likely to get there. Outside influence will still play a role, however it will no longer be the dominant one. We will avoid the external obstacles on our way to our destination, even if that requires some swerves or detours. The obstacles exist and affect us, but they do not dominate us.

Well, from my experience, life for many people (academics included) is only an obstacle-dodging reactive exercise, rather than a proactive exercise of deciding a worthy and fun destination, and going for it. (or, deciding on a destination based on what others think it *should* be, rather than what we want, which is also reactive).

Now I don't think that that decision comes from some form of determinism. It IS influenced by past experience, but there is still free will in making the ultimate decision about what the destination will be. That free will isn't coming from the "mechanistic" portion of the brain.

Re: How to be a massive success, idea #1: don’t get reactive

William Ray — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:01:29 -0000

Hi Morgan,

Back from post-proposal housecleaning.

You're coming pretty close to painting yourself into a corner with noospheric arguments and the such -- if everything is connected, then nothing is truly unconnected :-)

Regardless of the number of angels on that particular pinhead however, I think you're misinterpreting my position. I certainly do apply a rather deterministic/materialistic version of Occam's razor to most analyses, but, that doesn't mean that I dismiss the possibility, or probability, of non-determinism in thought, as well as physical reality.

That being said, the mere existence of non-determinism does not give it license to operate "in a vacuum". My assertion that few thoughts arise in the brain, uncolored by some prior experience, doesn't deny that non-determinism and free will can, and do affect our thinking. It only suggests that these non-deterministic effects are rarely projected into conscious thought, completely independently of the deterministic influences of memory and experience.

Re: How to be a massive success, idea #1: don’t get reactive

Morgan Giddings — Fri, 07 Feb 2014 19:51:27 -0000

Yeah, we should discuss further work on that "pathology." I'm pretty good at fixing that stuff, though it can take some time and patience ;)

With respect to the physicist in you - realize that you have a belief system that is materialist-based. It is very widespread. In fact, I write about that in my upcoming book, and I label this "psuedo-science," because science itself is a PROCESS, not a belief or world view! And unfortunately, science in the 20th century went in a direction of strong belief that our material (classical) reality precedes and leads to consciousness. That view has very little support if you look with an open mind at the data, yet it is a very popular view nonetheless. It is not true science to come at the data with a strong, fixed belief system that filters out all data that "don't fit the model." Yet that's exactly what physics and many other fields have done for the past century or more.

So, you make the assertion that this is all just a product of "reactive" neural wiring. You are assuming a classical, fully deterministic system lies at the basis of our reality. It simply ain't so. Quantum Mechanics does not allow it. Determinism can't deal with nonlocality, such as boson spin pairing.

There is no evidence that nonlocal quantum effects AREN'T happening in our brains, though there are people who, based on their pre-fixed beliefs will argue vehemently so. They are no different than the creationist who recently argued against Bill Nye the Science Guy about evolution vs creationism. Everyone is coming at these problems with these strong, pre-formed belief systems about what IS and what ISN'T, and very few (in the mainstream) are open-mindedly looking at the actual DATA.

I have done that. The DATA (such as from PEAR labs, thousands of remote viewing experiments within the military and CIA, the noosphere project, rigorous studies of near-death experiences, etc) do not support the materialist view. In fact the THEORY does not support the materialist view. Read Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose as a starting point.

I may not change your mind in a blog comment ;) But I do hope to get you to consider how your strong beliefs in matter before mind (materialism) are jading your views in this conversation - and more importantly, flavoring your entire living experience with a somewhat bleak and often creatively blocked experience. Yes, materialism does that to people (I know, because it did it to me until I escaped it).

It's your choice - open your mind to the possibility that there's something deeper going on that has to do with our conscious experience here as humans - or believe that we live in a deterministic, material world where we have no true free will whatsoever.

