Living a Meaningful Life

http://ift.tt/2kpDO4y


Brian Little, one of the world’s leading experts on personality psychology, is renowned as a public speaker. If you watch his recent TED talk on personality, as millions of others have, you will see an engaging and witty orator holding his audience’s attention with aplomb. You’d probably conclude that Little is an extravert: he’s not only good at what he’s doing, but he seems to be revelling in the opportunity.

In fact, Little is a self-proclaimed introvert. After his talk you would quite likely find him seeking a few minutes of quiet refuge behind the locked door of a toilet cubicle. This is one of the “restorative niches” described in his 2014 book Me, Myself, and Us, which he uses to recover from the exhausting demands of acting extraverted.

Little can behave extraverted when he needs to, he explains, because he is enacting what he calls a “free trait”: behaving out of character in pursuit of a deeply meaningful “personal project”, which in this case is to engage and educate his students and others in the value of personality psychology. This isn’t a peculiar quirk of this Cambridge University professor. He believes that each one of us is able to act out of character when we are motivated by an important and meaningful personal goal. 

Indeed, Little and his colleagues have spent many years studying how we can break free from the constraints of our more permanent personality traits, and live a happier life too.

To get a flavour of his research, take a few minutes to write down your own current personal projects – for instance, it might be losing weight, being a better pet owner, or writing a book. The list doesn’t have to be exhaustive, but as a guide, most people identify around 15 things.

Your traits describe who you are, your projects describe what you do, and they are eminently changeable  

Now, spend a few moments reflecting on each one, in particular think about its importance and meaning to you; how much it is consistent with your personality and values; whether the project brings you joy or stress and frustration; the origins of the project; whether you share the project with anyone else; how much progress you’ve made; and how confident you are about ever completing it. These questions tap into the five main dimensions measured by formal Personal Projects Analysis: meaning, manageability, connection (to others), negative emotions and positive emotions.

Now zoom in on the handful of projects that are the most meaningful and relevant to your values and identity. These are your core projects and they are especially likely to affect your happiness and well-being. This is an empowering finding, as Little explains in Me, Myself and Us, because whereas your traits describe who you are, your projects describe what you do, and they are eminently changeable. Choose the right projects, and approach them in the right way, and you can make your life richer and more enjoyable.

How your projects affect you

You are especially likely to be happier if your personal projects feel attainable. In fact, Little has found that our confidence in achieving our projects is an even more important factor for our wellbeing than how much meaning a project has. Put differently, there are few things worse than having a core personal project that feels unobtainable. In fact, findings show that when someone is engaged in a personal project that makes them stressed and miserable, this is an even more powerful drag on their wellbeing than other more obvious factors like poverty. The perfect combination is to have one or more sustainable core projects that feel within reach and are also full of personal meaning, reflecting what matters to you in life.

Your projects are likely to be more sustainable and joyful if you are pursuing them for your own reasons  

There are many other findings to bear in mind. Your projects are likely to be more sustainable and joyful if you are pursuing them for your own reasons, and not simply to please someone else, for instance, and romantic partners tend to be happier together if they share some of the same personal projects.

Perhaps most intriguingly, pursuing these personal projects allows you to break free from your personality traits, which can itself be rewarding: research shows that introverts like Little enjoy acting extraverted more than they think they will, for instance. Even so, Little warns that this can take a toll over time and that it is important to give yourself restorative niches – whether that’s an introvert’s moment alone after a public talk or an extravert’s party time after a day of quiet study.

Reframe your plans

Armed with this kind of knowledge, you can look back at your notes and perform a kind of personal project appraisal. Are there any projects that you’ve marked as lacking progress, or that you’ve identified as highly stressful and feeling impossible to achieve? If so, and if these projects have little meaning or importance, then perhaps you should consider dropping them.

Alternatively, if the stalled projects are necessary and important, you may have identified a key source of unhappiness in your life. When projects get “stuck” in this way, Little recommends various strategies for making progress, including reframing the project to make it more attainable. For example, you could reframe the goal of “Try to write a book” to become “Try to write for half an hour each day”. As an aside, other research has shown that something as simple as the way we phrase our personal goals can influence our chances of success: direct phrasing “Write for half an hour each day” is often more successful than more tentative aspirations such as “Try to write for half an hour each day”.

One strategy for unblocking projects where you’re making no progress is called ‘concept matching’  

Another strategy Little recommends for blocked projects is to use “concept matching”, which involves looking for metaphorical parallels between the stalled project and a completely different domain for which you have expertise. For example, if your writing project has hit the buffers and you love football, you could create two lists, one describing aspects of the writing project, the other describing common elements involved in success in football. Then the trick is to look for parallels, which may unlock creative solutions to your stuck project. For instance, what would be your writing project equivalent to home support or pre-season training? Perhaps such questions could get you thinking about your working environment or courses you need to go on, potentially rejuvenating your project.

All of which paints an optimistic picture of our capacity for change. For Little, three forces govern our lives: our biogenic natures (whether we are physiologically extravert, introvert or whatever), our sociogenic natures (how we are raised, the culture we live in and the company we keep), and finally, our idiogenic or “third natures”, which are comprised of our personal projects and the free traits we express in pursuit of them.

Choose those projects carefully, and you may surprise yourself with what you can achieve. “Whereas contexts embed us, projects pull us forward into new possibilities,” he says. “And one of those possibilities is a better life and a happier life.”

