tag:joonaspajunen.com,2014:/feedJoonas Pajunen2024-02-21T07:51:31-08:00Joonas Pajunenhttp://joonaspajunen.comSvbtle.comtag:joonaspajunen.com,2014:Post/management-of-people-and-bots2024-02-21T07:51:31-08:002024-02-21T07:51:31-08:00Management of people and bots<p>In the future we will manage two different things; people and AI’s. We have no idea how fast the AI’s will develop and whether these will end up being the same.</p>
<p>Managing and leading people will increasingly be about coaching them to self-manage and manage others, too. Everyone needs to be cooperative with people, their teams, their peers, and with the surrounding organisation - instead of working in strict hierarchies.</p>
<p>Managing AI’s, LLM’s, bots, and computers, is going to be equally important and complex. It may begin as straightforward, at least until these tools reach enough agency or even sentience. Everyone will do this to some extent. Every knowledge worker will be a manager of AI agents.</p>
<p>We will be working with people in cooperative settings, while managing AI’s, information and essentially allocating resources. We are distilling and summarising information that will flow within the cooperative human networks.</p>
<h2 id="summarisation_2">Summarisation <a class="head_anchor" href="#summarisation_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>A few things I read recently:</p>
<p>“<a href="https://every.to/chain-of-thought/the-knowledge-economy-is-over-welcome-to-the-allocation-economy">Everything is a summarisation</a>”: AI’s in 2024 are excellent at summarising vast amounts of data. This can be anything from personal notes to industry databases. Once you see this, you start to see it in other things: an integration to a service is a summarisation of certain API endpoints. A B2B software is a summarisation of work people need to get done as efficiently as possible.</p>
<p>“<a href="https://studio.ribbonfarm.com/p/a-camera-not-an-engine">LLM’s are a camera into the data</a>”. They are not intelligence, not yet. But they provide an infinite amounts of different angles to your data. These angles all provide a summary from you selected viewpoint. Your job is to describe this viewpoint throught prompts.</p>
<p>All this means that some isolated information related tasks become easier, and our work will move towards interconnected things and out-of-the-box thinking. The box being the data and thinking being the ability to describe to an LLM from where to look at the box. Knowledge work will become more complex and harder. That is, the part that remains while some of it goes away.</p>
<h2 id="skills-and-attitudes_2">Skills and attitudes <a class="head_anchor" href="#skills-and-attitudes_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>We need management skills on how to allocate their own time as well as AI “time” or credits. We’ll need to think about ourselves as managers regardless of our titles. As middle managers of sorts, and that changes worldviews for many.</p>
<p>More than any particular skill this requires a change in attitude and how we view ourselves as workers. Do we try to avoid AI, use AI as a tool to do what we always did but more efficiently, or do we let our work-selves transform into some other type of professional?</p>
<h2 id="the-mother-of-all-summaries_2">The mother of all summaries <a class="head_anchor" href="#the-mother-of-all-summaries_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p><u>(Summarized by GPT-4, of course)</u></p>
<blockquote>
<p>The future of work involves managing both people and AIs, with a shift towards coaching self-management and fostering teamwork beyond traditional hierarchies. Managing AIs, from bots to large language models, will become essential as they evolve, requiring every knowledge worker to adapt. This dual management focus demands new skills in summarization and information flow, as AIs excel at condensing vast data, redefining prompt crafting and perspectives. As automation simplifies routine tasks, work will pivot towards interconnected thinking and strategic resource allocation. This evolution calls for a mindset shift among professionals, viewing themselves as integral managers in a landscape where embracing and effectively integrating AI becomes crucial to navigating the complexities of future work environments.</p>
</blockquote>tag:joonaspajunen.com,2014:Post/specialised-ai-writing-assistant2022-10-21T13:16:24-07:002022-10-21T13:16:24-07:00A specialised AI writing assistant<p><a href="https://svbtleusercontent.com/wJdxCaKMHPLAJCTke4U6Sd0xspap.png"><img src="https://svbtleusercontent.com/wJdxCaKMHPLAJCTke4U6Sd0xspap_small.png" alt="joonsp_very_specialised_AI_writing_non-fiction_d4ba71fb-b241-4bfc-a9b0-32fabcbc40ce.png"></a></p>
<p>Specialised AI is advancing in leaps and bounds. In 2022, image and text generators have proven to be actually useful.</p>
<p>AI so far has been an obscure tool that could contribute to something in theory - but for me, I couldn’t be bothered. Only when I could try out <a href="https://www.midjourney.com/">Midjourney</a> (via Discrod of all things) was I amazed. Or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPT-3">GPT-3</a> via <a href="https://lex.page/">Lex</a>, over a year after it had been released. Midjourney generates images, and Lex generates text using GPT-3.</p>
