« Posts tagged tucker max

on Testing IRL

February 8, 2011 / posted in Business, life as we know it / No Comments

So I did join Ramit Sethi’s earn1k insider’s list.

It’s quite interesting to note how often he responds to objects and naysayers about his product. Of course he’s right — if you can’t spare 30 minutes from your day to save you potentially hours then you’re wasting time by even considering throwing 1k into a program on how to improve… (business practice, marketing, negotiation skills…). Most of his regular emails seem composed of this kind of hustle, to urge people to get off their butts and refuse mediocrity.

This is good because often many of my closest friends, while all intelligent and capable, do not invest their time into activities that will benefit them in the long run. Video games are the best time-waster. You spend 40 or 60 bucks to buy a game and then spend the next week or two playing it and beating it. It’s good to spend 12 hours, say on Ico or 115 hours on GTA4 and then go to bed at night feeling like you’ve made progress. You have made progress. It’s just not applicable to life. It’s the same thing with wildly successful multi-player games like Left 4 Dead, Battle Field 2142 or Call of Duty 4. Yes I’ve played most of these games (except Ico). And I’ve not beaten a single one of them. But the online games are especially trying because you do cooperate with other people, or play against them, and you get players who take them way too seriously. Any sense of accomplishment from a video game is real — even if the accomplishment and the work never fully or even partially translate into a real life benefit. Unlike say, climbing a corporate ladder or learning a new trade… So the email urging is good. People are hooked in some sense, many many people. And it’s good to call people out — the ones who would set goals for themselves but never follow through… because the goals are only there for them to remind themselves that they aren’t as loserly as anyone else… (I find that so annoying, to have a ‘serious’ conversation with someone who believes they will do something but never do it!) So I do agree with Ramit on this.

But at the same time it’s freak’n annoying. I didn’t realize that reading his emails would mean that I would get badgered into doing whatever he wanted me to do. Taking action right away, or at least within a reasonable time frame. That’s okay though, because if it’s annoying enough I could always unsubscribe. But I won’t because I do find value in what he says, even if most of his emails is him responding to whining (he must get alot of people who reply with whining).

Anyway, I’m starting to ramble but I did look at Ramit’s offering of a 60 minute interview with Tim Ferris on the subject of testing. They are about the same age I am, and they speak of testing as Testing. I listened to the interview while I was writing some database code for MySql and while answering some emails on a Saturday afternoon. The subject of testing is interesting, although I kind of wished they had set the foundation for it better.

In my work-life I don’t have much guidance as to how to go about conducting business. Since my services are relatively new on the market (as a niche business), testing is necessary for me. So some areas in which testing apply are in a networking situation, saying different things for the breakfast 30 second microphone time — is useful. Trying out different pricing, and trying to see what fits best is another thing I’ve done. Asking customers and potential clients how we may better service their needs, also works. Ferris had some interesting and useful comments about testing (for instance don’t test when the risk is too high). Perhaps I am too new to Ramit’s blog — because I am not certain what the context is for testing. For instance, when is it good to test? The interview seems to conclude that testing is always good — when the risks are not too high. I guess this is alright, but I think at some point, testing becomes trolling. In real life or online.

How do you know what to test? Going back to the video game scenario, people ‘test’ the rules in video games all the time. For instance, in the original Battlefield 1942 people learned that they can put the engineer bombs into a jeep and drive it into a tank, effectively destroying the tank with a car bomb. That’s testing but the rewards are so low… and transitory. Owning on an online server might be great if you are 14, but it’s less relevant if you’re 25 or even 35… Social ‘situations’ online such as on discussion forum don’t seem like a good place to ‘test’ although asking people their opinions on things is less a test than just surveying… (this is where I disagree with their notion of testing, although its vaguely applicable). If anything, determining when to test seems like a matter of boredom or curiosity. Ultimately, doing website SEO requires some kind of testing — to find out one’s target market or to find out which words are the ones which best attract customer dollars (if it is indeed that kind of website). So testing as an effective activity really depends on the context of what’s really at stake. When does testing become less effective and more about provoking people for whatever reaction they get?