The Wild Show Loyalty to Minnesota-Born Players

http://ift.tt/2kPc4ak

The moment a Minnesota native or even a player that once played hockey at the college level in Minnesota finds himself on the trade block or close to becoming an unrestricted free agent, there’s an automatic assumption that this player will join the Minnesota Wild simply because of his connection to the state.

Take Zach Parise for example.

torchetti

Zach Parise (Marilyn Indahl/USA TODAY Sports)

The former New Jersey Devils captain was long rumoured to be coming home to Minnesota if he ever made it to unrestricted free agency. Lo and behold, during the summer of 2012, Parise committed his playing future to the Wild by inking a massive 13-year contract with his home state team. But is Parise the exception or is this a trend for Minnesotans as the assumption claims?

How Many Others?

Well, it turns out that the Wild have employed quite a few Minnesota natives over the years. In fact, the team has had at least one Minnesotan skate on its NHL roster for a game during each season of the team’s existence save for the 2008-09 campaign.

In all, the Wild have had 21 different players born in Minnesota skate for the team since its inaugural season in 2000-01.

The 2016-17 roster features three Minnesota natives: Parise, Jordan Schroeder and Nate Prosser. That’s three of the 39 total active NHL players hailing from the Gopher State. The Wild are in a four-way tie for most Minnesotans on an NHL roster with the New York Rangers (Derek Stepan, Brady Skjei, Ryan McDonagh), the New York Islanders (Anders Lee, Brock Nelson, Nick Leddy) and the Winnipeg Jets (Blake Wheeler, Dustin Byfuglien, Mark Stuart).

The Complete List

Nate Prosser

Nate Prosser (Tim Fuller/USA TODAY Sports)

Below is the complete chronological list of Minnesotans who have suited up in a Wild uniform while also indicating the season in which they first appeared in a game with the team:

  • Brian Bonin (2000-01)
  • Jeff Nielsen (2000-01)
  • Darby Hendrickson (2000-01)
  • Erik Westrum (2005-06)
  • Mark Parrish (2006-07)
  • Wyatt Smith (2006-07)
  • Sean Hill (2007-08)
  • Nate Prosser (2009-10)
  • Matt Cullen (2010-11)
  • Tom Gilbert (2011-12)
  • Mike Lundin (2011-12)
  • Jeff Taffe (2011-12)
  • Chad Rau (2011-12)
  • Jarod Palmer (2011-12)
  • Zach Parise (2012-13)
  • John Curry (2013-14)
  • Keith Ballard (2013-14)
  • Jordan Leopold (2014-15)
  • Stu Bickel (2014-15)
  • Jordan Schroeder (2014-15)
  • Ryan Carter (2014-15)

Based on the data, it’s fair to say that the Wild are perhaps a smidge favourable to players from their own backyard when piecing together their team but this primarily applies to the bottom half of the roster. More often than not, the state’s top homegrown athletes take their talents elsewhere.

Parise may have been the exception in this case. Recent examples like Byfuglien and Wheeler chose to re-sign with the Jets while others like Kyle Okposo and David Backes ended up elsewhere when they reached unrestricted free agency for the first time. It could also be argued, however, that Okposo and Backes would have been a better fit for the Wild at a time when they had more cap room to work with.

What About the Draft?

Nick Leddy (Amy Irvin/The Hockey Writers)

The Wild have selected a total of 11 Minnesotans in 17 drafts since the team entered the NHL prior to the 2000-01 season. Two of the 11 players drafted were taken in the first round with the highest pick being chosen 12th overall back in 2004.

Admittedly, 11 selections are less than I would have guessed but it might have something to do with the fact that, to date, only one of the 11 Minnesotans have played a game in the NHL. To make matters worse, that one player did so in another team’s uniform.

Here’s a breakdown of the 11 Minnesota natives drafted by the Wild since the 2000 NHL Entry Draft:

  • Jake Riddle (239th overall in 2001)
  • Mike Erickson (72nd overall in 2002)
  • AJ Thelan (12th overall in 2004)
  • Chris Hickey (192nd overall in 2006)
  • Nick Leddy (16th overall in 2009)
  • Mario Lucia (60th overall in 2011)
  • Nick Seeler (131st overall in 2011)
  • John Draeger (68th overall in 2012)
  • Louis Nanne (188th overall in 2012)
  • Avery Peterson (167th overall in 2013)
  • Jack Sadek (204th overall in 2015)

The team hasn’t enjoyed much luck with homegrown talent selected at the draft table but they have had some success with players from other areas who have developed in the North Star State. Take Erik Haula for example. The speedy Finnish centre played his high school hockey in the Wild’s backyard at Shattuck St. Mary’s and the team nabbed him with a seventh-round selection in 2009.

Although there hasn’t historically been a ton of marquee names from Minnesota suiting up regularly for the Wild, it is evident that the team is continuously keeping an eye out for homegrown talent and are willing to give them a shot. Sometimes there’s even a warm story accompanying a homecoming like that of Jordan Leopold in 2015.



from The Hockey Writers http://ift.tt/wCFVXw
via IFTTT

Marketers are guilty of following, not leading: Simon Sinek - AdNews

http://ift.tt/2k71jwS


AdNews

Marketers are guilty of following, not leading: Simon Sinek
AdNews
The reason marketers and brands find it so hard to connect with millennials is because they are behind the curve – not ahead of trends, author and leadership speaker Simon Sinek tells AdNews. They need to know why they, and their consumers, behave in ...
Why We Need To Stop Stereotyping MillennialHuffington Post UK

all 2 news articles »


from Simon Sinek - Google News http://ift.tt/2k6YzzF
via IFTTT

"I'm A Woman Who Went To The Women's March And The March For Life. The Differences Were Stunning"

http://ift.tt/2jjCws8

Submitted by Antonia Okafor via Indepedent Journal Review,

A week after the Inauguration of Donald Trump, politically active women across America could choose to make themselves heard at two major rallies revolving around women's issues. They could attend a pro-choice, feminist march known as the Women's March or they could wait one week and attend the 44th annual pro-life, March for Life.

