How to Stay Healthy in Flight

NPR:

Blow away airborne microbes: To keep from catching a pathogen in the plane’s recycled air, use the vent above your head. Set the ventilation at low or medium. Then position it so you can draw an imaginary line of current right in front of your head. When you put your hands on your lap, you should feel the current. Then if something infectious is floating in your personal space, Gendreau says, that air from the vent will create enough current to knock it away.

When is one ready to get married?

Have you heard of Philosophers' Mail? It's a news outlet run by philosophers instead of journalists, and it comes to us from Alain de Botton's School of Life. Fun fact for those of you who recognize de Botton. 

I learned all this because a few months ago I stumbled upon an essay on Philosophers' Mail titled When is one ready to get married? It proposes 8 tempered alternatives to the romantic criteria we're accustomed to hearing.

One of them has stayed with me so I’ve pasted it below in its entirety.

We are ready for marriage when we are ready to love rather than be loved

Confusingly, we speak of ‘love’ as one thing, rather than discerning the two very different varieties that lie beneath the single word: being loved and loving. We should marry when we are ready to do the latter and are aware of our unnatural, immature fixation on the former.

We start out knowing only about ‘being loved.’ It comes to seem – very wrongly – like the norm. To the child, it feels as if the parent is simply spontaneously on hand to comfort, guide, entertain, feed, clear up and remain almost always warm and cheerful. Parents don’t reveal how often they have bitten their tongue, fought back the tears and been too tired to take off their clothes after a day of childcare. The relationship is almost entirely non-reciprocal. The parent loves; but they do not expect the favour to be returned in any significant way. The parent does not get upset when the child has not noticed the new hair cut, asked carefully-calibrated questions about how the meeting at work went or suggested that they go upstairs to take a nap. Parent and child may both ‘love’, but each party is on a very different end of the axis, unbeknownst to the child.

This is why in adulthood, when we first say we long for love, what we predominantly mean is that we want to be loved as we were once loved by a parent. We want a recreation in adulthood of what it felt like to be ministered to and indulged. In a secret part of our minds, we picture someone who will understand our needs, bring us what we want, be immensely patient and sympathetic to us, act selflessly and make it all better.

This is – naturally – a disaster. For a marriage to work, we need to move firmly out of the child – and into the parental position. We need to become someone who will be willing to subordinate their own demands and concerns to the needs of another.

There’s a further lesson to be learnt. When a child says to its parent ‘I hate you’, the parent does not automatically go numb with shock or threaten to leave the house and never come back, because the parent knows that the child is not giving the executive summary of a deeply thought-out and patient investigation into the state of the relationship. The cause of these words might be hunger, a lost but crucial piece of Lego, the fact that they went to a cocktail party last night, that they won’t let them play a computer game, or that they have an earache…

Parents become very good at not hearing the explicit words and listening instead to what the child means but doesn’t yet know how to say: ‘I’m lonely, in pain, or frightened’ – distress which then unfairly comes out as an attack on the safest, kindest, most reliable thing in the child’s world: the parent.

We find it exceptionally hard to make this move with our partners: to hear what they truly mean, rather than responding (furiously) to what they are saying.

How to Behave When Meeting with Steve Jobs

Don Melton, best known for leading the Safari team at Apple, shared a couple entertaining anecdotes of encountering Steve Jobs. The story that intrigued me was Scott Forstall’s advice for meeting with Jobs. Aside from being just-plain-good advice for meeting with any busy executive, it hints at why Forstall was liked by his direct reports: he empowered, supported, and defended them.

Scott briefed me on what to expect and essentially how to behave during my first meeting with Steve and the subsequent reviews. And it was clear I would not be at a second meeting with Steve if I fucked up during the first one.

So I listened to Scott very carefully and took his most excellent advice. In retrospect, it should have been obvious. At least the general guidelines. But there were a few particulars I never would have thought of ahead of time.

