Change is not constant

Recently, I finished reading "Who moved my Cheese?". The author has clearly explained that things around us change all the time and we should adapt to them. Because of the complexity with which our brain processes information, we become change averse. While reading, I remembered that someone once said that only constant thing in our lives is change.

According to Prof. Hal R. Varian of UC, Berkley, information is growing at 66 percent. This fact in itself makes 'growth of knowledge' exponential. With growth of knowledge, brains will certainly be stimulated and some smart people will try to bring about change. (Think about how internet and Google changed our lives). With so much knowledge being a click away, how can people not see the change occurring around them. But I feel that some of the change is too hidden(slow) for humans to perceive.
On these lines, one can try an experiment by having some water in a glass at room temperature. Even though evaporation is happening all the time but we can perceive it only after considerable amount of water has evaporated.

The change I am talking about is not the slow change, it is a wave that is sweeping across the globe as Prof. Varian mentioned. It is the change some of us have already accepted like the technology penetration that we have allowed in our lives. With knowledge increasing exponentially, the waves of new technology is coming at much faster pace and within increasingly short intervals.

Having said that, I will come to my point that any new change around us will come at lesser cost than the previous change. Thus, change in itself becomes exponential and not constant.

Impact holes are available

People in this world are always trying to reach the state where whatever they do is meaningful. I think there are opportunities available all around us to pursue and create an impact.

Chris Davis of Davis mutual fund gave an example of CarMax in an over-crowded auto industry. He mentioned that CarMax looked at a hole in auto sales and filled it. It was about the used car sales. Customers, going to regular auto car salesman, have to negotiate while Carmax gives a unique proposition of fixed price on used car. They even pay their salesman fixed commission whether a customer buys a $40,000 used Mercedes or a $8000 Corolla.

Similar to the above example, we have holes around us where we work or live. These holes cannot be seen by mere eyes. They can be identified by those who have a model of world in their minds. Because the model will have similar holes as those of the real world. At work, everyone is looking for growth but no one seems to be looking for creating an impact. How about creating an impact and forgetting about growth? Once, we see that hole and try to fill it by creating an impact, we get into something that might be slightly (or maybe much) bigger than us. And wouldn't growth be automatic?

It is the mental model that will lead us to perceive the holes. But, alas, we are not able to see them. Is there a way to see them? Is there a way to change our perspective so that we can see them?

I think the last question is an answer itself. We will have to try and work on creating our mental models and then refining them ad infinitum. Aren't we all looking for that pay raise that should have been much more than what we got? But the question that we have to ask is that if we created that Impact. I think many of us take certain things as granted.

Look at the impact that GOOGLE has made. It has changed our lives. Our kids will know google as a verb. Two guys on a journey to create an impact. Thats pretty much it. So before we blame anyone else for everything that is going wrong in our lives we need to figure out the impact that we have created for this world. And only after that we should be able to figure out if the world compensated us well.

Charlie Munger is a big proponent of mental models. The Munger Network of Mental Models is a explanation by Richard Rockwood on how mental models can be created, refined and applied.

Boundaries -- set us free

Liberty is a concept that gives us a sense of what we want to do. But this freedom is not universal, it is actually bound by unseen entities (e.g. law). In any given system, participants co-operate with each other if the boundaries are very well defined. If there are no boundaries, one may not even know where he wants to go.

The best innovation is achieved when a bunch of creative people are BOUND to perform in certain limits. All the while they are given illusion of utmost freedom. Jim Collins, in his book Good to Great, mentioned how certain companies, after laying out the boundaries excelled in innovation, customer service, operations etc. by letting their management and people free.

Dawkins also has mentioned a tough a question about death. If the boundary created by death was not imposed on life, competition to evolve to next level would have been chaotic. This thin line of boundary which lets one have a feeling of freedom is missed by many of us in general. It is these thin lines once we become aware of will lead us to our own personal evolution.

In any given system (including human being), foundation on which it is developed defines the boundaries. Kevin Kelly, in The Myth of Leapfrogging, "wanted to believe the hope that new lite green digital technology could leap over old dirty technology". But he also mentions that leapfrogging in the true sense of "skip over" didn't happen. It is the requirement to have a foundation based on old technology, which will define what new technology(ies) will become available shows that boundaries are present. One country or region just can't be free to skip over the old technology.

One should not take the freedom for granted but value the boundaries in which that freedom has been gifted.