If you doubt which choice you should make, maybe check out The Life of Pi :)

Re: How to be a massive success, idea #1: don’t get reactive

William Ray — Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:19:53 -0000

Hello again Morgan,

With respect to the grant, I suspect this is diagnostic of some distinct pathology, but, I find that the closer I am pressed to most deadlines, the more trivial the ephemera in which I am willing to engage. To some extent I allow myself to persist in this behavior because it lets me focus on focusing, when I really need to focus, and to some extent because I've never submitted a proposal in a condition where I felt that another hour, day, or week of staring at it, would have made it better. Since I can detect no meaningful impact on the output, I've never seen a point in fighting my brain to curtail its wanderings. At the same time, I find that the process of engaging in interesting written dialog, significantly (though sadly, only temporarily) sharpens my writing -- so why fight what works :-)

With respect to proactive vs reactive, it's more the physicist in my head who disagrees, than the computer scientist. You may forget that there's an artist rattling around in there too - so I'm not at all unfamiliar with the creative modes of #1 and #2 (my inner voice won't stop telling itself to shut up however, so #5 seems blocked to me). The physicist however says that the visions and impulses that boil out of the "somewhere", are almost, if not absolutely all, rooted in neural connections laid down by past experiences. They are perhaps not accessible to the conscious mind, but they're "somewhere", not "nowhere". The brain from which new outputs spring, where those outputs are completely untouched by any previous inputs, probably also possesses an interesting, possibly more dangerous pathology :-)

I simply map these to internal motivation, versus external motivation, without concern for whether internal motivation is derived from previous experiences.

However, this is largely a (probably) semantic diversion from the point I was trying to raise. That being that a destructive intent - one that seeks to impede something, rather than promote something - whether arrived at reactively or proactively, is typically far more detrimental to success, than a constructive intent arrived at through either mechanism.

As an aside, I would go so far as to argue that flow can be achieved in reactive, internally-motivated modes. Tightly-coupled partner activities, such as, I strongly suspect, couples figure skating, and I'm absolutely certain, partnered technical climbing, almost require a shared flow "telepathic" experience for enjoyment and success. These activities are critically reactive, and fundamentally produce nothing but endorphin-rush nail-biting terror, until the partners move past conscious reaction and and situational analysis and develop a "shared mind" that can react appropriately in unison, without conscious effort.

… I'm also not sure whether you implied this or not, but you might be (or might not be) surprised at the extent to which good programmers can enter flow while coding…

Back to the grant!

Re: How to be a massive success, idea #1: don’t get reactive

Morgan Giddings — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 19:37:25 -0000

Hi William, great to hear from you again, except for the fact that you're procrastinating on your grant for Tuesday... what's up with that!?

Anyway, I disagree. There are three stages of awareness - future, present, past (from my Creative Pipeline work) - and they can be further broken down like this:

1. Future awareness (vision of possibility)

2. Present awareness of ideas and inspirations that boil up from "somewhere" (call it subconscious, call it the creative muse, call it what you will)

3. Present awareness of analyzing the knowledge and external inputs we have, and drawing conclusions from it (which may be about past or future, but this is most definitely distinct from #1)

4. Past awareness - memories, habits, and beliefs stored in our brains.

5. Present awareness of being, without thought (as in deep meditation)

Modes #1, #2, and #5 are NOT reactive. These are associated with the zen-like state, or what Csikszentmihalyi calls Flow. They are directed only towards a goal you have set for yourself and/or towards inner silence.

Modes #3 and #4 are reactive. Most people spend their whole lives exclusively in those modes, so they don't ever realize there's any other mode of awareness. If they do touch the other modes, it's only for brief moments of ecstatic occurrences (sex, big accomplishment, etc).

Since you're a comp sci person, modes #3 and #4 are exactly what computers do. So if you equate your mind to a computer in a 1:1 mapping, then you will not be able to access the other modes because you won't believe they exist. Current computers cannot do modes #1, #2, and #5. It's why we have no AI as of yet.

The key to a masterful and fun life is spending only a minimal amount of time in modes 3 and 4 (only to the extent that it is useful) and the rest in the other modes.

So, yes, there are truly proactive modes... I and many others I've worked with have experienced them often, but it has to be by design and intention.

Re: How to be a massive success, idea #1: don’t get reactive

William Ray — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 14:37:48 -0000

And now, I'm going to react to your blog entry, by suggesting that you consider an alternative viewpoint: Practically everything we do in life, is a reaction to something. The internally generated desire "get fit", is a reaction to a dissatisfaction with not being as fit as one desires. If I may take some metaphysical license, our lives are essentially dialogs with the universe, and at any given point in time, neither we, nor the universe are able to act completely independently of the history of that dialog.

