Make. Do.

Aristotle, as a philosopher, can impart upon us only philosophical understanding. His ability to reason his way to a deep understanding of the nature of a thing gives him no more power to control or change that thing than one to whom that thing is a complete mystery. In this way, philosophical understanding can be seen as less productive than scientific knowledge. After all, if science leads us to better understand something – genetics, for example – that understanding can impart the power of influence or even control.

For Man the Maker, this is why philosophy is less important than science. Philosophy brews us no beers and builds us no iPhones.

The Maker is not the only archetype of Man, though – and the others aren’t so concerned with being productive. In living our lives and running our societies, we are using our knowledge and understanding in a practical, rather than productive, way. For these pursuits, philosophy is much more useful than science.

Part II: Man the Maker, concluded

The Greeks had no word or concept like our “creative” so, instead, when discussing the mind of Man the Maker, Aristotle and Adler refer to productive thinking. This would be the generative thought that is associated with invention or innovation. In the creation of any thing, two phases of thought are required: (1) productive thinking and (2) know-how. The difference between the two is exemplified in the differing roles of the architect and the construction foreman.

Of course, one person might possess both of these capabilities, but they are separate nonetheless. The important thing to note, however, is that both are processes of the mind – the mind is the principal factor in human production; everything else is instrumental.

The Greek word techne (from which we get technique and technician) is equivalent to the Latin word ars (from which we get art) – both mean skill. In that vein, an artist is a person who has the know-how/skill/technique for making things. We could go further and call them creative artists if they also have the productive idea from which the thing can be planned and made.

In this sense, a carpenter is an artist. What about a doctor, though? Or a teacher? Obviously, they have SOME important know-how! There is a fundamental difference, though – the desk made by a carpenter would not have otherwise existed, whereas the learning effected by a teacher might have. Whereas the carpenter produces his desired product, the teacher and doctor must cooperate with nature to achieve theirs.

In the end, Aristotle draws all kinds of artists – productive, cooperative, and “artistic” – together by the goal of all art: to create something that is well-made. How else can we explain the appreciation we might feel for a “beautiful” car or dress or, hell, the latest Apple product. Man the Maker is an artist, in one sense of the word or another, because he appreciates beauty and craftsmanship.

Part II: Man the Maker, continued further

As we know, Aristotle set the change of coming to be (or passing away) apart from the more mundane change of place, alteration of quality, and increase or decrease of quantity. Simply put – pieces of wood becoming a chair is not the same thing as the green chair turning red. In order to better understand how that truth applies to natural generation, we start by investigating artificial products.

Adler is a big fan of “coming to terms” with your author if you want to really understand him, and five terms are crucial to this demonstration:

• Matter: the matter that comprised the pieces of wood now comprises the chair.
• Form: the carpenter can imbue these pieces of wood with the form of a chair.
• Privation (a lack of some virtue): these pieces of wood have a privation of chairness.
• Potentiality: these pieces of wood have the potentiality of being a chair.
• Actuality: these pieces of wood that HAD the potentiality of being a chair have now actually become a chair.

You’ll note that potentiality and actuality are mutually exclusive. The pieces of wood either CAN be a chair or they ARE a chair. To that end, privation is necessary for potentiality, but it is not sufficient by itself. After all, a crème brûlée also has a privation of chairness, but it also lacks the potentiality of becoming a chair.

Suppose, however, that there were totally formless matter – you might say that it would have limitless potentiality. Then again, you might say that it would have no potentiality whatsoever. Heck, you could even say that, by definition, that matter does not exist, and there is no point wasting our breath discussing imaginary nonsense. So long as we are talking about artificial production, you would be totally justified in that opinion; birth and death, however, are more tenacious mysteries.

Remember the tomato I had you eat in the last entry? Well what if you were a wolf, and the tomato a rabbit? When the wolf eats and digests the rabbit, does the rabbit matter become wolf matter? What about the fertilization of a rabbit egg by a rabbit sperm? What is the relationship of the egg matter and the sperm matter to the resulting baby rabbit? If you believe that anything persists in those changes, it is to that which Aristotle was referring when he spoke of formless matter.

Part II: Man the Maker, continued

Regarding any human production, the first question must be: “what is it going to be made of?” You need materials to make anything and, to a certain extent, these materials define the product. The next question is “who made it?” Someone has to effect the creation of the product, or it would not be produced. Next, you ask “what is it that is being made?” If something is produced, it must have a form. Finally, all there is left to ask is: “why is it being made?”