If anything, the most useful point about testing is more about how to determine when we need to test something. It’s obvious when we aren’t getting results at all or if we don’t have enough information to make a decision that we need to expand out knowledge base. The best way to do that is to test new situations. But it becomes less obvious if we are succeeding that we need to test if we are to maximize or improve what we want to do. Life is (often but not always) about learning new things. If we are complacent, satisfied with what we have, or afraid of losing — then testing becomes less important. Likewise, how we can step outside of our normal processes and conceive of a new way of doing things — paradigm shift or whatever you want to call it — is a completely different topic in itself, one that has had many many books written about it. In fact, such a level of creative-stepping-outside-of-the-proverbial-box is the wet dream of many many scientists, writers, managers, marketers, CEOs… and of course all those really smart finance people who create new finance instruments for investors all the time.

So figuring out how to test or construct new paradigms or ‘scripts’ as Ramit calls them, may be beyond the scope of this entry, even if that’s what I’m talking about. In fact, the other side of testing is the purpose of testing — at least in business — and that’s INNOVATION.

Recently Harvard Business Review Blogs have got some interesting thoughts on INNOVATION. Two of the three articles they have relate to the topic of testing. For instance, Quicky is an open-source model for product innovation, created by users to try and make better products. In essence, the users themselves were suggesting what they would like to buy. That certainly circumvents normal business ‘testing’. Of greater relevance, though, is this entry on Google’s attempt at being innovative — which basically could be resolved if Google were to test its innovations before committing to creating them. This is a clear case where testing is necessary.

In general, testing isn’t just about originating a new idea and seeing if it will fly, it’s about interacting in the field of interest — succeeding where you want to succeed and trying new things to mark out territory for proposed behavior.

On this vein, it may be of greater interest to introduce someone who has built a career off of testing (social boundaries) — and then publicizing it for all to gawk at… Would Ramit interview Tucker Max about testing and how he determines what next to test or how he goes about ‘testing’? (Who knows, maybe he already has! I just started reading the Ramit’s blog, but I don’t read Tucker’s…)

*note, bringing up the two of them yet again seems kind of nefarious, or atleast it feels that way to me, but I think relevant because their models of interaction seem so similar… it may be interesting to see if Tucker Max can engage on the level of discourse Ramit seems so bent on focusing… and what he might be able to say… if it would even be relevant at all. It is of note though that Ramit did mention pick up artists I haven’t listened to this pod cast, but I did read the entry. Ramit’s main criticism about PUA is that it’s more about scoring than less about personal self-development… I don’t know… do you think Tucker Max is about personal self-development? It seems to me that he is about some kind of development… although it’s quite unclear what.

Reading Our Reflection: Self-help Requires Helping Your Self

January 16, 2011 / posted in images of being-human / No Comments

I used to travel alot.

I didn’t do it for very long. Less than two years, in fact. But I did it for work and it was an interesting, valuable if not just a lonely time of my life. I imagine that if I did it enough I would have been able to make friends in all the major cities of the US. But I didn’t and I tried to fill my time in a variety of ways. These were all solitary activities; eating out, eating in, drinking, visiting odd places and of course, reading. I won’t get into my history with reading right now, but I will say that I did get to visit a variety of book stores in a variety of cities.

One of the things I noticed was that even in corporate book stores like borders — you could get a real feel for an area by the kinds of books in a bookshelf. (Used book stores were particularly telling.) One of the things people don’t often get is that cities are really too big to be easily encapsulated by one or two visits. You need to immerse yourself there. So bookstores explain alot about the surrounding community. For instance, I never did find an adequate philosophy section in the South. I did see lots of book on military history and a variety of bibles and bible related sections.