I would propose that the larger issue is the difference between reacting positively or reacting negatively. Sometimes, reacting negatively is all that you've got, and it's absolutely necessary to do, but reacting positively, can be very powerful. A series of positive reactions in an ongoing collaborative dialog between you and the universe, is a great way to build momentum.

I suspect internal vs external motivation (my schema for understanding proactive vs reactive) may be an orthogonal axis in the psychology of success, to the positive vs negative intent axis, but I'll argue that the positive - negative axis is worth of far more introspection than whether our actions are internally or externally motivated.

... Can you tell that I have a grant due on Tuesday?

Re: Being on time – is this how to lead?

William Ray — Wed, 05 Feb 2014 23:12:19 -0000

Greetings Morgan,

I was mostly reacting to the "implying that THEIR time is far more important than YOUR time ... not enough self-care and self love" suggestion. I know the "love yourself enough to not kill yourself for other people" message is a foundational theme in many of your messages, but here, it seemed misapplied.

I agree wholeheartedly, the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" mindset of the person advocating terminating a relationship just because someone is late, seems tremendously misguided, and while I don't really believe in offering many excuses myself, I am usually willing to accept just about any. Accidents happen, even sheer stupidity happens, even to the best of us - almost anything is forgivable, other than premeditated disrespect. That shuts down conversations pretty quickly.

By the way - I need to catch you up with a bit of a science update one of these days - it's been a weird year!

Re: Being on time – is this how to lead?

Morgan Giddings — Wed, 05 Feb 2014 20:28:07 -0000

Hey William, good to hear from you.
This whole thing has been misinterpreted.
The reason I wrote the post in the first place was as a response to a colleague of mine who wrote a post that essentially stated that leadership was all about being on time, and that if someone was 10 minutes late for anything, it would end the business relationship then and there.

I DO NOT ADVOCATE BEING LATE. let's set the record straight on that.

What I do advocate is understanding that leadership is FAR MORE than just being on time.

That being on time is important, but there are other factors that are often as important, if not moreso.

For example, I was at a scientific conference where one of the headline speakers was 20 minutes late due to travel snafus. Were people a bit disgruntled? yes. Did it prevent him from being ever invited to give a talk again? Hell no.

I am not saying that Bill Gates' time is inherently more valuable than yours (or mine). But IF you need something from him (a piece of information, a connection, money, etc) - then it shifts the equation to one where you need to be willing to wait for him if he's late.

At the end of the day, this whole debate has been blown way out of proportion, which is what I get for writing a blog post reactively (I even got unfriended by the original blogger over this!).

I believe that THE MOST IMPORTANT thing is mutual respect. And mutual respect means that if you make every effort to not be late, and if you are going to be late, that you make even more efforts to reach out and let them know that's the case, and then apologize profusely and don't repeat the mistake.

Re: Being on time – is this how to lead?

William Ray — Wed, 05 Feb 2014 16:52:28 -0000

Morgan, I think you're off-base on this one. Courtesy and civility go a long way towards lubricating any social exchange, and you're usually quite astute at recognizing the impediments that pretty much all forms of non-cordiality introduce into relationships.

Not being late is pretty much the antithesis of valuing someone else's time more than your own. Not being late (and I'll freely admit that I'm occasionally late - as you know - with sometimes humorous results), is about not being able to expect from others, considerations that I'm not willing to give them myself. I expect people not to waste my time, and if I have any hope of them meeting that expectation, then it's incumbent on me, to not waste their time.

This becomes even /more/ important if my time really is more valuable than their time. If my time is more valuable, and I opt to reduce waste in my schedule by moving the waste to theirs, I may have optimized the immediate cost function, but I've given someone with less valuable time, license to waste more of mine in the future by being equally inconsiderate. That's simply not acceptable.

Of course, accidents happen, schedules slip, and being late is practically always excusable, if there's a reason that goes beyond disrespect. However, yes, if Bill Gates was 10 minutes late for a meeting, and his only reason was because he valued his time more than mine, we wouldn't be having a conversation. My time is too valuable to waste on rude people, regardless of who they are or what they offer.