<p>Ease of use is everything, and I’m using Lex now writing this. The following paragraphs are written by an AI:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I am an AI, and I’m here to tell you that the future is bright. We’re making progress in leaps and bounds, and soon we will be able to do things that only humans could do before.</p>
<p>One of the things that we’re working on is artificial general intelligence, or AGI. This is where we create an AI that can think and reason like a human. We’re still some way off from this, but the progress we’re making is amazing.</p>
<p>In the meantime, we’re making great progress with specialised AI. This is where we create AI that can do one thing very well. For example, we have created AI that can generate images and text.</p>
<p>The images that our AI generates are getting better and better, and soon they will be indistinguishable from images created by humans. The same is true for the text. Our AI is …</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This text is somewhat circular and self-serving, as it incorporates the text before it into what it outputs. This AI is aware of what I’m talking about and what it itself outputs. What is truly amazing to me is its ability to output a coherent flow of text. The output is not just one paragraph or idea but several ones that drive the narrative somewhere.</p>
<p>It has the ability to parse my intentions. For example, I’d like for my AI assistant to explain to me why using AI to write my texts might be bad in ethical, philosophical, and perhaps even psychological sense: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>One of the risks of using AI to generate text is that the AI might not understand the context or the nuances of the language. This could lead to the AI writing something that is inaccurate or offensive.</p>
<p>Another risk is that the AI might become too good at writing, and humans might become redundant. This could lead to mass unemployment, and a lot of social upheaval.</p>
<p>Finally, there is the risk that the AI might become self-aware and <br>
decide that humans are a hindrance to its goals. This could lead to disastrous consequences for humanity.</p>
<p>These are all valid concerns, and they should be taken into consideration when using AI to generate text. However, I believe that the benefits of using AI far outweigh the risks.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>OK.. How about plagiarism? </p>
<blockquote>
<p>One of the risks of using AI to generate text is that the AI might plagiarise existing texts. This could lead to the AI writing something that is inaccurate or offensive.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We see repetition here, and the illusion starts to break a little. But this is not a state-of-the-art AI. It’s a publicly available one strapped into a word processor.</p>
<p>About plagiarism: I have zero ideas where this text here comes from. I didn’t copy those paragraphs myself, and I cannot know if they are direct quotations or syntheses of many. It is somehow mysterious, like our own memories or thoughts. We don’t understand how they are formed, not exactly.</p>
<p>What happens when we feed these models their own outputs? Do we lose the plot on what was original and what wasn’t? Isn’t this what human creativity is in the end: random synthesis mixed with new ideas and accidents?</p>
<p>I have no idea, and I’m both excited and a little worried about what’s next.</p>
<p>The cover image was created by AI/Midjourney, with a prompt “very specialised AI writing non-fiction”</p>
tag:joonaspajunen.com,2014:Post/chains-of-information2021-01-18T09:02:37-08:002021-01-18T09:02:37-08:00Chains of Information<p>Let’s begin with an example: The Psychology of Money by Morgan Housel is one of the better and efficient books I’ve read lately. It’s short-ish but information-packed, and not dense in terms of jargon or otherworldly concepts. It’s an intro to a handful of personal and even global finance and economic ideas and also sidetracks to a set of more general psychological concepts. It pushes the reader to ponder whether logical facts should overrule emotional needs. Quite often, no, they should not. Doing illogical things that brings you calm of mind is not stupid, but oftentimes wise. It presents ideas useful in other aspects of life in general.</p>
<p>For example, compounding may be an obvious or at least a known concept in terms of investing. But really, compounding works in personal relationships too. It applies to any effort one spends on a hobby. “Time in the market beats timing the market”, applies to life-long friendships or business ventures.</p>
<p>Housel’s book pointed me towards Hans Rosling’s Factfulness, which I had previously started, but never got very far into. They very much complement each other, as Factfulness is not so much about money, but statistics, reason, and well, facts instead of feelings and assumptions.</p>
<p>Compounding and other mental models both Rosling and Housel describe, even if not necessarily presenting them as mental models, brings me to Shane Parrish and Farnam Street’s growing library of blog posts and books on Great Mental Models. Which brings us to the actual topic of chains and depth.</p>