Some lucky few, such as myself, were able to attend both.

The marches had their similarities. Both marches were held in D.C. Both marches were heavily attended by women. And both marches attracted people from all over the country to participate. But each march was not made equal.

Being physically at the marches, it is easy to recognize differences between the two. In fact, some of the differences were downright stunning. Take a look for yourself, perhaps you will agree.

Young Adults at the March for Life


Image Credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

 

Young Adults at the Women's March


Image credit: Joshua Lott/AFP/Getty Images

 

Examples of inclusion at The March for Life


Image Credit: Destiny Herndon-de La Rosa/New Wave Feminists, used with permission

 

Examples of “inclusion” at the Women's March

 

 

 

Signs at the March for Life


Image credit: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
 

Image Credit: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
 

Image Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

 

Signs at the Women's March


Image Credit: Ebet Roberts/Getty Images

 


Image Credit: Cynthia Edorh/Getty Images

 


Image Credit: Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images

 

Attire at The March for Life


Image Credit: ZACH GIBSON/AFP/Getty Images
 

Image Credit:TASOS KATOPODIS/AFP/Getty Images

Attire at the Women's March


Image Credit:Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
 

Image Credit: Emma McIntyre/Getty Images

 

Speakers at the March for Life


Image Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
 

Image Credit: Tasos Katopodis/AFP/Getty Images
 

Image Credit: Somodevilla/Getty Images

 

Speakers at the Women's March


Image Credit: by Araya Diaz/Getty Images
 

Image Credit: Theo Wargo/Getty Images

 

Men at the March for Life


Image Credit: ZACH GIBSON/AFP/Getty Images
 

Image Credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

 

Men at the Women's March


Image Credit: Ebet Roberts/Archive Photos/Getty Images
 

Image Credit: JASON CONNOLLY/AFP/Getty Images

 

The main reason for the 1st Annual Women's March.


Image Credit: Cynthia Edorh/Getty Images

 

The main reason for the 44th Annual March for Life.


Image credit: ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Only one march persuaded me to attend again.

 



from Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/qouXdu
via IFTTT

The Persuasion Filter and Immigration (Scott Adams)

http://ift.tt/2kHbuvl


President Trump has issued temporary immigration orders that ban citizens from several Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. This is a good opportunity to test the Persuasion Filter against what you might call the Hitler Filter.

For new readers of this blog, my starting point is the understanding that human brains did not evolve to show us reality. We aren’t that smart. Instead, our brains create little movies in our heads, and yours can be completely different from mine. We see that situation now. Half the country thinks President Trump is well on his way to becoming a Hitler-like dictator. But many other Americans think Trump is an effective business person with good intentions. They can’t both be right.

I use the word “filter” to describe an optional way of looking at the world. A good filter is one that makes you happy and does a good job of predicting what happens next. Let’s use that standard to compare the Hitler Filter to what I call the Persuasion Filter.

The Hitler filter clearly isn’t making people happy. The people watching that movie are protesting in the streets. Meanwhile, the people who see Trump as a good negotiator looking out for the country are quite happy with the job he has done so far. The Persuasion Filter says Trump opens with a big first offer and negotiates back to something reasonable. If you don’t recognize the method, it looks crazy, random, and racist. 

But what about predictions?

The Persuasion Filter predicting Trump would become president when the Hitler Filter thought he had no chance. Now we have another chance to test the predictive power of the Persuasion Filter.

If Trump is a Master Persuader, as I have been telling you for over a year, he just solved his biggest problem with immigration and you didn’t notice. The biggest problem is that his supporters on the right want more immigration control than he can (or should) deliver while his many critics on the left want far less. Normally when you negotiate there is only one party on the other side. But in this case, Trump is negotiating two extremes in two different directions. It’s the toughest possible situation. Best case scenario is that 40% of the country want you dead when it’s all over. Not good.

So what does a President Trump do when he is in an impossible situation?

According to the Hitler Filter, he does more Hitler stuff, such as being more extreme than anyone expected with his recent immigration declarations. That filter accurately predicted that he would be “worse” once elected. Sure enough, his temporary immigration ban is more extreme than most people expected. If things never get worse from this point on, we would have to question the Hitler Filter. But if things get worse still, the Hitler Filter is looking good.

Compare to the Persuasion Filter. This filter says Trump always opens with an extreme first offer so he has room to negotiate to the middle. The temporary ban fits that model perfectly. On the immigration topic alone, both the Hitler Filter and the Persuasion Filter predict that we get to exactly the point we are at today. Let’s call that a tie in terms of predictive power. The hard part is predicting what happens next.

The Persuasion Filter says Trump is negotiating with his critics on the extreme right at the same time as he is negotiating with his critics on the left. He needed one “opening offer” that would set up both sides for the next level of persuasion. And he found it. You just saw it.