Let me be clear. Steve was not some mercurial ogre or cartoon autocrat. He was just very, very busy. He didn’t have time for “yes men,” the easily frightened, or those who didn’t know what the fuck they were doing or talking about.

In that way, he wasn’t different from any other executive. At least those with good sense.

Steve expected excellence. Which is why he so often got it.

He knew when something was right, but he didn’t always tell you what he wanted when it wasn’t. And he was very clear when he didn’t like it. Some misinterpreted this behavior as being overly critical, but it was actually time-saving clarity, albeit uncomfortable on occasion.

Design was an iterative process with Steve. Which meant that it could take several sessions with him to complete that cycle. So patience was not just a virtue.

When Steve asked you a question? You didn’t ramble and, whatever you did, you didn’t make up an answer. If you didn’t know, you just said that you didn’t know. But then you told him when you’d have an answer. Again, this was just good advice to anyone “managing up,” as they say.

When demoing something to Steve, you had to pace yourself. If Steve said, “Stop,” you fucking stopped. Hands down and waited. And you didn’t jiggle the cursor while he was looking at the screen. Certain death.

If he wanted to drive the demo machine then, by God, you let him drive.

And if your software crashed, you didn’t make excuses. You just made damn sure that particular scenario didn’t happen again. Ever.

Most of all, you remained calm. Because that was so easy. Oh, yeah.

Anyway, the other thing Scott warned me about was that Steve might test me. Meaning that he might push me a bit to see what I would do. Sort of like a pitcher brushing back a batter with the high hard one. Fun.

In short: Be clear. Be calm. Be patient. Be prepared.

Thanksgiving in Mongolia

Ariel Levy, a staff writer for The New Yorker, recounts a devastating personal story, beautifully told, about her pregnancy abroad. Read it. Now. But not in public, because it will overwhelm you.

I always get terrified right before I travel. I become convinced that this time will be different: I won’t be able to figure out the map, or communicate with non-English speakers, or find the people I need in order to write the story I’ve been sent in search of. I will be lost and incompetent and vulnerable. I know that my panic will turn to excitement once I’m there—it always does—but that doesn’t make the fear before takeoff any less vivid. So it was with childbearing: I was afraid for ten years. I didn’t like childhood, and I was afraid that I’d have a child who didn’t, either. I was afraid I would be an awful mother. And I was afraid of being grounded, sessile—stuck in one spot for eighteen years of oboe lessons and math homework that I couldn’t finish the first time around.

The Outcomes of Habits

George Anders wrote a Forbes article that recounts the rise of Workday from a two-person startup to an enterprise software company with a $13 billion stock market value. While researching the article, Anders was struck by Aneel Bhusri, Workday’s co-founder and co-CEO, and his ability to “sweep up huge amounts of information” and “synthesize everything into simple maxims that help Workday chart its course”.

Anders wrote a separate post highlighting five of Bhusri’s habits. None of the habits are especially unintuitive, so it was easy for me to gloss over them at first. But they impressed Anders enough to write about them, so I paused to reflect on whether any of them are worth adopting. I realized that what matters isn’t the habits themselves but their desired outcomes.

Bhusri doesn’t just get out of the office to go on a refreshing walk; he gets out of the office to mingle with start-up entrepreneurs so he refreshes his disruptive thinking.

Bhusri doesn’t err on the side of enthusiasm because it makes people feel good; he wants to ensure that his colleagues never hesitate to give him potentially useful information.

Bhusri doesn’t read widely for entertainment or conversational fodder —though I bet he does that, too — he does it to get up to speed on new domains that matter. A survival instinct.

Why do you do what you do?

How to Scale Your Network

Forbes has an article about the network-building strategy of Adam Rifkin, whom Fortune proclaimed as the “best networker”. Rifkin’s epiphany:

Most people fail to reach their network’s potential because they subconsciously view their relationships within a hub-and-spoke paradigm. Like a bicycle wheel, they see themselves at the center and each relationship as a spoke. The problem with this paradigm is that each relationship you add increases the amount of stress on you until you’re eventually overwhelmed.

Adam’s insight was to view others as part of a network connected to each other, not just him. In other words, he viewed his network as a community.

Counterintuitively, he realized that removing himself from the center of the model would not make him irrelevant. On the contrary, connecting people together would build his social capital even more.

To do this, Rifkin first aims to connect everyone in his network by doing three introductions a day, which I’ve written about before. But this article had one new bit: spreading your karma across the community.

Instead of using the goodwill he was developing through extreme giving to stockpile future favors for himself, he dispersed it across his community. When people asked him how they could help him, he started asking for favors on behalf of other members of the community instead of himself.

Disrupting the Diploma

In Reid Hoffman’s latest essay Disrupting the Diploma, he argues that higher education reform requires more than just the transformation of instruction. It also requires the transformation of credentialing.

In the same way that trailblazers like Coursera and Udacity are making instruction faster, cheaper, and more effective, we should also make certification faster, cheaper, and more effective too.

To do this, we need to apply new technologies to the primary tool of traditional certification, the diploma. We need to take what now exists as a dumb, static document and turn it into a richer, updateable, more connected record of a person’s skills, expertise, and experience. And then we need to take that record and make it part of a fully networked certification platform.

Once we make this leap, certification can play a more active role in helping the higher education system clearly convey to students what skills and competencies they should pursue if their primary objective is to optimize their economic futures.

I had the good fortune of watching this essay develop firsthand. If you care about higher ed — or if you just want to see the mind of a brilliant visionary at work — this is a must read.

How to Build Rapport with Anyone

Robin Dreeke, a 15 year FBI veteran who managed their elite Behavioral Analysis Program, wrote It’s Not All About Me: The Top Ten Techniques for Building Quick Rapport with Anyone. On the back cover, he warns that the content of the book is “so effective that the reader should think carefully about how it is used.” He encourages a more virtuous goal: the person you are engaging must leave the conversation and interaction feeling better for having met you.

This post was originally a summary of the ten techniques/chapters. Once I finished, though, I wasn’t proud of the final product and couldn’t remember my key takeaways. I started over, pulling the most compelling ideas and scratching the rest, then I designed a process to put those ideas to use.


Part One: The Introduction

1. Use accommodating nonverbals, such as:

  • smile and stand at a body angle slightly bladed away (to signal that you’re not threatening),
  • tilt your head slightly (to signal trust and comfort),
  • maintain a slightly lower chin angle (to signal humility), and
  • shake hands with a more palm-up angle that matches the strength of the other person.

2. Identify a third party reference. A third party reference is where you have sought an opinion about something other than yourself or the individual you are chatting with.

3. Establish an artificial time constraint. Conversational discomfort is often a result of not knowing when or if the conversation will end. Let the other person know that there is an end in sight, and it is really close.

4. Add a sympathy or assistance theme. When a request is simple, of limited duration, and non-threatening, we are more inclined to accommodate the request.

To remember these four steps, I created a mnemonic — ARTS (Accommodating, Reference, Time, Sympathy). One example of a great opening line for strangers that uses all four principles:

"I’m sorry to bother you but I’m on my way out. I was hoping you could help me. I’m looking to get something special for my wife/mother/friend/etc."


Part Two: The Conversation

1. Suspend your ego. Put the other person’s needs, wants, and opinions ahead of yours, and you’re better able to listen and validate their thoughts and opinions.

2. Thread the conversation with questions and paraphrasing. 

  • Open-ended questions keeps the other person from giving simple yes or no answers. This gives you more to work with, allowing you to ask more open-ended questions about their answers.
  • Anchoring questions allow you to test how far and deep you can venture in a quick conversation. If an answer is short, you shouldn’t pursue the thread; otherwise, you have something to work with.
  • Reflective questions simply restate what was just said as a question, which compels others to elaborate more. It also hits on the sympathy / assistance theme because you’re asking for help in understanding.
  • Paraphrasing what someone’s said to you, especially after they’ve been talking for a while, is a great way to demonstrate that you have been paying attention and it helps you remember the conversation better.
  • Summarizing at the end of the conversation has the same benefits as paraphrasing, plus it allows you to remember any favors asked or commitments made.

In a Perfect Universe, You Wouldn't Exist

The Nobel laureate Philip Warren Anderson once said, “It is only slightly overstating the case to say that physics is the study of symmetry.” Because physics is the study of the behavior of the universe, Anderson’s statement implies that the universe is, to some degree, symmetrical.

But what does that even mean?

Symmetry, as scientists use the term, describes something that remains unaffected by transformations, like changes in time, place, or orientation. For example, consider the act of throwing a ball in the air. Assuming you throw the ball the same way under the same conditions, does it matter if you throw that ball on a Wednesday versus a Friday? Nope. That’s a symmetry of time. The shift in time alone has no effect on the trajectory of the ball.

The symmetry principles of the universe allow us to study it. Because the laws of physics are the same everywhere in space and time, scientists are able to make conclusions about things unseen by observing what they can. But for all the wonders that symmetry affords us, asymmetry is what allows us to exist.

You see, just after the Big Bang, the universe was a primordial soup made of light. When light is at a high enough energy, it creates matter. But when matter is born, so is its twin: antimatter. Every time a particle of matter is created, an antiparticle is created. But an interesting thing happens when matter and antimatter meet: they annihilate each other.

Since we are made of matter, this means we shouldn’t exist.

The Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter, resulting in a neutral universe without either. Instead, at the beginning of time when matter was popping in and out of existence at an unfathomable rate, an imperfection happened. And for every billion antiparticles, there was a billion and one particles. That tiny surplus of matter led to the universe as we know it. That tiny surplus of matter is you.

And yet no one knows why this happened. This asymmetry of matter and antimatter remains one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics.

The Three Languages of Politics

When was the last time you argued with someone who didn’t share your political views? Chances are, you came away from that conversation thinking they were either crazy, stupid, or evil. Fortunately, there’s an alternative.

In his book The Three Languages of Politics, economist Arnold Kling suggests that progressives, conservatives, and libertarians often misunderstand each other because they each frame political issues using a different axis:

  • progressives frame issues as oppressed and oppressors,
  • conservatives frame issues as civilization and barbarism,
  • libertarians frame issues as freedom and coercion.

Or, in Kling’s words:

For praise and condemnation, each tribe prefers a different language. For a progressive, the highest virtue is to be on the side of the oppressed, and the worst sin is to be aligned with the oppressor. For a conservative, the highest virtue is to be on the side of civilizing institutions, and the worst sin is to be aligned with those who would tear down those institutions and thereby promote barbarism. For a libertarian, the highest virtue is to be on the side of individual choice, and worst sin is to be aligned with expanding the scope of government.

As an example, here’s how the three views would consider immigration policy.

In the United States today, a progressive might see Latin American immigrants as an oppressed group, and native white Americans who are hostile to immigrants as oppressors. They would generally favor allowing these immigrants to come in. One caveat, however, is that they would classify low-skilled working Americans as an oppressed group and wouldn’t want to create conflicts where bringing in more immigrants hurts low-skilled Americans.

For conservatives looking along the civilization/barbarism axis, having a well-defined border and population are civilized values. They would worry that allowing immigration undermines that, and they would strongly believe that people who cross the border illegally are performing an illegal act and should not be rewarded for it and perhaps even be punished for it.

Finally, libertarians don’t like the idea of government coercion at all, and don’t see why political borders should have any significance, and so they would tend to favor open borders.

These heuristics, Kling points out, do not describe how people arrive at their opinions; instead, they predict the language that people use to communicate their opinions. So, why does this matter?

Being aware of your own language can allow you to recognize when you are likely to be overly generous in granting credence to those who provide arguments expressed in that language. Being aware of other languages can give you better insight into how issues might appear to those with whom you disagree.

It’s a quick read (~50 pages) at a cheap price ($1.99). Recommended.