When we think of patience we tend to think of people that are calm, cool, collected, and can handle quite a bit of frustration before they get wound up or even stressed. Stress in itself is an issue that I could write a book on so we will side step that for now. When it comes to patience however, one of the things I find fascinating is that patience is not constant. People who possess it do not do so universally. By this I mean, they do not have the same level of patience for every issue, and the deviation in the range can vary quite significant from issue to issue.
I first learned to program when I was 6 years old, and I had my first computer when I was 5 which was a command line interface. From such a young age with such limited technology, I have grown up with an exposure to technology that at times isn't helpful when things go wrong, isn't descriptive, and above all else, can be incredibly frustrating. That exposure however has led me to have quite a long tolerance when it comes to technology trying my patience. I'll endure much more than the average user, and again this is something most programmers share, because programming by its very nature is trial and error. The amount of repetition that is involved in programming is immense, while many languages and libraries exist to try and reduce this overhead, it can't be avoided entirely.
I recently helped out a friend who got a new computer and one of the things I noticed quite quickly was how short his tolerance was for technology that tries his patience. Eventually we got things sorted but he was for giving up at many points in the process. The reason I find this fascinating is because there's no easy way to determine who will and won't show patience before the fact. He is tech-minded, and does work with computers, even has a degree in computer science, but his remit is decidedly limited to software - when it comes to hardware it seems the patience and tolerance is the inverse of that for software.
I find this correlation interesting, but I don't think it is causation as my own personal experience would contradict that theory as I am comfortable with both hardware and software elements - although there is a definite preference for software. It does make me wonder why this is the case though. Why can we show resounding patience for some things but for others our patience can be non-existent?
Worlds Divided By Work And Wealth
I've met people that do all sorts of jobs, from menial and manual labour, through to executives and directors of companies who never leave their offices save for meetings where they sit in board rooms and listen to the same thing over and over again to the point of insanity. One thing that strikes me about this wide range of careers that I've gained insights into through them, is that for many of these people, what they do as a job and where their skills are strongest, are often the things which socially they are either unwilling or unable to do. To put it bluntly they seem only capable of doing what they can do when they are getting paid.
I've met people that have worked in call centres who can spend 10 hours taking or making calls back to back, talking with complete strangers without any problem in doing so, but outside of work they have social anxiety and have that fear of using a telephone for anything beyond work. I've met people who professionally are the most organised people I have ever met, but outside of work their lives, figuratively, and literally, are often a complete mess. I find it fascinating that it doesn't seem to matter what the job is, the same holds true for people through every career I've had the opportunity to discuss with people. Now this doesn't apply to everyone, and there are of course exceptions driven by necessity or out of requests made by friends and family. Still of all, from chefs who work all day preparing food who flat out don't want to cook, they want it handed to them, through to Doctors who never take drugs for any ailment - the vast majority of which also don't take the winter flu vaccine despite being offered it, something which I found curious.
The question I ponder is what is the motivation or rather what drives the lack of motivation to do these things for themselves outside of work? Is it actually laziness, or a tiredness? Exhausted from working all day, they don't have the energy to devote to these tasks? I find that one hard to justify as the reason. Beyond that there is the simple question of repetition and boredom - is it really the monotony of doing something all day and as soon as you don't have to do it you choose not to, and avoid it as much as you can? Or is it something else? Perhaps it's the knowledge that we are paid to do these things and once we find ourselves in a position where we have no financial gain in doing it we are reluctant.
None of these possible explanations address the scenario where completing these tasks would actually be beneficial to the individuals. Take a city trader for example who spends all day working with equities and futures, someone who could further their own personal wealth if they applied the same skill-set they use every day in their jobs to their own finances. Now I know some will argue that it's easier to do when it's someone else's money and you don't personally lose the money when you make a loss, and I can accept that in part, I can also accept that some will have the drive to be self-made and pursue their own independent careers and form their own companies when they gain the experience to do so, but I would argue those people are in a minority, just as those in the above examples who put the effort in outside of work as chefs etc are also a minority. Like a solicitor establishing their own practice, many prefer the security of working with an existing firm, it's only a minority that go it alone.
So whilst there are always exceptions, they are not the focus of my attention. My attention is focused on those that choose not to use the skills they gain in employment in their personal lives. I'm guilty of this myself as there are many things I have done through employment which I could pursue as careers on my own through self employment, but my reason for not doing so is a lack of motivation, but the reason for the lack of motivation is something that eludes me. I know I could, I know the barriers that prevent me could be overcome, and I know that I could handle it as I have proven through employment I can do that work professionally, still of all I have no real reason why I don't I just simply don't, which leaves me asking the same question I ask of others - why?