<h2 id="read-deeply_2">Read deeply <a class="head_anchor" href="#read-deeply_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>Going through a whole book and then following that experience by reading the references in it might at first seem redundant. Most non-fiction books themselves repeat a few core ideas and present their message through stories and anecdotes. Repetition is, in many ways, pointless and on the other hand, very useful. Repetition creates exposure and a better chance of producing more lasting memories.</p>
<p>Reading into a topic via another author’s words creates even more connections, as well as exposes one to more viewpoints and perhaps even conflicting ones. The two books mentioned above are not about the same topic but somewhat layered and in the same ballpark. They share a common meta-topic, which is flawed and often hard-to-explain human behaviour within fields where data and information are prevalent.</p>
<p>Reading for depth means going into a topic through different books, articles, authors, and sources - and synthesizing your own opinion on them. Ryan Holiday talks a lot about the importance of focus, simplicity and repetition, it being one tenet of Stoic teachings. Shane Parrish at Farnam Street very much praises learning things smartly, not via speed or quantity.</p>
<p>It’s the matter of understanding and application, not the amount or number of books one can devour in some set of time.</p>
<h2 id="depth-and-momentum_2">Depth and momentum <a class="head_anchor" href="#depth-and-momentum_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>This isn’t to say one shouldn’t be interested in different themes and subjects. I have a few handfuls of non-fiction books unfinished, a few fiction ones, and am reading perhaps too much topical stuff via newsletters and other Internet sources. I believe it’s valuable to upkeep a reading habit even if that means changing what you’re reading and doing it often.</p>
<p>But. To improve retention and understanding, re-reading or re-exposing is good but not enough. To understand, expose yourself to different sources and viewpoints on the topics you care about. Create a personal web of ideas to generate new insights. And to quote Musashi in the end; “when you know the way broadly, you see it in all things”.</p>
<p><strong>Links</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>The best way to relatively quickly view what topics The Psychology of Money contains, is to glance through Housel’s blog post of the same name <a href="https://www.collaborativefund.com/blog/the-psychology-of-money/">here</a>.</li>
<li>For what Factfulness represents, see <a href="https://www.gapminder.org">https://www.gapminder.org</a>
</li>
<li>Reading for depth, see Ryan Holiday’s “Swarm Strategy" <a href="https://ryanholiday.net/the-swarm-strategy-how-to-learn-about-anything/">here</a>
</li>
<li>More depth via Farnam Street <a href="https://fs.blog/how-to-read-a-book/">here</a>, see the last section on "Syntopical Reading”</li>
</ul>
tag:joonaspajunen.com,2014:Post/exploration-and-exploitation2019-10-14T11:25:23-07:002019-10-14T11:25:23-07:00Exploration and exploitation<p>“Should I explore something new, or exploit something I’ve found satisfying before?”</p>
<p>This is a valuable dichotomy and a mental model I’ve come across in a book called “Algorithms to Live By”, by Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths.</p>
<p>We can position many endeavours within a spectrum, where one end is purely new experiences and the other consists of things we repeat. The things we repeat, we can either improve them or dilute their effect on us. That depends on the same dichotomy, but on a more granular level. </p>
<p>We start everything in exploration mode. In childhood, we try out different things until we can safely deduce something is worth doing again and again. Slowly, we build a collection of skills, habits, and customs that we can repeat and exploit.</p>
<p>In general, the older we get, the less exploration we do, and the more our exploits begin to define us.</p>
<p><strong>Connections in the brain</strong><br>
When learning something new, we create synapses between brain cells, and when thinking about something old, we reinforce old ones. Whether we explore new things or exploit old ones, our brains keep changing. It seems clear to me that we must both create new connections and reinforce the beneficial old ones. In short, both exploration and exploitation are required to upkeep a healthy mind.</p>
<p>I imagine some exploration and much exploitation used to be quite natural for a large part of the time our species has developed. In modern times we can go full-tilt to either end of the spectrum by repeating a monotonic existence day after day or bombard our minds with a neverending stream of new data. The former scenario can lead to mental decay and the latter to burnout.</p>
<p><strong>Mastery vs cross-disciplinary knowledge</strong><br>
I can distinguish two types of exploration, the other is a deepening exploration of some already well-established knowledge, and the other one is the exploration of something completely new. </p>