The answers to all of these questions, taken together, cause a product to come into being, so they are called the four causes. Each is necessary, but not sufficient by itself. “WAIT!” you might say – not everything is made with a conscious purpose! Some things just are. Well, with human productions, we can generally come up with some satisfactory answer, even if it’s just “fiddling around” or “throwing crap at a wall to see what sticks.” Nature is a more enigmatic creator. Let’s take a look at those causes again to see what we can learn of “why” from the other three:

1. Material cause: that out of which something is made.
2. Efficient cause: that by which something is made.
3. Formal cause: that into which something is made.
4. Final cause: that for the sake of which something is made.

If you have a green chair in your room and you paint it red, all four causes are present: material (the green chair), efficient (you), formal (the red chair), and final (a more aesthetically pleasing bedroom, perhaps). What about the green tomato ripened into red? It has causes, as well: material (the green tomato), efficient (energy from the sun), formal (the red tomato)… but what about the final cause? The sun wasn’t going out of its way to ripen that tomato. It had no conscious motivation. In truth, the redness of the tomato is a purpose unto itself.

What do all of these causes tell us about Aristotle’s fourth kind of change: coming to be or passing away? Well, consider the red tomato: when you eat it, it nourishes you and the matter that made up the tomato now makes up you. Is the tomato now a person? Are you now a tomato? Of course not, but some kind of fundamental change has taken place in the matter itself: tomato matter has become human matter.

But what IS “tomato matter?” What is “human matter,” for that matter? (heh) Most importantly: what is “matter itself?” The answers to these questions cut to the heart of what it means for man to be a maker.

Part II: Man the Maker

Not everything that results from human behavior is a “work of art,” nor can we even necessarily call it man-made. It would be normal to say that a man made a house, or that he made a fire. Of course he made the house, but did he really make the fire? Perhaps he started it, but that only means that he caused it to happen at a certain time in a certain place. Aristotle draws a threefold division of occurrences:

1. a natural event (ex: a wildfire),
2. an artificial happening (ex: a “man-made” fire), and
3. an artificial product.

You might notice that it is called a product, and not a creation. Simply put, men aren’t conjurers – they cannot create something from nothing; they make one thing from another.

Aristotle drew inspiration from his predecessors, but he also sought to avoid their mistakes, as he saw them. Avoiding the extreme positions of “everything always changes” and “everything is constant,” Aristotle noted the more logical middle ground – that in any change, something must remain constant. If I hand you an apple, it will change positions and ownership, but it remains the same apple.

With that in mind, Aristotle classified the kinds of change that can occur to a body:

1. local motion (change in place),
2. alteration (change in quality),
3. growth/shrinking (change in quantity or size), and
4. coming to be and passing away (becoming or ceasing to be what it is).

Obviously, #4 is special – Aristotle separated it from the others, as it is a more fundamental change. It applies to things as well as people – just as a corpse of a man is not the man, a demolished building is not the building (you might say it has lost its building-ness). While he acknowledged that something remained (the corpse, or the rubble), he did not have a name for the phenomenon we call the conservation of matter. Here, he felt that an investigation into reuse of building materials in artificial products would be instructive for understanding the transformations involved in coming to be and passing away.

(Aside: I thought it was interesting that Aristotle did not call local motion caused by man “artificial motion.” Rather, he called it “violent motion,” because it violated the natural tendency of the object to remain at rest.)

Part I: Man the Philosophical Animal, continued

There are three primary directions that human activity can take, and these are the three dimensions that make up and describe any person. They are:

1. Man the maker – the artist or artisan,
2. Man the doer – the moral and social being, and
3. Man the knower – the student and teacher.

It is important to point out that the knower doesn’t have a monopoly on thinking. All three are thinkers, although you could say that the maker entertains more “productive” thought and the doer more “practical,” as opposed to the knower’s “theoretical” or “speculative” thought.

Aristotle himself wrote on each of these kinds of thinking. His defining work on the “productive” sphere is titled Poetics. It isn’t merely about poetry, though; the Greek word from which we get the word poetry is a general term for any kind of making, not just making art. People don’t only care about making art; there are countless more “useful” things that people make, and can take pride in making well.

Here, Adler takes a step back to bring up some much grander terms: truth, goodness, and beauty. These are the universal values that appeal to human nature, and they correspond to the three dimensions of human thought.

• Man the maker is concerned with beauty, with trying to produce well-made things.
• Man the doer, both as an individual and a member of society, is concerned with good and evil, right and wrong.
• Man the knower is concerned with truth.