Well, I live in Los Angeles. So you can imagine the kinds of hipster art books, the kinds of poetry, po-mo writing, and local ‘underground’ literary scene. I say ‘underground’ because Los Angeles has a kind of inferiority complex when it comes to publishing (partly from being so remote from the literary powerhouses in New York)… One thing that’s disturbed me recently though, is the onslaught of self-help books. It says something about a group of people when you see, over the course of a few years, the section on Love and Sex grow from a shelf to a rack and now, in some book stores, two or three. For example, the collection in the aging hipster community of Sherman Oaks has TWO RACKS dedicated to how to have great sex, or have the secrets to tantric sex, or how to be more intimate with your partner… And it’s not just Sherman Oaks (bless those well-to-do souls), it’s also prevalent at the borders on mainstreet in Glendale, CA. You get things like sex-trology… if you happen to be a male taurus you’re in there. Or if you’re with a gay pisces of some sort, then you can find out all about their bedroom likes or dislikes! And if you have a crush… well, apparently astrology doesn’t exactly predict one’s perdiliction for sexual orientation, but it can tell you if they like it fast, or slow or how to plan your seduction. (More too, later on the new astrology… with the 13th sign… maybe)

Perhaps it’s my generation. And also, maybe the aging baby boomers who, having lived through the sexual revolution, need something more to excite them nowdays that they are older and well, less active… maybe. But you’d think that anyone who might’ve had tons of experience would know what they like. Anyway, isn’t the number of books being read dropping? There are plenty of studies that say that. But how many studies aim at looking for what it is people are actually reading? I have issues with most ‘classic’ literature. For instance, we might claim that Jane Eyre is out of vogue now. Okay. And anything George Elliot is in. Okay! Sure. But who would trash Kierkegaard? I think Repetition is a horrible work; a work of terrible emotional indulgence and infantile obsession-ism. Maybe I missed the point. Lots of everything is there, of course, we all eat, sleep, fall in love and struggle with our own demons or with each other. But it’s irrelevant. So what about the romance novels, the pure escapism of some fantasy literature or books on how to be a better lover (or in one case, how to be a bitch to get a man, since men love bitches…)? How can we understand all these kinds of works?

I think it’s pretty well supported that our media is a reflection of who we are, of what our concerns are. While some people were concerned about what American Idol says about our obsession with celebrity-dom, success and failure (making a ‘spectacle’ out of common people…) I seriously doubt most gave it much thought. Trash tv is recognized by everyone as being trash tv. Who really cares, anyway?

It’s not hurting anyone. There’s moral lessons to be learned by much of it. The bad guy loses. The good guy wins. The struggle goes on. It’s entertaining. And who doesn’t deserved to be entertained when we’ve had a tough day at work? Who cares about thinking or trying to be come a better person through self discovery?

And wasn’t Henry David Thoreau an asshole anyway? Walden is an incredibly pretentious book. He laments that the ‘common man’ can’t feel… at least not like he can… Who cares about that kind of internal dramatification? That Egotism? So why not read a book on how to be a better fuck? Why not read about how to eat and become a ‘skinny bitch‘?

If we take social media as a mirror, it seems more and more to me that we are hypnotized by how awful we are and more and more hysterical about how wonderful we should be (but aren’t). The problem with common men has always been just that — commonness. Somehow we should all be above average. Which is impossible. Our junk email shows us the value judgement that men should have super large penises and be able to ejaculate many times in one ‘session’. Women should all be oh so sexy. All the time. Even when they are waking up in the morning… with make up on perfectly, already. Of course we would want to watch in-human super-people, and identify with them. That’s nothing new. Stories, fables, whatever — are always about what some fantastic thing someone does.

After all, why would anyone want to hear about someone common having a common day?