I know many will read this and think this is very much a first-world-problem, and I will admit that it is, this entire post is self-indulgent, but I would argue this isn't limited to those that live in the first world, and it certainly isn't limited to the boundaries established by it. There are many people in the first world who could use what they know within second and third world countries and produce results that would far outstretch anything they would ever do in the first world. I was once told be a friend of mine from University whose family several generations back came from India, if he ever made enough money he would move to India and live like a King. That's a bizarre concept at first to wrap your head around but that is mainly because of first world guilt at the suggestion of exploiting those in the other worlds. Yet what he suggested highlights the truth, the further "down" the chain you go the more spending power your money gains, and ultimately the more your relative wealth increases, even if the principle sum remains constant. Whilst many dwell on those in poorer countries wanting to come to richer countries for better opportunities, the idea of moving in the other direction seems to be forgotten.
If you can't increase your wealth where you live, is the answer to gaining a better standard of living perhaps that you should move to somewhere where your wealth has significantly increased spending power? If the possibility of answering yes is dancing around in your mind then you find yourself in the same position with your career whether you realise it or not, the work you do in employment benefits someone other than yourself, whereas what you do in your own life benefits yourself. You may not increase your wealth as a result of it but you would be taking a step towards "passing down" the wealth of information from the "first world" of your employment, to the second or third world of your personal life, depending on how abject the two are. We live in an age where information is a commodity, and to possess it is to hold a form of wealth, like all wealth, the further down the chain you go the more powerful it becomes.
That brings us to the final question - is the reason we keep wealth within the first world and do not pass it on to the others the exact same reason why we put the effort into our jobs but not the same effort in our personal lives?
I've met people that have worked in call centres who can spend 10 hours taking or making calls back to back, talking with complete strangers without any problem in doing so, but outside of work they have social anxiety and have that fear of using a telephone for anything beyond work. I've met people who professionally are the most organised people I have ever met, but outside of work their lives, figuratively, and literally, are often a complete mess. I find it fascinating that it doesn't seem to matter what the job is, the same holds true for people through every career I've had the opportunity to discuss with people. Now this doesn't apply to everyone, and there are of course exceptions driven by necessity or out of requests made by friends and family. Still of all, from chefs who work all day preparing food who flat out don't want to cook, they want it handed to them, through to Doctors who never take drugs for any ailment - the vast majority of which also don't take the winter flu vaccine despite being offered it, something which I found curious.
The question I ponder is what is the motivation or rather what drives the lack of motivation to do these things for themselves outside of work? Is it actually laziness, or a tiredness? Exhausted from working all day, they don't have the energy to devote to these tasks? I find that one hard to justify as the reason. Beyond that there is the simple question of repetition and boredom - is it really the monotony of doing something all day and as soon as you don't have to do it you choose not to, and avoid it as much as you can? Or is it something else? Perhaps it's the knowledge that we are paid to do these things and once we find ourselves in a position where we have no financial gain in doing it we are reluctant.
None of these possible explanations address the scenario where completing these tasks would actually be beneficial to the individuals. Take a city trader for example who spends all day working with equities and futures, someone who could further their own personal wealth if they applied the same skill-set they use every day in their jobs to their own finances. Now I know some will argue that it's easier to do when it's someone else's money and you don't personally lose the money when you make a loss, and I can accept that in part, I can also accept that some will have the drive to be self-made and pursue their own independent careers and form their own companies when they gain the experience to do so, but I would argue those people are in a minority, just as those in the above examples who put the effort in outside of work as chefs etc are also a minority. Like a solicitor establishing their own practice, many prefer the security of working with an existing firm, it's only a minority that go it alone.
So whilst there are always exceptions, they are not the focus of my attention. My attention is focused on those that choose not to use the skills they gain in employment in their personal lives. I'm guilty of this myself as there are many things I have done through employment which I could pursue as careers on my own through self employment, but my reason for not doing so is a lack of motivation, but the reason for the lack of motivation is something that eludes me. I know I could, I know the barriers that prevent me could be overcome, and I know that I could handle it as I have proven through employment I can do that work professionally, still of all I have no real reason why I don't I just simply don't, which leaves me asking the same question I ask of others - why?