I have to admit – it gives me a bit of a thrill that these correspond so well with my concept of Garra Ronnie Res (in the same order, no less!). Whether that is a reflection of the timeless truth of Aristotle’s message or something more cosmically significant, it is kind of exciting that it came to me in a dream.

Aristotle for Everybody

Part I: Man the Philosophical Animal

The book begins with a discourse on categories. Aristotle was fascinated by categories, and Adler points out how that is important to most of his teachings. Beyond the elementary “animal, vegetable, mineral” distinctions, the first significant claim is that humans are different from other animals in one respect: our ability to “play philosophical games.”

(Note: Covey makes exactly this claim in 7HoHEP to explain mankind’s freedom to choose, and therefore the importance of proactivity and responsibility)

Aristotle also made the distinction between bodies (on one hand) and their characteristics or attributes (on the other). We can consider the attributes of a thing without thinking of the thing itself, but we cannot change them without changing the thing. What’s more – things CAN be changed, whereas attributes cannot; green does not become red, but a green thing can change to a red thing (like a bell pepper, or tomato).

Here, Adler steals my heart once again, with a semantic aside about the meaning of the term “thing.” You see, Aristotle uses the term “thing” interchangeably with the term body (see above) – that is, a physical object. One issue: he ALSO uses “thing” as a counterpart to “person” (as in “person, place or thing”). We do the same thing today, actually. From his other books, I know Adler is a big proponent of being mindful of authors’ wordplay – their intentional use of language in a way that, because it is unusual, must be explained to the audience. Wordplay like this (which Adler calls a “Term”) is a flashing red light, a dead giveaway of on idea that the author feels is of utmost importance.

What is the importance, though?

Human beings are physical things in one sense of the word and not in another when we call them persons, not things. As physical things, as bodies, they have the three dimensions with which we are all acquainted. As persons, the also have three dimensions, which are quite different.

And what are those three dimensions of humanity? Stay tuned to find out...

Habit #2: Begin with the end in mind

(Principles of Personal Leadership)

I am not the person I want to be. I can be, though, but I need to know who that person is. If I believe the first habit (being proactive allows you to direct your own life), then all I need is a clear image of the goal.

The basis for righteous action is that “all things are created twice.” The first creation is mental, and the second creation is physical. Much like the carpenter’s rule “measure twice, cut once,” this relies on the assumption that you have the right goal in mind. The first creation happens no matter what, so you either take responsibility for it or empower the world to make your decisions for you.

Basically, Habit 1 says, “You are the creator.” Habit 2 is the first creation.

I was struck by one anecdote from the book, that of former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat. It described his conscious change from Israel-hating to peace-loving while he was in prison:

“He learned to withdraw from his own mind and look at it to see if the scripts were appropriate and wise. He learned how to vacate his own mind and, through a deep personal process of meditation, to work with his own scriptures, his own form of prayer, and rescript himself.

(side note: I simply must try my hand at meditation.)

Much of the success of this habit is based on a Personal Mission Statement, which is rather mundanely named, but is basically a crystallized set of correct principles, which becomes your standard for behavior, much like the function of the Constitution for America. This then serves as your changeless core, which allows you to live with change around you.

When your life is centered on your principles, it provides you with security, guidance, wisdom and power. Some or all of these will be lacking if your life is centered on anything else – like your partner, family, money, work, possessions, or pleasure – I myself can personally attest to the problems that arise from being pleasure- or partner-centered. If your sense of self-worth comes primarily from your partner, you will never be able to respond appropriately to your partner’s emotional needs; you will simply react to them, and usually in an escalating fashion. If you are centered on momentary pleasure, you will simply stagnate until you find another center.

Having a principle center doesn’t just happen, though – you need that personal mission statement. Furthermore, you can’t just write one out and be done with it. It takes a great deal of introspection and continual revision. Many people are inspired to do this spontaneously when they have a life-changing (usually catastrophic) experience. You can consciously create your own perspective-expanding experience with a little visualization, though. Write your own eulogy, as you would like it to be. Be as vivid and rich in detail as you can. This can help you discover what it is you truly want from yourself and your life.

Once you have the personal mission statement, use it to craft your own personal affirmations or mantras – messages to remind yourself of your principles, to tell yourself when you find yourself acting contrary to those principles. It is crucial to remember, though, that this is a form of programming, so you want to make sure the program is right (that your principles are well-formed) before you do this.