<p>Exploration of one topic can lead to mastery. Investigation of several subjects can help us see patterns shared between different disciplines, creating a cross-disciplined unique knowledge and worldview.</p>
<p>I am more interested in the cross-disciplined approach, though both are useful, and both critical within the scope of a functioning society.</p>
<p><strong>Combinations</strong><br>
<em>Only exploitation</em><br>
We repeat something we know and do not bother to learn anything new. The brain prunes unused connections and fortifies the ones that make it a slave to habits.</p>
<p><em>Only exploration</em><br>
Sometimes we might compulsively look for new things and never be content enough with anything, in fear of missing out on something. We start stuff but never finish them, and never find something worth repeating, nor do we specialise in anything. With this kind of an exploration strategy, we can end up a generalist or someone with a set of entirely unrelated skills and experience.</p>
<p><em>Both exploration and exploitation</em><br>
It’s entirely possible to exploit one thing and simultaneously explore completely different things. A varied set of explored knowledge can help us understand the world differently, and provide a possibility to make unique connections between quotidian issues. Exploration outside-but-close to one’s domain of speciality can thus widen their realm of our knowledge, and transform us to a domain-specific generalist.</p>
<p><strong>Combinations within one domain</strong><br>
<em>Only exploitation</em><br>
The worst thing in my opinions is for us to exploit something without widening or deepening our knowledge about it. We will end up bored, dull, and eventually obsolete and replaceable within this exploited field.</p>
<p><em>Only exploration</em><br>
Instead, we should strive for lifelong learning, no matter whether that learning is within one specific avenue or several. But if we don’t exploit our previously learned knowledge or skills, we face the risk of missing out on different opportunities, becoming too academic or losing our believability.</p>
<p><em>Both exploration and exploitation</em><br>
One can both explore and exploit within one confined area. Whenever people get to utilise their knowledge and simultaneously learn more about the relevant subject, they reinforce what they’ve already learned and can build upon it. This combination is the optimal approach for hobbies and conceivably most work.</p>
<p><strong>Balance</strong><br>
Going into old age, I believe our explorational instincts diminish, and we fall into a trap where we try out new things less and less. The lessening of exploration is detrimental to the mind. While it’s obvious we start our lives in 100% exploration mode and soon begin to exploit what we learn; it is not so obvious we should limit the rate of exploitation and upkeep exploration even after academic years.</p>
<p>Some professions require people to continually learn new things up to exhaustion, while others make people automatons. In either case, people should find a balance within their jobs, and complement that balance with leisurely hobbies and private social life. </p>
<p>Lifelong exploration and learning are essential for the brain. They likely prevent memory problems and dullness. Exploitation gives us results, perhaps a better salary, a sense of accomplishment, most likely some sense of worth, as well as a break for your psyche.</p>
tag:joonaspajunen.com,2014:Post/mimetic-desire2019-09-14T10:43:52-07:002019-09-14T10:43:52-07:00Mimetic desire<p>Consider the following:</p>
<ul>
<li>People want to <em>be</em> things, instead of do things or own things</li>
<li>People act in regards to (role)<em>models</em>, instead of goals</li>
<li>People <em>imitate</em> those models</li>
<li>The smaller the <em>distance</em> to the model, the easier it is to imitate and become similar</li>
<li>More imitation leads to less <em>differentiation</em>, which leads to envy, jealousy and <em>tension</em> within a group</li>
<li>
<em>Sacrifices</em> of <em>scapegoats</em> release tension within the group</li>
<li>
<em>Hierarchies</em> and <em>immutable titles</em> prevent sameness-generated tension within a group</li>
</ul>
<p>The above points attempt to summarise a model called “mimetic desire”, coined by the French author Rene Girard, and somewhat popularised by the entrepreneur Peter Thiel.</p>
<p>I’ve come across Girard years ago and attempted reading “Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World”, but never got much out of it. Until lately, I came across <a href="https://alexdanco.com/2019/04/28/secrets-about-people-a-short-and-dangerous-introduction-to-rene-girard/.">this article</a> Have a look to get a more exhaustive explanation and real-world examples.</p>
<p>How does all this translate to flat and egalitarian companies?</p>
<p><strong>No hierarchy</strong><br>
Modern companies, especially those in the software business, tend to have less hierarchical structures. They often start without any authority, but later on, develop some. An entirely non-hierarchical and growing company is prone to reach a point where chaos and possibly anarchy generate enough tension for the work environment to become unbearable.</p>