I know many will read this and think this is very much a first-world-problem, and I will admit that it is, this entire post is self-indulgent, but I would argue this isn't limited to those that live in the first world, and it certainly isn't limited to the boundaries established by it. There are many people in the first world who could use what they know within second and third world countries and produce results that would far outstretch anything they would ever do in the first world. I was once told be a friend of mine from University whose family several generations back came from India, if he ever made enough money he would move to India and live like a King. That's a bizarre concept at first to wrap your head around but that is mainly because of first world guilt at the suggestion of exploiting those in the other worlds. Yet what he suggested highlights the truth, the further "down" the chain you go the more spending power your money gains, and ultimately the more your relative wealth increases, even if the principle sum remains constant. Whilst many dwell on those in poorer countries wanting to come to richer countries for better opportunities, the idea of moving in the other direction seems to be forgotten.
If you can't increase your wealth where you live, is the answer to gaining a better standard of living perhaps that you should move to somewhere where your wealth has significantly increased spending power? If the possibility of answering yes is dancing around in your mind then you find yourself in the same position with your career whether you realise it or not, the work you do in employment benefits someone other than yourself, whereas what you do in your own life benefits yourself. You may not increase your wealth as a result of it but you would be taking a step towards "passing down" the wealth of information from the "first world" of your employment, to the second or third world of your personal life, depending on how abject the two are. We live in an age where information is a commodity, and to possess it is to hold a form of wealth, like all wealth, the further down the chain you go the more powerful it becomes.
That brings us to the final question - is the reason we keep wealth within the first world and do not pass it on to the others the exact same reason why we put the effort into our jobs but not the same effort in our personal lives?
The Good Bit
How high do you believe is your tolerance of mediocrity? In an increasingly digital world where more and more of what we do is on-demand, the element of control when it comes to the content we consume is shifting more to the individual, to the consumer, rather than the distributor. Take television as an example. There was a time when it was broadcast, with a set schedule, which you had to adhere to if you wanted to consume the content it offered. Then came video recorders which allowed people to record TV shows to watch at a time they wanted, and thus the transference of control began.
Recording a TV show required a lot more effort than it does today. You needed a VHS, a recorder, you had to either record it at the time it was being aired manually - which defeats the point - or you had to set it to record, which required knowing the time and date and channel and manually entering this information. When PVRs and DVRs came along, [Personal/Digital Video Recorders] the process was simplified. The likes of Sky+ and TiVo made it easier for people to record things at the touch of a button. Yet again, more power shifted.
Fast forward to the present and we have on-demand services where we can select the programmes we want to watch and play them, there's no need to have recorded it in the first place because the content streams to you from the provider when you want to. For advertisers that presented a problem because they lost the ability to target advertisements to wider audiences based on viewing figures, and as was the problem when VHS was around, people simply skip the ads.
While advertisers may not get much sympathy from people, there are a group of people involved in this whole process which are overlooked - the content creators. When television had a set schedule that had to be adhered to for fear of missing out, those creators had a lot more leniency when it came to holding the viewer's attention. When you control the content yourself however, there is no requirement to consume the entirety of the content. When you control the content you consume you can skip the crap and get to the good bit.
There are two arguments you can make given this deference of control. One is to say that this is good for content consumers in that it forces the creators to make higher quality content which is more consistent in its entertainment value so as to make the entire thing "the good bit" without anything you would want to skip. The other argument is to say that having content comprised 100% of "good bits" is unrealistic and can never be achieved. I don't think the issue is as black and white as this, but to entertain these two points of view it leaves a question. Have we progressed beyond order, and entered into chaos? The more you give people control, the harder it becomes to predict what they will do with it. Which makes you question how a content creator is meant to achieve a narrative without being linear.
There are few mediums that work with non-linear consumption. Games are perhaps the best example as many games allow you to explore a world in your own way. Music would be another example as most people who buy albums will inevitably have favourite tracks they listen to more than others and for most I would say the ritual of listening to an album in order of track number is something that has all but been forgotten, saved only for the first time they play an album to see what each track is like - but even at that I would not be surprised if the majority skipped through each track to find which ones they liked most first.
From all I have said there remains to be only two mediums of entertainment that are resistant to disorder, they would be the Theatre, and Books. I would argue these two are perhaps the only two that can't be broken down by this change in control. With Theatre the audience must sit and watch and consume at a pace controlled by the performance itself - be that live action through plays or be it through cinema. As for Books and reading there are very few books where you will be able to follow the story if you were to read the chapters out of order, and fewer still where one would return and only read one chapter from that book.