I’m tempted to go off on how marketing needs to address their audience’s narcissism, or self-imagine. Or maybe talk about Victorian novels, which focused on the rich or becoming-rich. I don’t think most of us believe we will become famous or are upset because we all can’t be rockstars. I think most of us realize that we can’t realistically achieve those things — and most of us decide eventually that we want to settle for something achievable, like having a family or paying one’s bills on time. “There’s nothing special about me!” “I’m not upset that I can’t be rich.” I think it is safe to say that adult maturity comes with accepting one’s position in life… although part of me goes ‘Blah! Slave mentality! — Being an ‘adult’ means accepting your lot in life!’

But how many of us actually grow up? I don’t think it’s really that strange that kids who played video games for fun also play video games for fun as adults. And while we have a conception of adults (ie, sexual consent, as well as the right to drive, vote, drink, access pornography and the duty to serve in the military) as being responsible and mature, we might be surprised (somewhat) to be introduced to the concept that maturation and adulthood as contemporary concepts are only as new as 200 years old. Pretty much all traditions have rites for adulthood — but it’s only recently that we have the added baggage of autobiography, infant/childhood as a developmental period with the teenage years as being a period in our lives with all those expectations of awkwardness and… even more extended development. Becoming 13 didn’t necessary mean sexual maturation (many 13 year olds still have to ‘discover’ their sexual interest… although that number may be dipping lower and lower, who knows) — but being 13 today does come with the idea that one is still a child and can’t really decide what’s best for themself.  I don’t think it’s also a big surprise that teenage rebellion comes with sexual maturity… one has to cast off one’s parents and compete for resources if one wants to breed. But look, our world is complex, more so than before.  Our extended childhood means to teach us how to carry weight as an adult.  So, a dichotomy is formed:

Children = immature.
Adults = mature.

As youths we are told that we should behave and know our place. How do we get out of it? I’m not sure. When we enter the early 20s, we often get an explosion of experimentation and self discovery that comes with the removal of authority.  And we slowly learn that we really do have to take responsibility.  It’s generally a gradual process all the way into your late 20s and early 30s.  Now, to account for this oppression, I don’t think that American children are oppressed.  But I do think that our media hints about the desired life of an adult — party, sex, drugs, drinking and other kinds of behaviors that one should/could only do if one is an adult — and many kids trying to learn about themselves want that for themselves. They might watch a movie like Old School or Animal House and think that this is what college should be like. We see stories like this over and over — and we might assume it’s just a movie or just a story. But there also lacks a subtle distinction that this is a story, and that this kind of behavior may not be what we should strive for in our every day life…

Many of us learn that life shouldn’t be like what’s in a film, later on. At least not 24/7. There’s more to life than bar-hopping (or dodging bullets). But we still have to find that out, gradually or tragically. I think many of us stop doing these things because we get married and want to have a family. (And yes, bar-hopping can be fun, especially if we feel that there isn’t any other better use for our money, even if it was to give to charity). And in case you don’t know, seeking promiscuous sex and/or getting drunk isn’t bad in itself (really it’s not!), but it’s still quite selfish behavior. I just wanna feel good. Nothing’s wrong with that kind of attitude, but is that really what we should be looking for? Many of the self-help books (most of which I have not read) don’t really try to tell us how to live or give us guidance on what it is we should want or value.

If books did that, who would buy it? A litany of Christian morality comes to mind.

But instead, many self-help books focus on more specific tasks. Some of those tasks maybe value-based, like how to be happier in life, or how to find and keep a good woman, how to transform into a motivated person — but many of them are on specific things like how to tie someone up, how to write and think critically, how to be a better professional, how to code in Perl, how to cook for yourself now that you’re living alone in college… With each of these, we are getting the big picture taken for granted. For instance, take something as run of the mill as a programming language. Think it would be hard to tease out values from a book like that? Consider that each programming language was created with a specific problem in mind. C++ was created as a middle level language with speed and software application in mind. Java was created to do all the things C++ did, with internal dynamic memory management AND a smaller footprint so as to work on mobile devices. And what about the values of someone who buys a book on programming? What do they think is of value? Just by the type of task someone values, you can be you know something about them, given our shared world. So how does one jump from being a child (general) to being an adult (general)?

Being an adult isn’t just about being accountable or responsible (many adults are not), but also about knowing why and what you are doing. So for example, while binge drinking is probably not be responsible, but getting a designated driver is more responsible. In an ironic way then, Tucker Max may in fact be one of the most responsible people around. He’s got to be, unless someone else writes his blog for him. Keeping an online presence, writing books and finding time to keep his life in line and his online presence going is a difficult thing to learn, especially if he’s going to parties all the time.

All the same though, even if many of us want to live lives like Tucker Max, can we do it? Probably. Maybe. For a time. Many of my friends have already started to complain that they fall asleep around 1am. They can’t party like they are 23. And… Maybe Tucker Max doesn’t have a day job? I don’t think so, he doesn’t need one if he makes money writing and throwing parties. I don’t read his blog or his books. But I know many of my friends do. If anything, he is giving mixed messages, especially for those few of us who would love to live like him. But if we accept that most of us can’t be expending that much energy (to get laid), then we might be able to accept that it’s only okay for a few celebrities to live outrageously (the rest of us must settle for living vicariously, through them). After all, if we are busy getting laid, or distracted from hang-overs we cannot do the best we can. We can’t give to others with the best of intentions if we are sloppy and not together. Muhammad Ali has said “There are a lot of boys that are stronger than me that could be great champions, but they can’t fight temptation. Temptation is all around us ! Pretty girls with their chests big and ripe.” (Ali Rap, Page 25). If we have aspirations or goals, we should be focused on that and not get so distracted.

For example, if we, as a people, are concerned with the Earth, and pollution, over-population, war, and famine then we should strive to give better attention to these issues. I had an xgf who was very concerned about the Earth, about animal rights and water conservation. She would complain about people having lawns throughout the south-western United States, where we have droughts for years on end, to the point that it affects arable farm lands. And yet she became resistant to my insistence that she not use the washing machine for so few items (since they were separated by fabric, she might have only six things in the washing machine at one time). I’m not saying that we can’t be contradictory but we should not be. Likewise, we may have big ideas about a novel we would write (some day) and this might be an excuse for us to feel better about ourself, when we work hard come home tired and only want to goof off until bedtime. If having dreams and ‘goals’ is only to get us through the day with higher self-esteem then perhaps that’s really useful and I shouldn’t take your dreams or goals seriously. But if they aren’t just self-esteem bullshit then you’re gonna have to get your life focused and in order to achieve them, otherwise you’re not being honest with yourself. And if you believe your own bullshit, it’s probably going to bite you on the ass when you realize one day that you’re 40 and you’ve achieved none of the things you wanted to do when you had more freedom to choose.

But goals aside, is hedonistic behavior all that bad? Even if you had no goals and what you do doesn’t harm others, then why not do it?

Look at it this way: the most liberal of us would claim that consensual activity between two adults is their own privilege. But is it okay for two adults to say, get drunk every weekend? (Or say, did heroin, or something — anything — which made them unable to function in everyday life…) Even if they made sure those days (and the following ones too) were cleared so that it wouldn’t effect their professional life? AND if they made sure they had enough booze and food so they wouldn’t be tempted to drive? Most of us might say… yes, if they covered their loose ends. But what if they got a call from their mom in an emergency in that time (like her car broke down 500 miles away in the middle of a desert)? What if their neighbor’s house caught on fire? We can’t live with all these ‘what ifs’ and I agree that we shouldn’t live exclusively for other people — but part of being mature, I think, is to strive to better ourselves and the environment we are in, to support those of us who need support. Putting energy into a hole for momentary fun is an extremely selfish thing to do. If anything, having free time to kill ourselves with drugs is only possible by the hard work and support the rest of society gives us. People may say ‘well, I’m not hurting anyone, so why can’t I…’ and perhaps so, but one isn’t giving back to society either. We didn’t build our own house. