Quickthink

One of the background debates going on about internet is whether it is smartening us up or dumbing us down. The smartening up side argues that more exchanges and especially more content creation by broader sectors of the population makes for smarter dialogue and faster problem solving. The dumbing down side argues that the exchanges are mostly trivial and perhaps getting more so. Buried under an avalanche of trivia, most people don’t see the benefit. As a result, culture gets dumber, perhaps even as a few of us get smarter. Not good for building community, I would say.

I have been searching for a word that provides the right focus for what we are looking for when we say we want to get smarter. It is a word that describes what happens when we are smarter and excludes what happens when we are dumber. BTW, I started this line of thinking after watching Christof Adami’s TED talk about finding information signatures that show life on earth and on other planets. I am looking for information signatures that show smarts, though sorry aliens, my focus is human only.

Here is the word I came up with - traction. Smart people exhibit a lot more traction than people who are not so smart. They have a better system for knowing what to look for, finding it, using it, and regenerating it into new ideas. BTW, if you want to see traction in action, just watch Christof. Wow! Or watch Richard Sadoway on inventing new batteries and mentoring. Or watch Juan Enriquez - Evolution in real time. This is exciting stuff!

So how does a traction system work? How do we build up traction? That is a good question that could spark quite a lot of debate. But I would start with this proposition. It starts with a skill. The skill to exclude things from your attention. To prioritize search, discovery, use and learning  based on future needs. I am reminded of how Richard Feynman worked. He worked with great intensity and focus and then stopped for the day to let the creative side of his mind be free. He took up sketching, for example. Coincidentally, this model is a lot like Jim Loehr’s engagement model (engage - rest).

Hmmm … already I have a sense of what is wrong with the internet. For most of us, the internet is an attractive nuisance. As we wander around, we get less and less focused on one thing. And one might argue that for some of us, our ability to exclude things is weakened. We are easily amused but not necessarily to creative thinking. Not necessarily to building identity based on focused effort.

So do you feel a lack of traction? I would confess that I do. I am spending a lot of time reviewing and creating web content. But most of what I see is a distraction. Hmmm …so how to gain traction. Wouldn’t it be great if there was a platform out there that could help you do that?

A while ago, I posted on the refreshing sense of humor of Boris Johnson. I like how he doesn’t try to “fit in”. Instead, he gets us to adjust to him via a quirky sense of humor. Tony Bourdain has a similar talent. I have been a fan since reading Kitchen Confidential and am glad to see that he now will get the chance to address a big audience at CNN.

What’s the big deal? Bourdain is just fun to follow. That’s it.

Why? Well, Saveur informs me that

Ninety percent of Sweden’s oysters come Grebbestad.

And when to go?

Each year the town hosts an internationally-recognized oyster opening competition in September and you can go on an oyster safari year-round, but according to Per, the oysters are best in early spring: the cold waters cause the oysters to retain the most glycogen, making them rich in minerals.

It is probably not too late, but next year I am thinking about March or April.

A very funny Economist cartoon about the state of global economy and an article about what Ms Merkel should do about it.

The Miami Heat demonstrated that they can rise to the occasion, taking a “must win” game 6 from the Celtics in Boston. Most of the press buzz is about Lebron James, who dominated and Lebron deserves the praise. But I liked this quote from Heat coach Spoelstra from NYT

“It wasn’t the end of the world,” Spoelstra said. “Nobody likes getting dirt thrown on your face before you’re not even dead.”

Hmmm … setting aside the grammar issues, he has a point.

It is an interesting distinction. But which motivates us? A resonating message from our consumer based culture is that pleasing ourselves is not such a bad idea. And of course, it isn’t. But does it take priority over pleasing others? Are we happier, for example, when we prepare an amazing dinner … for ourselves? Of course not.  It is much more fun to cook for and dine with friends and loved ones.

Then we might ask this more difficult question. Assuming that we get pleasure from others, how much of that is pleasure from giving to them? And BTW, how good are we at giving pleasure? In a way, these are old fashioned questions. They harken back to the era of “service” — where somewhat rigid standards were enforced in the name of satisfying others.

I am thinking, for example, of a 1938 movie called My Man Godfrey.  In the film, formerly rich and still sophisticated Godfrey, played by William Powell, learns the pleasures of being a butler. And while the rich and privileged benefited from high standards expected from servants, they too were bound (at least in name) to serve the higher purposes of society. Leslie Howard was often quite good at displaying this value, for example, in the ending scene of the 1934 film, The Scarlet Pimpernel.

With this background, you can appreciate how jarring the language is in Mark Bittman’s NYT article today about Simon Hopkinson. It starts off like this

There are chefs who cook for notoriety, or for their own gratification, and there are those who cook for the pleasure of others. Those of the second type certainly cook to make a living, but they’re motivated to guarantee that their customers have real pleasure, as opposed to demonstrating their own brilliance.

What! Are there chefs out there who cook just to demonstrate their own brilliance? Gluttons for self-gratification who fail to deliver “real pleasure” to their clients? Well, it is likely not such a black and white thing. And still … one can sense the difference. When one is focused on giving pleasure rather than making demonstrations, one feels comfortable with understatement. And understatement, BTW, is a value that I miss.

FOLLOW -  So what does understatement look like? Well … these days one might be forgiven for confusing understatement with being boring. But check out Toni Bentley’s piece about Fred and Adele Astaire and you get a sense of Fred’s brilliant, understated artistic style.