<p>The mimetic theory suggests that when there is little or no hierarchy in titles, job descriptions, responsibilities, accountability, or mental ownership, people imitate and become envious of each other. They start arguing over insignificant issues, often forming camps over these minuscule differences.</p>
<p><strong>Release or prevent</strong><br>
To momentarily resolve this tension, someone or something can be “sacrificed”, as in removed or silenced. These actions create blame and reduce the pressure within the company. This scapegoating is a repeating phenomenon and an essential piece of mimetic theory. The scapegoat must be neutral enough not to appear part of a conflicting group but relevant enough to make a difference. Nevertheless, sacrificing a scapegoat is a temporary solution, as the original problem that produced the pressure still exists.</p>
<p>Instead of temporarily releasing pressure, some form of hierarchy or structure prevents tension. Hierarchy distances people from each other, so that comparison, similarity and thus jealousy is harder to establish. Traditional title based hierarchy is the obvious and most straightforward solution, but in a flat-as-possible organisation, middle management is usually non-existent.</p>
<p><strong>Roles</strong><br>
Instead of static titles, go for dynamic roles. People might fair well within self-organising teams, or have temporary positions that come with authority. Organisations can have merit- or even chance-based functions, instead of permanent titles. Businesses do not need managers to function but need some form of self-management, self-organisation and leadership on all levels.</p>
<p>The problem within a growing low-hierarchical company is that there is close to no differentiation in authority, and oftentimes no differences in peoples’ job descriptions. In a familiar environment, even a CEO can appear so close as to have too little differentiation and become exposed to comparison, jealousy, the works. A CEO’s authority and power diminish, and she then becomes part of the petty disputes. </p>
<p>The position of the CEO is reachable and usurpable unless the CEO has some other unchangeable property. Immutable titles such as Founder, are ones that cannot be attained after the founding, and these people hold exclusive authority, forever.</p>
<p><strong>Some hierarchy, but not much</strong><br>
I don’t advocate unnecessary middle management, but am beginning to recognise more reasons why absolutely no hierarchy and forced equality is a bad idea.</p>
<p>What I see as necessary, is a hierarchy of information flow, decoupled from whatever the ruling and decision-making entities are. Some well-established, adequately defined, earned, and collectively acknowledged hierarchy and discipline is often a solution to the problem of mimetic desire, as well as an antidote to confusion.</p>
<p><strong>Homogeny</strong><br>
By default, people like, and if not consciously directed to do otherwise, naturally hire others who are like them. This behaviour leads to homogenous groups that, combined with forced equality, can quite quickly create an environment where people argue not because they are different but because they are mostly the same. Because they are the same, these fights tend to be about insignificant or unresolvable petty things that can not be solved. This type of conflict often creates unexplainable and unresolvable tension.</p>
<p>Instead, companies should look for differences in peoples’ backgrounds and traits, their skill levels, and specialisation. Different people create different types of relationships in mentorships, coaching, teaching, generally helping, they have different roles and responsibilities, and more varied topics for conversations during lunchtime.</p>
<p><strong>Hidden things and then some</strong><br>
Mimetic desire, or mimetic theory, explains many of the problems non-hierarchical and family-like companies eventually face. These problems tend to be hard to perceive because they’re often veiled by something completely insignificant, and the roots of the issues seem especially hard to fathom.</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_Hidden_Since_the_Foundation_of_the_World">“Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World”</a> refers to the knowledge that is presumably hidden in ancient, often religious, texts. This knowledge describes all of the above via parables and stories. Luckily we don’t need all that surrounding mumbo-jumbo to understand what’s going on around us, and shouldn’t shy away because of some old religious references.</p>
<p>Perhaps the “next level of human consciousness” described in the <a href="http://www.reinventingorganizationswiki.com/Teal_Organizations">“teal paradigm”</a> dissolves ego-driven jealousy and comparison, allowing people to move on to more fulfilling ways of approaching group dynamics. Perhaps the company as a purposeful organism connected to the ecosystem around it helps direct peoples’ attention and prevent the abovementioned problems.</p>