The process of creating the mission statement is a personal one, but some elements are helpful to everyone:

1. Physically write it out, don’t just think it up. The act of writing distills, crystallizes, and clarifies thought and helps break the whole into parts.
2. Separate your principles into the roles to which they apply. For example, you may be a mother, sister, friend, professional, etc. You probably have goals for all of these different roles, and your principles should reflect that.

There are important messages on family and organizational mission statements, but my current focus is on improving myself, so I will skip these for now.

Next Habit: Put First Things First!

Habit #1: Be Proactive

(Principles of Personal Vision)

This habit is about two things:

1. Being self-aware, and
2. Being responsible for your own actions

Humans are self-aware. Simple as that may seem, it is a very profound truth – we are the only creatures capable of thinking about our own feelings, moods, and thoughts as concepts separate from ourselves. In addition to

1. self-awareness, we also have
2. imagination,
3. conscience, and
4. independent will.

These four make up our Freedom to Choose, which sits between stimulus and response. Being truly proactive means exercising that freedom, so that your actions are driven by your values. Being reactive, on the other hand, means being driven by your feelings, by circumstances, by conditions, and by your environment. Sounds like an automaton, no? Well, it isn’t as repugnant as you might think; it is also an easy way to absolve yourself of blame for things in your life that bother you.

The hard part is recognizing that it isn’t what happens to you that hurts you – it is YOUR RESPONSE to what happens to you that hurts you. It is all too easy to fall back on reactive thoughts like “I can’t” or “I have to,” and proclaiming “I choose” is much harder, but it is also necessary to establish your personal independence.

The final thought in this chapter is about recognizing the limits of your control. Problems fall into one of three categories:

1. Direct control – solved by working on your habits (private victories),
2. Indirect control – solved by changing your methods of influence (public victories), and
3. No control – simply learn to accept these, and be at peace with them.

I have a great many regrets in my life, but I have no control over them (at least, not anymore). While acknowledging past mistakes is a necessary step, it is even more important to correct and learn from them.

Next: Habit 2 – Begin with the end in mind!

Key Theme #5: Maximizer

Few things frustrate me more than settling for mediocrity, especially if I am forced to do so. No company sets out to do things “good enough” but, through any number of wrong turns (mostly due to poor management, in my opinion), that is where most companies end up. In my experience, I have been in roles where settling for mediocrity is the status quo because:

1. the role is so far removed from profit-driving activities that it is not valued, so excellence is neither expected nor sought;
2. the company is selling a product/service that customers have a hard time evaluating for quality, so performance is VERY tightly controlled based on the few criteria customers demand… and little else; or
3. the workforce is so transient that management sees little incentive to try to get the best out of them.

There are countless other reasons why it happens, but it is like a slow, wasting death for a company. Me? I see something done well and think, “if I tweak this and this and this, it could be done AMAZINGLY!” Thinking about it, analyzing it, discussing it, modifying it – all of these are exciting and important parts of the process that I, as a Maximizer, love about improvement.

This is also the part of me that dislikes trying to fix weaknesses. To me, going from good to great is more satisfying, beneficial, and worthwhile than going from bad to okay. I do recognize, however, that I have weaknesses, and they should be addressed. Contrary to conventional wisdom, though, I feel that weaknesses should managed, not fixed (because real weaknesses cannot be fixed) and that the majority of one’s time should be on maximizing and capitalizing upon one’s strengths.

I would benefit from observing – and perhaps picking the brains of – exemplars of this philosophy. History is full of people who identified their strengths and built upon them to achieve greatness, and I know a few who I really respect based on their ability lead lives very true to who they are and the ways in which they are great.

Key Theme #4: Learner

I doubt that there are many people who don’t feel at least a mild thrill at the feeling of having learned something new. Nevertheless, my passion for acquiring new knowledge or skills is one of my core characteristics. Often, it might take me a while to find a use for some new tidbit of knowledge, or it may ultimately prove useless; regardless, it has value to me simply as an answer to a question, whether I asked one or not.

This urge to learn sometimes verges on the “meta” as I find myself interested more and more in learning itself, or in the language of learning, or language itself. This aspect of my personality explains (at least in part) why I am so fascinated by unusual words, and why I enjoy mastering them and their multiple meanings.

To capitalize on this theme, I need to track and refine how I learn. I am already doing this, to some extent, with all the nonfiction books I have been reading recently – I am taking a slightly different approach to reading, annotating, reviewing and analyzing each book, and comparing the results later.