The left sees Trump’s executive orders on immigration as pure Hitler behavior. That gives him plenty of room to negotiate to the middle. The initial orders are too broad, and clearly target too many of the wrong people. As he fixes those special cases he will be moving away from the Hitler model toward the middle. And people are more influenced by the DIRECTION of things than the absolute position of things. As long as he is moving away from the Hitler analogy, people will chill out, even if they think he was too close to that position before. Direction matters.

Trump’s temporary immigration ban set a mental anchor in your brain that is frankly shocking. It will make his eventual permanent immigration plan (”extreme vetting”) look tame by comparison. The Persuasion Filter says that’s his strategy. Because that’s ALWAYS his strategy. He acts the same way every time. He wrote a book about it. He talks about it publicly. Then he does it right in front of us, over and over. And no matter how many times he does it, half the country still thinks the opening offer is the real one. 

I’ve mentioned in this blog a few times that persuasion works even when the subject of the persuasion recognizes all the techniques as they happen. This is a perfect case. The left has been watching Trump make big offers and dial them back for the past year. And yet they still think this time it will be different. The Persuasion Filter says that 70-year old Trump will act the same way today as he has for the past several decades: Big first offer, then negotiate.

But what about Trump’s critics on the far right who want more extreme immigration? Trump needs to negotiate with them too. And he is. He did that by showing them that his temporary offer was so extreme that people took to the streets. The system (America) is actively trying to eject Trump like some sort of cancer cell. And the worse it gets, with protests and whatnot, the more leverage Trump has to tell his far right supporters that he has gone as far as the country will let him go. He needed that. The protests are working in his favor. He couldn’t negotiate with the extreme right without them.

Are Trump’s temporary immigration plans chaotic? Yes. Do they hurt innocent people who were minding their own business? Yes, temporarily at least. Did he scare the pants off of half the country? Yes. Will there be lots of unintended damage from Trump’s immigration orders? Yes. No honest person should deny the cost component of the equation. It’s ugly. But don’t stop with a half-pinion. If you want a full opinion on immigration you have to compare those costs to the potential benefits that include fewer terrorist acts and avoiding Europe’s refugee problems. Are people making that comparison?

No.

On Twitter I am seeing lots of well-meaning liberals tweet charts showing that no one from the banned countries has ever been a terrorist in the United States. But Trump isn’t trying to solve the PAST. He’s trying to reduce risks in the future. And the future has risks that are unlike the past.

If you want your president to solve only problems that have already happened in the past, we can ignore any potential climate change issues too. Human activity has never warmed the planet too much in the past, so why worry about it in the future? The point is that we try to stop problems before they happen, not after. Terrorism and climate change are similar in that one narrow way. They are both problems of the future, not the past. You can’t look to history to figure out how to solve either one of them. Dinosaurs didn’t drive cars and ISIS didn’t always have hobby-sized drones that can drop bombs.

On a related topic, President Obama and past leaders have gone out of their way to avoid labelling Islam as the problem behind terrorism. That makes sense on a rational level because only a tiny percentage of Muslims are terrorists. Obama wanted to avoid causing a religious war that pitted Christians against Muslims. So he avoided saying “radical Islamic terror,” for example. One could make a good case that Obama’s approach was the wisest path. It allowed us to stay on good relations with our Muslim allies and it probably depressed recruitment for the terrorists, at least a little bit. Smart, right?

Now we see Trump doing exactly the opposite. His words and actions seem to be intentionally mixing the Muslim “brand” with the terrorist “brand.” How does that make sense with the Persuasion Filter? I’ll tell you how.

President Obama’s approach was to give a free pass to Islam in general and to any Muslims that were just minding their own business. But the unintended consequence is that Muslims have less incentive to police their own ranks. Trump changed that. Now if you want to stay out of the fight against terrorism it will cost you. 

So Trump has created a situation – or will soon – in which the peaceful Muslims will either have to do a lot more to help law enforcement find the terrorists in their midst or else live with an increasingly tainted brand. Trump is issuing no free passes for minding your own business. His model makes you part of the solution or part of the problem. No one gets to sit this one out.

I’m not smart enough to know whether President Obama or President Trump have the best strategy in this regard. But both strategies are rational.

Scott Adams

Co-founder of WhenHub

Author of How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big



from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

In Venezuela, we couldn’t stop Chávez. Don’t make the same mistakes we did.

http://ift.tt/2kyGwlF

PostEverything | Opinion

In Venezuela, we couldn’t stop Chávez. Don’t make the same mistakes we did.

January 27, 2017 at 1:54 PM

Hugo Chavez was a populist, too. His opponents never figured out how to beat him. (AP Photo/Jorge Santo)

Donald Trump is an avowed capitalist; Hugo Chávez was a socialist with communist dreams. One builds skyscrapers, the other expropriated them. But politics is only one-half policy: The other, darker half is rhetoric. Sometimes the rhetoric takes over. Such has been our lot in Venezuela for the past two decades — and such is yours now, Americans. Because in one regard, Trump and Chávez are identical. They are both masters of populism.

The recipe for populism is universal. Find a wound common to many, find someone to blame for it, and make up a good story to tell. Mix it all together. Tell the wounded you know how they feel. That you found the bad guys. Label them: the minorities, the politicians, the businessmen. Caricature them. As vermin, evil masterminds, haters and losers, you name it. Then paint yourself as the savior. Capture the people’s imagination. Forget about policies and plans, just enrapture them with a tale. One that starts with anger and ends in vengeance. A vengeance they can participate in.