Definition of 'DONE'

Done, finished, caboose, end are said in the context of a task on hand. One says done means the task or functionality(in the Software Development) is completed. I decided to take a look at this differently.

How about thinking it like this : A task is done when you are not needed anymore to perform the same or similar task again. For example, the task of vacuum cleaning. Once you have vacuum cleaned every place you want to and felt that all the dirt has been sucked in, you get the feeling of finishing something. While from our new perspective, we will say that task is temporarily done because in a few days you will be performing it again. But in case you decide to buy Roomba (a robot vacuum cleaner) the task is really done.

Take life for example, living as a task is done when you are dead. We never say that at every birthday one has accomplished living for this year and will again accomplish it next year.

If you feel curious and want to read more on these lines.
Take a look at Manna

Survival of the fittest -- The Flip Side

The phrase -- Survival of the fittest -- brings a tone as if THE FIT is hacking/destroying/ killing/removing everyone else who are not so fit. But lets take a look at the flip side -- contrarian approach. This phrase may actually bring a tone of co-operation /help/creation.

For argument's sake, let us assume Lion to be THE FITTEST. Highest in the food chain, Lion can kill/remove everyone below him. In such a scenario, there will be no one left to destroy which will lead to the destruction of THE FITTEST. But the evidence is otherwise.

Dawkins wrote in his book that in a race between a wolf and rabbit, rabbit should win more often (LESS FIT guy) because wolf is just running for dinner while rabbit is running for life. This fact shows that evolution may not mean a particular species getting better but it may mean that the whole ecosystem is improving. If wolf were to improve to run fast (through many generations) rabbit should also improve to run faster else it would become extinct or vice-versa.

Hence, improvement in one entity should lead to improvement in other. It appears that nature has devised certain laws which will make entities co-operate even though we might think otherwise. In the ecosystem of Tennis players, Roger Federer evolved at the fittest. In the Australian open, what all of us noticed was that others are also evolving to the level of Federer, the whole tennis ecosystem has improved over the past few years. The balance in the ecosystem will not let on entity fly out to far. This has happened because the aim of every player is to beat Federer and so he will try to learn from Federer. In effect, the FITTEST is teaching less FIT how to reach his level (not directly but other players are watching Federer's videos).

Tennis ecosystem is not valid for many general scenarios because guys compete to win and they can't really co-operate. But we can look at other ecosystems (work, community, family) where THE FITTEST, if co-operate with less fit, will increase the level of ecosystem involved.

Confusing !!! Read about Iterated Prisoner's dilemma.

Pattern recognition

Brain is a pattern recognition machine. Different people see different patterns throughout the day. How come, some patterns are remembered while others forgotten. The simple answer could be that patterns one see repeatedly tend to sink in the brain(as if going towards the root) while others are just lost. That is why we have experts in various fields. Ordinary people see patterns in the field of their choice and once they sink in, experts are born.

Want to check out your expertise?
Go to this link

You will notice even though the words are jumbled you are not having a lot of trouble reading it. Think how brain is processing the information.

Sometimes, in this busy world, people who are climbing ladders (corporate, family, religion) want to reach a spot faster. But climbing ladders is nothing more than recognizing patterns. How fast your brain sinks in the new patterns will define the speed of ascent.

Beginning

After much wait, I have finally decided to start using this arena to jot my thoughts down. To start with, just a little background. I live in Flower Mound(suburb Dallas) with my wife and two daughters (read monkeys).

I am a Software Developer. Apart from writing code, I like to read books, watch TV(Sports) and play games(all kinds). Recently, I read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. This is a life changing book for me. The way he has explained evolution and the need for it looks like a game theory tutorial. Evolution, according to Dawkins, should be viewed as gene centric rather than from the perspective of a species or individual. Dawkins has explained every aspect of evolution -- be it relationships among human beings or the purpose of the individual. The simplicity with which he conveys the complex biological processes taking place is remarkable.

Dawkins starts with a gene eye view of the world and mechanisms that led us here. After explaining all the aspects of life through the gene's eye, he ends the book with a thought exercise involving Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma and Memes. Memes like genes are "immortal". He has also given a preview of a long reach gene has on the environment (similar to memes) which I think is explained in his other book -- The Extended Phenotype.

Dawkins views -- as I understood them -- don't relate much to the spiritual part of the human being. Those who may find it offensive should read the book at their own risk. Still for those who maintain an open mind can give it a shot and see the world from the gene's eye.