As a final note, I would like to return to the argument that deference of control will force content creators to produce higher quality content. The trend of deferring control of consumption to the consumer is one that has been growing long-term. It's not something new, and it has been influencing the content we consumer for many years now. As far as the argument of motivation to create increased quality content is concerned I would like to invite you to explore this thought on your own, consider the evidence, and the way content has evolved over the past decade or two, and decide for yourself whether the quality of that content has increased or decreased, and ponder what the cause of that change has been.
Recording a TV show required a lot more effort than it does today. You needed a VHS, a recorder, you had to either record it at the time it was being aired manually - which defeats the point - or you had to set it to record, which required knowing the time and date and channel and manually entering this information. When PVRs and DVRs came along, [Personal/Digital Video Recorders] the process was simplified. The likes of Sky+ and TiVo made it easier for people to record things at the touch of a button. Yet again, more power shifted.
Fast forward to the present and we have on-demand services where we can select the programmes we want to watch and play them, there's no need to have recorded it in the first place because the content streams to you from the provider when you want to. For advertisers that presented a problem because they lost the ability to target advertisements to wider audiences based on viewing figures, and as was the problem when VHS was around, people simply skip the ads.
While advertisers may not get much sympathy from people, there are a group of people involved in this whole process which are overlooked - the content creators. When television had a set schedule that had to be adhered to for fear of missing out, those creators had a lot more leniency when it came to holding the viewer's attention. When you control the content yourself however, there is no requirement to consume the entirety of the content. When you control the content you consume you can skip the crap and get to the good bit.
There are two arguments you can make given this deference of control. One is to say that this is good for content consumers in that it forces the creators to make higher quality content which is more consistent in its entertainment value so as to make the entire thing "the good bit" without anything you would want to skip. The other argument is to say that having content comprised 100% of "good bits" is unrealistic and can never be achieved. I don't think the issue is as black and white as this, but to entertain these two points of view it leaves a question. Have we progressed beyond order, and entered into chaos? The more you give people control, the harder it becomes to predict what they will do with it. Which makes you question how a content creator is meant to achieve a narrative without being linear.
There are few mediums that work with non-linear consumption. Games are perhaps the best example as many games allow you to explore a world in your own way. Music would be another example as most people who buy albums will inevitably have favourite tracks they listen to more than others and for most I would say the ritual of listening to an album in order of track number is something that has all but been forgotten, saved only for the first time they play an album to see what each track is like - but even at that I would not be surprised if the majority skipped through each track to find which ones they liked most first.
From all I have said there remains to be only two mediums of entertainment that are resistant to disorder, they would be the Theatre, and Books. I would argue these two are perhaps the only two that can't be broken down by this change in control. With Theatre the audience must sit and watch and consume at a pace controlled by the performance itself - be that live action through plays or be it through cinema. As for Books and reading there are very few books where you will be able to follow the story if you were to read the chapters out of order, and fewer still where one would return and only read one chapter from that book.
As a final note, I would like to return to the argument that deference of control will force content creators to produce higher quality content. The trend of deferring control of consumption to the consumer is one that has been growing long-term. It's not something new, and it has been influencing the content we consumer for many years now. As far as the argument of motivation to create increased quality content is concerned I would like to invite you to explore this thought on your own, consider the evidence, and the way content has evolved over the past decade or two, and decide for yourself whether the quality of that content has increased or decreased, and ponder what the cause of that change has been.
A few words about stress
Serenity is sitting on the crest of hill with a clear blue sky above rarely graced by cloud, with the sun shining down, a cool breeze gently flowing over you. The grass on the hillside bristling lightly, buttercups dancing in the wind, their yellow petals shining brilliantly. There is no-one around for miles, no structures stand in sight. All you can see are green fields sprawling out reaching the horizon, with rows of trees in misshapen grids. In the distance birds sing, and as you sit you breathe in deep and slow and exhale with a soft sigh.
Finding a point of reflection, where you can sit and bring yourself to peace and serenity just for a while, this is something I try to do. I wouldn't call it meditation, as I don't sit in any particular position such as lotus, and I don't engage in breathing exercises to try and bring about a relaxed state. I've explored meditation before and it never really did anything for me. What I try to do with visualisation is to find a moment where I can rest and "reset" in an effort to find new energy within myself to begin again.
This is what works for me, but the concept remains the same. Try to find something that allows you to distract yourself for a moment each day. Something that allows you to think of nothing of consequence. Be it through music, movie, visualisation, or even through physical activity.