That’s how it becomes a movement. There’s something soothing in all that anger. Populism is built on the irresistible allure of simplicity. The narcotic of the simple answer to an intractable question. The problem is now made simple.

The problem is you.

How do I know? Because I grew up as the “you” Trump is about to turn you into. In Venezuela, the urban middle class I come from was cast as the enemy in the political struggle that followed Chávez’s arrival in 1998. For years, I watched in frustration as the opposition failed to do anything about the catastrophe overtaking our nation. Only later did I realize that this failure was self-inflicted. So now, to my American friends, here is some advice on how to avoid Venezuela’s mistakes.

  • Don’t forget who the enemy is.

Populism can survive only amid polarization. It works through the unending vilification of a cartoonish enemy. Never forget that you’re that enemy. Trump needs you to be the enemy, just like all religions need a demon. A scapegoat. “But facts!” you’ll say, missing the point entirely.

What makes you the enemy? It’s very simple to a populist: If you’re not a victim, you’re a culprit.

During the 2007 student-led protests against the government’s closure of RCTV , then the second-biggest TV channel in Venezuela, Chávez continually went on air to frame us students as “pups of the American Empire,” “supporters of the enemy of the country” — spoiled, unpatriotic babies who only wanted to watch soap operas. Using our socioeconomic background as his main accusation, he sought to frame us as the direct inheritors of the mostly imagined “oligarchs” of our fathers’ generation. The students who supported Chavismo were “children of the homeland,” “sons of the people,” “the future of the country.” Not for one moment did the government’s analysis go beyond such cartoons.

Related: Trump is stress-testing how we think about American democracy

The problem is not the message but the messenger, and if you don’t realize this, you will be wasting your time.

Don’t feed polarization, disarm it. This means leaving the theater of injured decency behind.

That includes rebukes such as the one the “Hamilton” cast gave Vice President-elect Mike Pence shortly after the election. While sincere, it only antagonized Trump; it surely did not convince a single Trump supporter to change his or her mind. Shaming has never been an effective method of persuasion.

Watch more!

The cast of "Hamilton" delivered a message to Vice President Pence from stage after he watched the show at Richard Rodgers Theatre in New York on Nov. 18. Pence was booed by some audience members when he first walked in. (Twitter/Hamilton via Storyful)

The Venezuelan opposition struggled for years to get this. We wouldn’t stop pontificating about how stupid Chavismo was, not only to international friends but also to Chávez’s electoral base. “Really, this guy? Are you nuts? You must be nuts,” we’d say.

The subtext was clear: Look, idiots — he will destroy the country. He’s blatantly siding with the bad guys: Fidel Castro, Vladi­mir Putin, the white supremacists or the guerrillas. He’s not that smart. He’s threatening to destroy the economy. He has no respect for democracy or for the experts who work hard and know how to do business.

Related: How fascist is Trump? There’s actually a formula for that.

I heard so many variations on these comments growing up that my political awakening was set off by the tectonic realization that Chávez, however evil, was not actually stupid.

Neither is Trump: Getting to the highest office in the world requires not only sheer force of will but also great, calculated rhetorical precision. The kind only a few political geniuses are born with and one he flamboyantly brandishes.

 “We are in a rigged system, and a big part of the rigging are these dishonest people in the media,” Trump said late in the campaign, when he was sounding the most like Chávez. “Isn’t it amazing? They don’t even want to look at you folks.” The natural conclusion is all too clear: Turn off the TV, just listen to me. The constant boos at his rallies only confirmed as much. By looking down on Trump’s supporters, you’ve lost the first battle. Instead of fighting polarization, you’ve played into it.

The worst you can do is bundle moderates and extremists together and think that America is divided between racists and liberals. That’s the textbook definition of polarization. We thought our country was split between treacherous oligarchs and Chávez’s uneducated, gullible base. The only one who benefited was Chávez.

  • Don’t try to force him out.

Our opposition tried every single trick in the book. Coup d’etat? Check. Ruinous oil strike? Check. Boycotting elections in hopes that international observers would intervene? You guessed it.

Look, opponents were desperate. We were right to be. But a hissy fit is not a strategy.

The people on the other side — and crucially, independents — will rebel against you if you look like you’re losing your mind. You will have proved yourself to be the very thing you’re claiming to be fighting against: an enemy of democracy. And all the while you’re giving the populist and his followers enough rhetorical fuel to rightly call you a saboteur, an unpatriotic schemer, for years to come.

Related: Donald Trump is America’s Silvio Berlusconi

To a big chunk of the population, the Venezuelan opposition is still that spoiled, unpatriotic schemer. It sapped the opposition’s effectiveness for the years when we’d need it most.

Clearly, the United States has much stronger institutions and a fairer balance of powers than Venezuela. Even out of power, Democrats have no apparent desire to try anything like a coup. Which is good. Attempting to force Trump out, rather than digging in to fight his agenda, would just distract the public from whatever failed policies the administration is making. In Venezuela, the opposition focused on trying to reject the dictator by any means possible — when we should have just kept pointing out how badly Chávez’s rule was hurting the very people he claimed to be serving.

  • Find a counterargument. (No, not the one you think.)

Don’t waste your time trying to prove that this grand idea is better than that one. Ditch all the big words. The problem, remember, is not the message but the messenger. It’s not that Trump supporters are too stupid to see right from wrong, it’s that you’re more valuable to them as an enemy than as a compatriot. Your challenge is to prove that you belong in the same tribe as them — that you are American in exactly the same way they are.