In the future, a consulting role might fit me well, as I wouldn’t be intimidated by the flood of unfamiliar information that each assignment would bring. Also, I will want to take advantage of programs at work that subsidize my learning. As long as the learning would allow me to contribute more at work, both the company and I could really benefit from this talent of mine.

Key Theme #3: Futuristic

This talent is not so much about being FROM the future as much as it is about looking TO the future. I draw a great deal of my motivation and energy - perhaps even the majority of it - from contemplating how the world (or my life) could be in the future. Possibilities excite me and, if I can see how my work pulls an exciting possibility closer, I am as enthusiastic and energetic a worker as anyone could ask for. Being forced to ignore that urge drains me terribly, as does work that I see as both (1) poorly designed and (2) out of my control, because I see no possibility of improvement.

I'm a proponent of the Stockdale Paradox (see: Good to Great) - the acceptance of brutal reality, but faith in the possibility of success. I think that my success in life will hinge on my ability to achieve that paradoxical balance. I have less trouble with the faith than with the acceptance, but that is just a matter of being honest with myself.

This talent, unlike many of the others, actually benefits from being around others with the same talent. Especially visionary people spark my own passion for the future, and I am energized by being around them and speaking with them. I have nothing against realists, but the more someone criticizes non-pragmatic thought as useless, the more they drain me of enthusiasm. On the other hand, I would also benefit from partnering with a person with strong Activator talents, so that I might be reminded that the future has to be made, not just dreamed.

To really leverage this talent, I need to spend time refining my ideas, not just thinking them up. The more vivid I can make my ideas, the more persuasive they will be. The more persuasive my ideas are, the better less-futuristic people will receive them. In a management role, it would also allow me to spot potential in others, although the real challenge for me would be in communicating that potential and fostering its growth.

Key Theme #2: Individualization

This is the part of me that, while aware of labels/types/categories of people, believes that the differences between individuals (even within one type) is greater than the difference between types. I feel that person is defined by the nuances of their character, not the broad category into which they are lumped. It allows me to personalize my approach to helping different students and - if given the chance - to managing different employees. Even though my Ideation talent leads me to seek out patterns and make connections, this talent balances against that and prevents me from making overly broad assumptions.

The first book in this series, "First, Break All the Rules" is all about this talent. It shows that the quality of the front-line managers of a company determine its success in keeping and growing great workforces and, as a result, its overall success as well. It also shows that Individualization is the most important factor in successful managing, breaking down the manager's role into four responsibilities and demonstrating why each relies heavily on individualized management. I have long felt that creating a work environment that fosters individual and group excellence is my real calling in [work] life, so knowing that I have at least the *potential* to be a great manager is reassuring to me.

I derive great pleasure from sharing what expertise I have with people who are likely to benefit from it, and this talent helps me, both in the execution of that sharing and in determining whether or not I have succeeded. While it allows me to tune into the needs or moods of certain individuals better than some people do, it doesn't necessarily mean that I know how to express my own moods and needs to others. In fact, that is a weakness of mine and I am working on that.

To build upon this talent, I need to become an expert in describing my own strengths and style. That is a matter of both introspection and communication, and this blog should exercise both. I would also benefit from a job with supervising and/or teaching responsibilities - fortunately, I resume tutoring this week and am really looking forward to working with my first new student in several months. As for the supervising… hopefully a wise and creative hiring manager out there recognizes talent when they see it!

Key Theme #1: Ideation

This is the part of me that revels in the thrill of epiphany and that is awed by a glimpse into a great mind. It is what makes me chafe at not having input into how my duties should be performed. It is what lets me come up with alternate tactics and, more often than I'd like, what makes me fail to see the "obvious" answer if it doesn't agree with whatever my mind conjures up.

I get bored quickly, and this trait is both a cause of and a solution to that problem. On the one hand, my wandering mind can lead to lapses in concentration but, on the other, it can also be an inspiration for all kinds improvements - to my life and/or to the world at large - that I could effect. If I want to benefit from this talent, I need to indulge it - to experiment and make whatever small changes I can.

This blog is actually one way that I am fostering my Ideation talent. My mind runs and runs and runs and, more often than not, my ideas just slip away into the ether. The act of recording them should crystallize them somewhat and, hopefully, I will take the opportunity to review them later to benefit from my own counsel.

The next step would be to trust others (*some* others) to be my brain trust. These people would have talents that complement my own. The book suggests someone with strong "Analytical" talent but, at the very least, anyone with a different perspective would be constructive. I already have a few people in mind.