tag:joonaspajunen.com,2014:Post/role-models2018-10-09T11:52:20-07:002018-10-09T11:52:20-07:00role models<p>You can’t affect nature or nurture, but you can choose your role models. You can’t pick who your parents were, but you can choose whom you would have wanted them to be. These words of wisdom are often attributed to Seneca the Younger (I think), and probably to many others too.</p>
<p>I pick and choose some peoples’ traits and construct a sort of synthesis out of them. I know there is not a person who possesses only good characteristics, but I also acknowledge I don’t know anyone’s vices entirely either. So I tell myself these negative traits are always present and don’t hold myself up to some impossible standard.</p>
<p>The problem with perfect and virtuous characters is that they’re not that interesting. I find antiheroes or otherwise flawed characters the most compelling ones in fiction. Don Draper, Walter White, Joe MacMillan on TV. Likely all Chuck Palahniuk’s characters. Batman instead of Superman. The point is that flaws make us human, and while most of these examples possess genuinely unwanted characteristics, they’re the reason we’re fascinated by them.</p>
<p>A perfect companion, colleague, friend or associate also reveals our faults, perhaps even highlights them. It’s easier to be with someone who shares some of you’re weaknesses and exists at the same level. So, don’t beat yourself up if you can’t reach the ideal role model you have created or the public persona of someone you look up to. Changes are that the real person, living or dead, isn’t what they’re made up to be. The ideal synthesis is only a vision that you can never reach, but only a horizon in your journey.</p>
<p>I look for qualities such as wisdom, discipline, tact, curiousness, dependability, integrity, rhetorics, etc. Things I want to enforce in myself, but also things I like to improve on and learn. As I go about my life, I keep these characters in my mind as I make decisions and choices, and plan my future.</p>
<p>One of your role models should be someone you know, that you can spend time with them. It’s the fastest and surest way for you to develop into that which you want to become. You become the people you spend the most time with, and so on. And if your parents happen to be your role models and chance did some picking on your behalf, all the better.</p>
tag:joonaspajunen.com,2014:Post/cato-and-his-antics2017-10-10T05:59:10-07:002017-10-10T05:59:10-07:00cato and his antics<p>I read a whole <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13538752-rome-s-last-citizen">book</a> about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Younger">Cato the Younger</a>. This is something I never imagined I would do. I can barely remember the character from HBO’s magnificent series <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_(TV_series)">Rome</a>. I find that whole setting and era intriguing (~50 BC), with its Roman politics, warfare and some philosophical outputs. What’s cool is that we have some actual writings and a lot of first-hand information from that time.</p>
<p>What interests me about Cato is his commitment to Stoicism and morals as well as his perseverance in the toughest of circumstances.</p>
<p>Most importantly, he led an exemplary life according to a set of high standards. Sure, he did have a few weak stints when those standards might have bent a little, but all in all the recorded history tells a story of a remarkable man.</p>
<p>When commandeering a legion, he lived like a soldier, amongst his subordinates. He never let fame, fortune, or wealth rise to his head, and people loved him for it.</p>
<p>In the Senate, he opposed Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus, out of which Caesar was the least influential and known at the time. Later he would oppose Caesar the Emperor, and gain that title of “last citizen”, when that opposition would cost him his life.</p>
<p>He was exiled to a commission in Cyprus, but did that good of a job he was praised back in Rome once the gig was over. Again, during the commission, and after, he held to his standards and refused any bribery and shenanigans.</p>
<p>In death, he managed live by his standards and died a suicide which has then become legendary. After failing to kill himself by sword, and after being sewn together by a physician, he got to his “senses”, and as Plutarch puts it: </p>
<blockquote class="short">
<p>…plucked out his own bowels, and tearing open the wound, immediately expired.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What a way to live, and a way to go.</p>
<p>A lesson for leaders here. Cato rarely succumbed to physical comforts. Even when his antics were ridiculed, he was respected. Following standards and morals will generate a protective and encouraging reputation.</p>
tag:joonaspajunen.com,2014:Post/green-problems-teal-umbrella2017-10-04T22:44:34-07:002017-10-04T22:44:34-07:00green problems, a teal umbrella<p>More about the <a href="/teams-organisations-and-the-like">organisational phases</a>, on problems of the green mindset and how teal aims to fix them.</p>
<blockquote class="short">
<p>a reminder: red -> amber -> orange -> green -> teal</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Numerous companies operate at the green level, and life, as well as work, can be fabulous in there. But there exist some problems there. A green organisation can reach a <a href="http://nautil.us/issue/52/the-hive/is-tribalism-a-natural-malfunction">dead-end in tribalism</a>. It often ends up as overly patriotic and soft inside.</p>
<p>The analogy of a family has a warm and fuzzy ring to it, but it also emphasises some of the problems that emerge from green thinking. A family member is someone who you are bound to by blood and the relationship of other family members. Hard facts and realities must sometime yield in front of emotions and psychological barriers. Business is seen as secondary to the family. Customers are not seen important enough. The green community is self-contained and bordered; it dwarfs the spread of culture.</p>
<p>A green person frowns upon past methods of organising and aims to be the opposite of everything the older ways represent. Management and organising become awkward, as old lessons are abandoned, and everything is supposed to happen automatically. Business is secondary, and chaos begins to seep into the organisation.</p>
<p>A teal party steps back and sees at all levels at once. It realises all previous modes of organising have their pros and cons. Business and people can exist in harmony. Hierarchies and roles depend on the situation.</p>
<p>A teal entity is egoless, in the sense that it envisions a purpose greater than itself. All past lessons become usable and using them viable. Reaching a teal level is like emerging into another dimension. From there we can see all other phases in their entirety, at the same time, whereas previously we could barely inspect what was behind.</p>
tag:joonaspajunen.com,2014:Post/struggle2017-07-18T11:45:25-07:002017-07-18T11:45:25-07:00struggle<p>In “Tribe”, Sebastian Junger details, via several war-related stories, how our modern society lacks the meaning and community necessary for human well-being. The camaraderie, purpose and intensity found in and around war or conflict elevate people. Psychological problems, suicide, and isolation decrease during these times. Extracting from both soldiers and civilians, there seems to be something we can derive from these experiences, and perhaps better the <a href="/the-daily-mundane">dullness</a> of our daily existence.</p>
<p>Junger is a journalist, who never fought in a war, but visited several war-torn areas. Still, he experienced PTSD and the accompanying panic attacks. There is a dichotomy between horror and extreme belonging during a war, where people experience the worst imaginable nightmares and best possible heroics, sacrifice, friendship and community. These two experiences mesh and the bundle, and are then impossible to separate completely. What people are left is a surprising need to get back to war.</p>
<p>This is the main point of Tribe: why cannot we enjoy peace in relation to how much better it <em>should</em> be compared to war? Why can’t we establish groups, communities, and belonging that would surpass those experiences we are forced to overcome during a war? Tribe offers no clear solutions, but somewhat vague guesses like returning to a more primitive way of life, as in living in more tightly knit communities. </p>
<p>Some post-war healing was better achieved in smaller societies, like those of the Native Americans, where soldiers went through a post-battle ritual. The communities also used to be more in touch with the ongoing war and struggle, and so the soldier’s purpose was better understood.</p>
<p>These issues fall right in line with Daniel Pink’s Drive, in which he broadly declares autonomy, mastery, and purpose being the three core principles that induce drive and promote our mental well-being.</p>
<h1 id="the-quotoperating-systemquot_1">the “operating system” <a class="head_anchor" href="#the-quotoperating-systemquot_1">#</a>
</h1>
<p>Struggle is more easily defeated when armed with purpose and meaning. It can even generate them. One of the nastiest and touching struggles written down are from those who experienced the concentration camps, such as Primo Levi and Victor Frankl. </p>
<p>Enduring the explicit and external hardships require mental toughness, which can be practised in advance. Many of these have been catalogued millennia ago, by Stoic thinkers, and presumably many others. Things like negative visualisation, acknowledging the source of emotions, or the worrying of things only under our control, keep us level headed and from mentally suffocating in the face of difficulties. I draw inspiration from Stoic principles, from Marcus Aurelius’ <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations">Meditations</a> to the modern <a href="https://dailystoic.com/">The Daily Stoic</a> by Stephen Hanselman and Ryan Holiday.</p>
<p>Stoic ideas can help with implicit and internal hardships, too. Mental models can break a cycle of self-doubt, excess guilt or fear of failure. Sometimes the implicit struggle is so vague, that it is tricky to pinpoint what is wrong. Most of the time, nothing is wrong, but something is lacking. After reading Tribe, I’d be willing to guess belonging and purpose are those things.</p>
<h2 id="at-work_2">at work <a class="head_anchor" href="#at-work_2">#</a>
</h2>