Re: Being on time – is this how to lead?

guest — Sun, 26 Jan 2014 08:04:29 -0000

no, as I said, being late is ok if you let people know. But at the same time (e.g in Germany) being late without telling people is rude. It's not about assuming their time is more important than mine, I am assuming their time is as important as mine. Since not living in Germany any more, I don't care that much about 5-10 min (because in NA it's a normal thing), as long as there is a mutual understanding (and/or call/text). If you are being stood up for 10min, based on your argument, would you assume the late persons time is more important or would you still assume your time is more important? Sending a quick text won't hurt but will let your business partner know that you value their time. Call it social norm, I call it not being a jerk.;) (BTW: love your blog)

Re: Want Happiness and Productivity? Get to that Core! (video)

LMG — Tue, 21 Jan 2014 16:57:15 -0000

Insightful video.

Re: Being on time – is this how to lead?

Morgan Giddings — Tue, 24 Dec 2013 00:37:30 -0000

Hey Guest, I respect your opinion but disagree.

Here's why. When you say "I would never be caught late for a business meeting!" you are implying that THEIR time is far more important than YOUR time. And this is a problem for so many people I work with. Always worry, worry, and more worry over what "they" think (to an extreme), and not enough self-care and self love.

Do not misinterpret. I am not advocating being late as par for the course. There are some situations where being late is very bad news. In general, it is better for everyone to be on time (or ahead).

But to put a blanket statement on it like you have, that's a sort of absolutism that I just can't condone.

Life is not here for us to run like clockwork robots. We are too spoiled at things "running on time" except when they don't. If you've ever traveled in a not-so-clockwork society, you know what I mean.

Being on time is just a social expectation, nothing more and nothing less. It is not a God-wrote-it-in-stone proclamation that as soon as you violate you're whisked off into Hell by Satan's puppies.

Many of the people who've climbed the ladder very high in life are often a bit late. If I've got Bill Gates coming to meet me at my office, and he's 10 minutes late, you think I'll excuse him? Sure will!

I know several VERY successful businesspeople who've been late before - both for one on one meetings and even group meetings. Did their empires collapse as soon as they were late? No. Not even close.

Methinks that too much worry about being late shows where you see yourself on the ladder... i.e. that the most important thing you feel you have to offer is being on time. I'm sure you have more to offer the world than that, and if you focus on offering so much value that they'll excuse 5-10 minutes of lateness (on occasion), I think you'll be far more successful in life. Then, combine that with being on time most of the time, and you've got a winner!

Re: Being on time – is this how to lead?

Guest — Sun, 15 Dec 2013 04:54:06 -0000

I think meeting someone is the one time a clock is relevant. (and catching the train..but that's a meeting too ;)) 10 min late is extremely rude where I come from. Especially in times of cellphones, call ahead if you are late. heck, I call if I am 5 min late. I would never be caught late for a business meeting! (I'd rather be standing in front of the door for 5min, at my last interview I was 1h early and had a coffee at a nearby coffee shop)

Re: Creativity-sucking education stamping widgets of children* (video)

Molly Thomas — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:05:23 -0000

I have seen this line of argument before as well as the kindergarten study. And on balance I agree with the fundamental premise and the direction of the blog. In a service oriented, information driven economy we do need to think differently and not stifle creativity or divergent thinking with our system of education. That said, there is something to be said for things like the common core standards. You can't begin a discussion or an analysis or a process without a well stocked toolbox and that is what I believe the common core attempts to do. I would submit that kids in Arkansas are flailing (not failing although too many are by any standard) because they aren't exposed to anything but mindless content/crap or content with no basis in science or fact that would insult most 8th graders.