In Venezuela, we fell into this trap in a bad way. We wrote again and again about principles, about separation of powers, civil liberties, the role of the military in politics, corruption and economic policy. But it took opposition leaders 10 years to figure out that they needed to actually go to the slums and the countryside. Not for a speech or a rally, but for a game of dominoes or to dance salsa — to show they were Venezuelans, too, that they weren’t just dour scolds and could hit a baseball, could tell a joke that landed. That they could break the tribal divide, come down off the billboards and show that they were real. This is not populism by other means. It is the only way of establishing your standing. It’s deciding not to live in an echo chamber. To press pause on the siren song of polarization.

Because if the music keeps going, yes — you will see neighbors deported and friends of different creeds and sexual orientations living in fear and anxiety, your country’s economic inequality deepening along the way. But something worse could happen. In Venezuela, whole generations were split in two. A sense of shared culture was wiped out. Rhetoric took over our history books, our future, our own sense of self. We lost the freedom to be anything larger than cartoons.

This does not have to be your fate. You can be different. Recognize that you’re the enemy Trump requires. Show concern, not contempt, for the wounds of those who brought him to power. By all means, be patient with democracy and struggle relentlessly to free yourself from the shackles of the caricature the populists have drawn of you.

It’s a tall order. But the alternative is worse. Trust me.

A version of this article originally appeared on Caracas Chronicles.


Andrés Miguel Rondón is an economist living in Madrid. He is a Venezuelan citizen who was born and raised there.

Post Recommends

Outbrain



from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

The Founder is a surreal startup simulator that strikes at the heart of Silicon Valley

http://ift.tt/2kbgib7

If you were a Silicon Valley CEO, would your goal in life be to reshape society with world-changing products, or simply make as much money as possible and grow as fast as you can in the shortest amount of time? That’s the blunt and much-needed philosophical debate at the heart of The Founder, a free browser-based game from designer Francis Tseng. Launched earlier today thanks to a successful Kickstarter campaign, the game blends the open-ended decision-making made popular by The Sims, the business management Kairosoft titles, and a heaping helping of tech industry satire.

‘The Founder’ blends ‘The Sims’ with tech industry commentary

You start by naming your startup, choosing a co-founder, and picking a location to base your business. From there, you’re encouraged to start developing products and expanding endlessly.

Tseng incorporates a comical and wildly diverse number of real-world elements to The Founder that clash with the cartoony, cone-shaped avatars that slave away in a small simulated office space. For instance, you can develop products with the jargon of a marketing director and the ease of a cocktail bartender. A few clicks and you’re splicing together advertising and social networking, or e-commerce and mobile. Or you can just branch outwards with new verticals, like entertainment or finance.

When launching a new product, the game will switch over to a grid-like mini-game that pits you against an AI competitor in a contest for market share. The outcome of the contest then determines how much money your product generates.

But those elements barely scratch the surface of The Founder. Tseng’s simulation is so deep and comically accurate as to be a disturbing to those who live and work within Silicon Valley and its ever-expanding orbit. Every aspect of the game contributes to the rate at which you earn or lose money. A timer in the corner tracks the passing of time, starting at the post-dot-com bubble of 2001 and speeding onward at about one month per minute.

All the while, your board of investors is represented by an expectations meter at the top of the screen that tracks the happiness of board members and the likelihood that you, as the founder, will be ousted.

There are a number of other hilarious touches that will strike close to home for tech industry workers. To develop products faster, you can hire more employees and even lower those candidates’ salary expectations by exploiting information you’ve gleaned from their social media profiles. To attend to impending hacks or overseas factory suicides (like I said, grim), you might have to take valuable employees off research projects and assign them to cloud computing or 3D printing or the blockchain. To stave off public outcry over privacy violations, you’ll have to launch PR initiatives that range from press releases and ad campaigns to product placement and music festivals.

‘The Founder’ asks hard questions about the reality of working in tech

Tseng, in an interview with Fast Company, said the point of the game was to highlight the absurdity of Silicon Valley, a place where immense resources and talent is concentrated in silly and sometimes sinister ways. "I saw a lot of really amazing, technically amazing stuff happening in Silicon Valley, but the way it was being applied, the way [it] was being directed, just felt like a shame — it felt like a waste," Tseng says. "I was really interested in bringing that out in the game. That there's all this kind of marvelous innovation and technical development going on, but it feels like a lot of it is being squandered."

As you progress in The Founder, you’ll unlock the ability to grow beyond startup staples like social networking, advertising, and gadgets and into larger and more ominous industries like biotech, weapons development, robotics, and artificial intelligence. Some products become fantastical, like combining cognitive research with finance to generate “thought pattern-based credit scores” or combining social networking, analytics, and genetic research to establish a cloning facility. At some point, you can even invest in space travel to colonize Mars. Along the way, you can scoop up other companies that range from media organizations to global banks to shadowy government contractors.

Francis Tseng

The point, Tseng says, is to highlight the compromises and trade-offs of Silicon Valley’s appetite for innovation and quest for power. To even break into space travel and other futuristic industries, players will need to lobby the government for tax breaks, squash research bans, and influence the lowering of the minimum wage. At a certain point, it even becomes economical to influence the treatment of your enterprises in foreign countries. Each one of these points in the evolution of your company is represented by a simple on-screen card, something you can accomplish by simply investing time and money and resources.