I also need to be more consciously competent about my own Ideation talent. I need to identify the circumstances that produce my best ideas so that, ideally, I can recreate them when needed. Fortunately, I am introspective by nature, so I think it will take little encouragement for me to investigate that aspect of my experience.

7 Habits: Introduction

Part One: Paradigms and Principles

The first thing that really struck home in this book was the Maturity Continuum, that is: natural human development sees an individual go from:

Dependent –to→ Independent –to→ Interdependent

The idea that independence isn’t the highest goal to be sought but, rather, a step to becoming MORE connected with others sounded odd to me at first. It isn’t really that crazy, though, when put like this:

“Dependent people need others to get what they want. Independent people can get what they want through their own effort. Interdependent people combine their own efforts with the efforts of others to achieve their greatest success.”

…which makes perfect sense. Unfortunately…

“Interdependence is a choice only independent people can make. Dependent people cannot choose to become interdependent. They don’t have the character to do it; they don’t own enough of themselves.”

…and I am still at the stage where I see much of what happens in my life as happening TO me, rather than happening because of my actions. So the basic truth is: I need to become independent before I can have solid, meaningful relationships with friends and loved ones. Bummer. I think I already knew this, and it explains a lot of my hermetic tendencies, as well as my interest in self-improvement. The book calls this “Private Victory,” which can then be followed by “Public Victory.” The idea is that you have to own and master your own life (become independent) before you can truly connect with others.

Where the book’s message and my own instincts diverge, however, is in how to include friends and loved ones into the process. For whatever reason (pride, shame, social awkwardness, etc.) I feel that this is something to be figured out BEFORE trying to reach out to friends, whereas the book espouses honestly sharing what I’m learning with friends. We’ll see if I can pull that off without seeming even more self-obsessed than I already do.

Private Victory step 1: BE PROACTIVE!!!

who am I?

StrengthsFinder presented me with my five "key themes," which are basically my defining characteristics:

1) Ideation - I am fascinated by ideas. I am able to find connections between seemingly disparate phenomena.

2) Individualization - I am intrigued with the unique qualities of each person. I have a gift for figuring out how people who are different can work together productively.

3) Futuristic - I am inspired by the future and what could be. I inspire others with my vision of the future.

4) Learner - I have a great desire to learn and want to continuously improve. In particular, the process of learning, rather than the outcome, excites me.

5) Maximizer - I focus on strengths as a way to stimulate personal and group excellence. I seek to transform something strong into something superb.

At first glance, these all seem like things that a fortune teller could say to anyone and get a, "oh my god, you're right!" in response. It took a review of the OTHER 29 themes (ex: Analytical, Developer, Woo, etc.) to show me that, indeed, these traits are more fundamental to my nature than others. Do I think that "Harmony" or "Deliberative" describe me? Sure, but not so much as these five. In later posts, I'll delve into what each one means about me, and how I should build on each one in the future.

c'mon mood, SHIFT!

I need to start with an admission of ignorance: I don’t know WHY I have lived my life so poorly.

I would like to think that it is a good start for me to at least recognize that I have not lived a good life. It’s not that I’m a bad person – at least, I don’t believe that I am – but it’s hard to deny that, given the opportunities I have had before me, I have mucked things up pretty well.

I needed to start with the admission of ignorance because that’s where all learning starts. I also have nearly thirty years of evidence attesting to the fact that I can’t figure this out on my own, so I’m going to start with The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Maybe that’s trite, but I’m an “idea” guy and well-phrased thoughts inspire me to epiphanies and, some(lucky)times, action.

New year, new blog

One of the things that has held me back from any meaningful self-analysis is my neurosis regarding "expert opinion." On the one hand, I love ideas; new, interesting, well-phrased ideas excite me like little else. On the other hand, I always doubt the veracity (or at least the supremacy) of anything subjective that is presented to me as the truth. In other words: how do I know it's ACTUALLY right, and not just what I happen to be reading at the time?

Ultimately, that conflict can never truly be resolved, so I either have to move on regardless of that doubt or just give up. I think I've been giving up, and that hasn't gotten me to where I want to be, so I now choose to just trust my instincts. I will start with two books:

"Now, Discover Your Strengths" (and StrengthsFinder 2.0) - by Marcus Buckingham and Donald Clifton, and

"The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" by Stephen Covey

…and already I feel ridiculous. Shouldn't I already know my strengths? Aren't there higher aspirations than "effective?" Well, I chose these books based on a number of factors, including the depth of their research, how well they have been received (and for how long), and whether their messages resonated with me personally. Both of these books feel true to me, and that's as good a place to start as any.