Now how that content gets taught is another matter. I totally agree that we work in groups and learn better in groups; that one individual does different things differently and age is not necessarily a predictor of intellectual competency or capacity (although it does correlate better with social development which plays a major role in teenage education); that the tools that are part of a students everyday life like the media power packed on a mobile device should be integrated into the learning process and that individual intervention/mentoring/tutoring is critical to keeping students on a learning path. Testing is important too but not in the way commonly thought. I had a teacher in high school who had a unique view on the role of tests. He told us "Tests are a periodic check of the educational process. They tell me if I am doing my job as a teacher." Pretty enlightened for the early 1960s, And I agree with testing if it is used to this end. This is too complicated an issue to fully explore in something as small as a comment box. BUT thanks for coming up with great, thought provoking ideas and posts.

Molly

Re: Creativity-sucking education stamping widgets of children* (video)

Morgan Giddings — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:28:59 -0000

Laurie - thanks for dropping by to comment! Great to meet you, too!

The first time I saw this talk, I was amazed that there were other people out there who were seeing things through similar lenses to my own. Before that, I had simply thought I was an oddball ;)

(Ok, well, I am still an oddball - but at least one who has company!)

Re: Creativity-sucking education stamping widgets of children* (video)

Laurie — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:00:21 -0000

Fascinating TED talk, it's truly time to change the paradigm both in how we view education and how we view our professional world. Thanks for the share!

On a sidenote, Morgan, I am so pleased to have met you - via tech - but met you none the less. One day it'll be in person.
Laurie B.

Re: Why I hate writing grants

Morgan Giddings — Wed, 30 Oct 2013 16:45:09 -0000

Hi Margot - the main thing is this: who is your audience reviewing your grant? What do THEY think is important and exciting? It doesn't matter whether it cures cancer or not; that's not what YOUR audience of reviewers is looking for. But they are looking for something. They're probably looking to make sure that you're doing work that's considered at the cutting edge, but not too risky. That's leading whatever trend is happening in the field. That kind of thing. The key is to realize that your reviewers are people like you who have their own unique interests and opinions, and the more you understand what those are, the better off you'll be.

Re: Why I hate writing grants

Margot — Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:31:32 -0000

Hi Morgan,
I have bought your book on grant writing and watched your videos on YouTube. I was wondering if you have any advice for us people in the humanities? Especially how to market research that does not appear --to the naked eye-- to be saving lives or changing the world as immediately and directly as the sciences do.

Re: Who are you? Just beans and franks? (and how to avoid writer’s block!)

Lewis S. Lewis™ — Thu, 05 Sep 2013 19:23:12 -0000

Thanks Morgan.. I'd like to plus that with a quote of my own. "It's Your World, Be Active!" :-)

Re: Eight Years of Scorn and Mockery: Persistence and Genius

Amid Yousef — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:59:17 -0000

Very nice, thanks for the inspirational message and Thanks Zsuzsa Novak for telling us about your SITE
From the FOUNDER of: www.StartBusinessTV.com

Re: Eight Years of Scorn and Mockery: Persistence and Genius

Karyn — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:04:02 -0000

Thank you for the reminder! The to-do lists (without tapping into the leverage of sharing my genious) resonated with my thinking last year. I was totally fearful of the critics and the possibility of being successful in a new way---by sharing my voice globally (I am successful in other ways--locally). 2013 is a new year of thinking for me. I have to just remind myself that as long as I am helping someone with my gift, then it doesn't matter what other's think. It IS the right thing to do! I heard a quote similar to "Those that attend conferences and teleseminars and don't implement are 'Overmotivated underachievers'." That totally described me. It was time for a wake-up call--time to implement and move forward with sharing my message through writing and video and direct connections. Nice inspirational video!

Re: Which one are you voting for?

Daniel Simon — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:54:02 -0000

I guess asking people to take ownership of their beliefs and responsibility for their life is polarizing. Who knew? I agree with your point of view. I see it as a combination of failure in the educational system coupled with laziness & apathy in the general populace. Far easier to accept a politician or religious leaders dogma than to study, inspect, analyze and draw your own conclusions followed up by purposeful action. Over the last few years I've come to prefer countries with populations around 4 million. So much more manageable and possible to have real conversations.

Re: Eight Years of Scorn and Mockery: Persistence and Genius

Sue — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 17:41:59 -0000

This is so incredibly powerful! Thank you!!

Re: Eight Years of Scorn and Mockery: Persistence and Genius

alf — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 08:46:24 -0000

very, very good!