“You have to keep expanding profit. As time goes on, it becomes harder and harder to do as you sort of saturate all the markets and you continue to try and build new products. But eventually it becomes harder and harder to innovate," Tseng tells Fast Company. "As you go further in the future, you get more and more of these crazy technologies, really futuristic ones. My hope is that at some point the player realizes, this is not a world I would want to live in."

- Via: Fast Company
- Source: The Founder


from The Verge http://ift.tt/oZfQdV
via IFTTT

Gorbachev: 'It Looks As If The World Is Preparing for War'

http://ift.tt/2kaBCh0

Some troubling observations from the last leader of the USSR, first posted in Time.

The world today is overwhelmed with problems. Policymakers seem to be confused and at a loss.

But no problem is more urgent today than the militarization of politics and the new arms race. Stopping and reversing this ruinous race must be our top priority.

The current situation is too dangerous.

More troops, tanks and armored personnel carriers are being brought to Europe. NATO and Russian forces and weapons that used to be deployed at a distance are now placed closer to each other, as if to shoot point-blank.

While state budgets are struggling to fund people’s essential social needs, military spending is growing. Money is easily found for sophisticated weapons whose destructive power is comparable to that of the weapons of mass destruction; for submarines whose single salvo is capable of devastating half a continent; for missile defense systems that undermine strategic stability.

Politicians and military leaders sound increasingly belligerent and defense doctrines more dangerous. Commentators and TV personalities are joining the bellicose chorus. It all looks as if the world is preparing for war.

It could have been different

In the second half of the 1980s, together with the U.S., we launched a process of reducing nuclear weapons and lowering the nuclear threat. By now, as Russia and the U.S. reported to the Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference, 80% of the nuclear weapons accumulated during the years of the Cold War have been decommissioned and destroyed. No one’s security has been diminished, and the danger of nuclear war starting as a result of technical failure or accident has been reduced.

This was made possible, above all, by the awareness of the leaders of major nuclear powers that nuclear war is unacceptable.

In November 1985, at the first summit in Geneva, the leaders of the Soviet Union and the U.S. declared: Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. Our two nations will not seek military superiority. This statement was met with a sigh of relief worldwide.

I recall a Politburo meeting in 1986 at which the defense doctrine was discussed. The proposed draft contained the following language: "Respond to attack with all available means." Members of the politburo objected to this formula. All agreed that nuclear weapons must serve only one purpose: preventing war. And the ultimate goal should be a world without nuclear weapons.
Breaking out of the vicious circle

Today, however, the nuclear threat once again seems real. Relations between the great powers have been going from bad to worse for several years now. The advocates for arms build-up and the military-industrial complex are rubbing their hands.

We must break out of this situation. We need to resume political dialogue aiming at joint decisions and joint action.

There is a view that the dialogue should focus on fighting terrorism. This is indeed an important, urgent task. But, as a core of a normal relationship and eventually partnership, it is not enough.

The focus should once again be on preventing war, phasing out the arms race, and reducing weapons arsenals. The goal should be to agree, not just on nuclear weapons levels and ceilings, but also on missile defense and strategic stability.

In modern world, wars must be outlawed, because none of the global problems we are facing can be resolved by war — not poverty, nor the environment, migration, population growth, or shortages of resources.

Take the first step

I urge the members of the U.N. Security Council — the body that bears primary responsibility for international peace and security — to take the first step. Specifically, I propose that a Security Council meeting at the level of heads of state adopt a resolution stating that nuclear war is unacceptable and must never be fought.

I think the initiative to adopt such a resolution should come from Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin — the Presidents of two nations that hold over 90% of the world’s nuclear arsenals and therefore bear a special responsibility.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said that one of the main freedoms is freedom from fear. Today, the burden of fear and the stress of bearing it is felt by millions of people, and the main reason for it is militarism, armed conflicts, the arms race, and the nuclear Sword of Damocles. Ridding the world of this fear means making people freer. This should become a common goal. Many other problems would then be easier to resolve.The time to decide and act is now.



from Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/qouXdu
via IFTTT

Why you should aim for 100 rejections a year

http://ift.tt/292XKFf


In the book Art & Fear, authors David Bales and Ted Orland describe a ceramics class in which half of the students were asked to focus only on producing a high quantity of work while the other half was tasked with producing work of high quality. For a grade at the end of the term, the “quantity” group’s pottery would be weighed, and fifty pounds of pots would automatically get an A, whereas the “quality” group only needed to turn in one—albeit perfect—piece. Surprisingly, the works of highest quality came from the group being graded on quantity, because they had continually practiced, churned out tons of work, and learned from their mistakes. The other half of the class spent most of the semester paralyzed by theorizing about perfection, which sounded disconcertingly familiar to me—like all my cases of writer’s block.

Being a writer sometimes feels like a paradox. Yes, we should be unswerving in our missions to put passion down on paper, unearthing our deepest secrets and most beautiful bits of humanity. But then, later, each of us must step back from those raw pieces of ourselves and critically assess, revise, and—brace yourself—sell them to the hungry and unsympathetic public. This latter process is not only excruciating for most of us (hell, if we were good at sales we would be making good money working in sales), but it can poison that earlier, unselfconscious creative act of composition.