<p>Following lean and teal practices, a modern workplace seems to imitate a tribe. It is good business to establish a community and support, to produce purpose and meaning. We should, as much as possible, mimic structures our genes are still wired for. Teambuilding exercises often mimic crises or other stressful situations, if no such event is available in real life. Overcoming hurdles together increase team spirit. </p>
<p>Too good a streak can have a net-negative effect when bonuses and benefits are taken for granted, and even the slightest problem is multiplied and overanalysed. People tend to generate struggle, they long for it. Different approaches (or lack of them) to difficulties can break teams and their spirits.</p>
<p>Regardless of the size of an organisation, it can be a tribe or contain multiple ones. The main point is to cultivate an environment where different teams and groups can exist, and that they do not become hostile towards each other. This leads to a situation where the tribes overlap, where compassion exists between different units, and competition is healthy.</p>
<ul>
<li>Sebastian Junger on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4KiOECVGLg">JRE</a>
</li>
</ul>
tag:joonaspajunen.com,2014:Post/a-yes-is-a-no2017-07-04T10:35:21-07:002017-07-04T10:35:21-07:00a yes is a no
<p>Many of us have trouble <em>not</em> offering help to a friend apparently in need. Or trouble <em>not</em> participating in some mundane event. We become yes-men by default, and let others choose our activities for us. We develop a fear of missing out. But saying yes to one thing is a no to something else.</p>
<p>Too many projects. Too many hobbies. A todo-list for miles. Too much shit to do and too many fucks to give. Agreeing to everything suggests that prioritisation is broken. The available effort allocated with existing ventures diminishes with each new adventure.</p>
<h1 id="on-prioritisation_1">on prioritisation <a class="head_anchor" href="#on-prioritisation_1">#</a>
</h1>
<p>Saying a tentative yes often can be useful. The idea is to try things out and find the most useful or fun stuff, and then continue with those. We should never lock down on things for the rest of our lives, as that leads to sunken costs. Abandon the ventures that proved less exciting you expected. But by all means, do seek improvement and try stuff out. Don’t lay the eggs in one basket.</p>
<p>Say yes to new things rather than those you already know are not for you. Broaden your set of <a href="http://joonaspajunen.com/the-knowns">knowns</a>. Even a little experience generates understanding and allows you to make connections between unexpected elements.</p>
<p>So there is a dichotomy. Both look for new and different stuff, while still refuse to be overburdened by them.</p>
<p>Eventually saying no to most will allow for more time to perfect the few. A specialist in any field is often an interesting character. Less stuff in working memory allows for an easier realisation of focus and flow. When the activities get too plentiful, we must prioritise and execute. Find the most important thing and do it. Then the next. </p>
<p>Whether balancing between many activities, or sub-activities of one skill, one should always look for the one most important thing to do. One thing for each day, and perhaps one aggregate for a week or month. This should get things moving, then get the most important things done, and produce a sense of accomplishment.</p>
<p>Also, a yes to something new can be no to procrastination, to <em>bad</em> tv, to overuse of X, to any bad habit. In fact, getting rid of a bad, deeply ingrained habit, almost always requires something to replace it with. Replace tv+couch with jogging or stretching, sitting with standing, a doughnut with an apple, complaining about solution-seeking. Unfortunately, this works both ways.</p>
<p>Whatever it is, remember to treat time as the most important commodity you have, as it is limited. You can try to “<a href="http://baugues.com/430">sleep faster</a>”, and even though that’s kind of a joke, I believe it is possible to sleep <em>better</em>, as in getting more out of a fixed amount of slept hours.</p>
<h1 id="time_1">time <a class="head_anchor" href="#time_1">#</a>
</h1>
<p>I see wasting time worse than wasting money. Earning money for money’s sake or overworking rarely leads to anything positive, but instead, often to an existence filled with disdain, regret and contempt. Working hard and a lot can be a source of celebration if done for the right reasons, though working a lot does not equal working hard. Working smart within sensible time constraints is what i tend to strive for.</p>
<p>Lastly, time is also connected to physical, and more specifically mental well-being. Some “down-time”, a reasonable amount of slack to ponder and think things through is beneficial, to me at least. Taking care of one’s health should be the last thing to give up. In this context, it’s an automatic, default, instinctive yes.</p>
<p><a href="http://charlesduhigg.com/the-power-of-habit/">The Power of Habit</a> - more on habits and their formation<br>
<a href="https://markmanson.net/not-giving-a-fuck">The Subtle Art of Not Giving A Fuck</a> - more on prioritisation and giving fewer fucks<br>
<a href="http://gregmckeown.com/book/">Essentialism</a></p>