When stress rises and the things that burden us grow heavy, the most important thing to remember is to stop and breathe every now and then. It's easy to see a mountain of work, throw yourself into it, and work until you find yourself exhausted and simply want to sleep. Doing this won't make you more productive. When we study in school, and we learn about revision techniques for exams it's a common piece of advice to take regular breaks, yet this advice which we hear when we are in school is something which we don't carry over into our personal and professional lives as we grow older. The way we treated exam times which were the most stressful times for students, is the way we should treat our lives when we feel stressed. Never underestimate the power of structure, organisation, routine, and most importantly rest.
Finding a point of reflection, where you can sit and bring yourself to peace and serenity just for a while, this is something I try to do. I wouldn't call it meditation, as I don't sit in any particular position such as lotus, and I don't engage in breathing exercises to try and bring about a relaxed state. I've explored meditation before and it never really did anything for me. What I try to do with visualisation is to find a moment where I can rest and "reset" in an effort to find new energy within myself to begin again.
This is what works for me, but the concept remains the same. Try to find something that allows you to distract yourself for a moment each day. Something that allows you to think of nothing of consequence. Be it through music, movie, visualisation, or even through physical activity.
When stress rises and the things that burden us grow heavy, the most important thing to remember is to stop and breathe every now and then. It's easy to see a mountain of work, throw yourself into it, and work until you find yourself exhausted and simply want to sleep. Doing this won't make you more productive. When we study in school, and we learn about revision techniques for exams it's a common piece of advice to take regular breaks, yet this advice which we hear when we are in school is something which we don't carry over into our personal and professional lives as we grow older. The way we treated exam times which were the most stressful times for students, is the way we should treat our lives when we feel stressed. Never underestimate the power of structure, organisation, routine, and most importantly rest.
The Question Of Who
I haven't been able to sit down and write for some time now. It's not because I don't have the time, it's not because I don't have the motivation either. I also wouldn't be so quick to label it writers' block for the simple reason that I have had a myriad of ideas running through my head which I'd like to write about and I have had topics I want to research and explore. The reason I haven't done any of this is because I'm in a mindset at the moment where I am finding it hard to judge what others want. When it comes to this blog, most of my posts are simply the articulation of my thoughts which I push out into the ether with no real thought of who might read it or what they think. This blog is very much a creative outlet. I do write more than what I post here however. I write novels which I publish through Amazon via Kindle Direct Publishing, and I write other pieces for publishing elsewhere. It is my writing beyond this blog that I haven't been able to progress through.
When you write a novel or a work of fiction, you have to consider a target audience, you have to consider a genre and themes etc which help you market what you write. You can abandon all of that and write free-form but what you will produce is something which will prove very hard to promote. Google and the nature of the internet as it is today has pushed people into a corner where the only information that they can find online is the information they actively seek - in other words to "find" anything online you must already know what you are looking for. This is perhaps one of the reasons viral marketing has become so popular, in many ways it can be considered a metaphorical cactus of creativity, which travels across the internet popping the bubbles we trap ourselves inside. Viral marketing transcends what you search for, and creates content that actively finds you instead. Which is all fascinating I am sure but the basic point is novels don't go viral.
Virality online centres around things that are short and to the point, usually funny, or disturbingly graphic, neither of which fall under the range of subjects I write about. I guess what I am saying is when you create content you do it for consumption and when you have no-one in mind to consume it you find yourself with a barrier to the creation process.
I guess this all comes down to myself asking a simple question, "Who am I doing this for?"
When you write a novel or a work of fiction, you have to consider a target audience, you have to consider a genre and themes etc which help you market what you write. You can abandon all of that and write free-form but what you will produce is something which will prove very hard to promote. Google and the nature of the internet as it is today has pushed people into a corner where the only information that they can find online is the information they actively seek - in other words to "find" anything online you must already know what you are looking for. This is perhaps one of the reasons viral marketing has become so popular, in many ways it can be considered a metaphorical cactus of creativity, which travels across the internet popping the bubbles we trap ourselves inside. Viral marketing transcends what you search for, and creates content that actively finds you instead. Which is all fascinating I am sure but the basic point is novels don't go viral.
Virality online centres around things that are short and to the point, usually funny, or disturbingly graphic, neither of which fall under the range of subjects I write about. I guess what I am saying is when you create content you do it for consumption and when you have no-one in mind to consume it you find yourself with a barrier to the creation process.
I guess this all comes down to myself asking a simple question, "Who am I doing this for?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)