In Bird by Bird, Anne Lamott illustrates a writer’s brain as being plagued by the imaginary radio station KFKD (K-Fucked), in which one ear pipes in arrogant, self-aggrandizing delusions while the other ear can only hear doubts and self-loathing. Submitting to journals, residencies, fellowships, or agents amps up that noise. How could it not? These are all things that writers want, and who doesn’t imagine actually getting them? But we’d be much better off if only we could figure out how to turn down KFKD, or better yet, change the channel—uncoupling the word “rejection” from “failure.”

There are two moments from On Writing, Stephen King’s memoir and craft book, that I still think about more than 15 years after reading it: the shortest sentence in the world, “Plums defy!” (which he presented as evidence that writing need not be complex), and his nailing of rejections. When King was in high school, he sent out horror and sci-fi fantasy stories to pulpy genre magazines. For the first few years, they all got rejected. He stabbed his rejection slips onto a nail protruding from his bedroom wall, which soon grew into a fat stack, rejection slips fanned out like kitchen dupes on an expeditor’s stake in a crowded diner. Done! That one’s done! Another story bites the dust! That nail bore witness to King’s first attempts at writing, before he became one of the most prolific and successful authors in the world.



from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

How Trump’s Executive Orders Could Set America Back 70 Years

http://ift.tt/2kbEn1M

Despite all the lies and distortions, President Donald Trump has spent his first week in office assembling a coherent and well-planned framework for foreign policy. It is hiding in plain sight—frequently missed in the storm of tweets and the attacks on domestic enemies. Read as a whole and in detail, with attention to their larger single-minded purpose, Trump’s executive orders are the blueprints for the most significant shift in American foreign policy since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941.

The latest drafts of executive orders, several of which the president will reportedly sign Friday at the Pentagon, are bold and breathtaking in their reach. They are strategic and transformative. They are also poised to destroy the foundations for the last 70 years of American-led peace and prosperity. The orders question the very ideas of cooperation and democracy, embodying an aggressive commitment to “America First” above all else. So much for the “defense of the free world,” and the “march of freedom”—obvious soft-headed “loser” ideas for the new team of White House cynics.

Trump is launching a direct attack on the liberal international order that really made America great after the depths of the Great Depression. It is a system of multilateral trade and alliances that we built to serve our interests and attract others to our way of life. Through the European Recovery Program (the Marshall Plan), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (now the World Trade Organization), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank, among other institutions, the United States led a postwar capitalist system that raised global standards of living, defeated Soviet communism, and converted China to a market economy. Through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Europe and a web of alliances in Asia and the Middle East, the United States contained aggressive states, nurtured stable allies, and promoted democratic reforms when possible. American power is unmatched around the world because it can work through consensual relations with partners in every region. None of our rivals have as many friends, and none of our rivals can count on as much support abroad.

That was true, and essential for American security, until this week. With his barrage of executive orders, Trump is taking America back to the historical nightmares of the world before December 1941: closed borders, limited trade, intolerance to diversity, arms races, and a go-it-alone national race to the bottom. His executive order on “rebuilding the U.S. armed forces” calls for “peace through strength,” but this document and the others he signed offer nothing but unilateralism and militarization: more military spending, more nuclear weapons, more use of torture (which is illegal), and more promises to destroy ISIS and other terrorist threats. The executive orders promise to curtail American participation in international organizations, prohibit whole categories of foreigners from entering our country, and limit exchanges of ideas and goods. This is not a United States any president from Roosevelt to Reagan would recognize.

Coupled with Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Transpacific Partnership trade negotiations, build a “huge” wall on the southern border, and impose high tariffs on imports, the United States is left with a foreign policy that cuts it off from the relationships that fueled its growth for 70 years. Where will the markets and brains come from, when America is isolated and reviled? Where will the capital to fund its debt come from, when it is in deep conflict with the countries that buy its bonds (especially China)? And, most significant, how can America anticipate and prevent foreign threats when it gets little help from others? Trump’s executive orders are making the United States an international pariah, which raises the costs for every element of its security and economy. Self-absorbed islands never prosper, and they usually decline fast.

The Trump team seems driven by its perception of enemies more than its analysis of national interests. If the president and his advisers thought seriously about the historical sources of America’s strength, they would not be so quick to destroy the liberal world order that it built. They would also think through the implications of the alternative order they are trying to create. It sounds courageous to say the United States will jettison pesky allies who do not “pay their share” and shut potential terrorists out of our country, but do those angry actions really serve its interests? Do they make America stronger, safer, and more prosperous? Almost certainly not.

By signing a series of militaristic executive orders at the Pentagon, Trump is sending a clear message that his definition of the national interest is purely focused on short-term chest-thumping and job hoarding, even as his actions will destroy more jobs in the near and long term. He shows no interest in nurturing a sustainable global economy, a livable planet, or the spread of democracy. The executive orders reveal his deep antagonism to all of these things, and the basic wisdom of American history. His actions are all about appealing to his less-than-majority base of supporters within the United States. He is intent on showing that he is boss, with “tremendous” support. The nation be damned.

We are far from the dismal day when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. For all of America’s current troubles, the United States is safer and more prosperous than anyone could have predicted in December 1941. It is, however, destroying the sources of its improved position in rapid succession. Each of today’s executive orders is another demolished column. When the roof caves in, America will be left weak, isolated, despondent, and defeatist—more like France in 1940 than America in 1941. Republicans in Congress were correct to speak out against President Barack Obama’s excessive use of executive orders. It now falls to those same critics to stop President Trump’s global destruction by presidential pen.



from Politics : The Atlantic http://ift.tt/qNbDum
via IFTTT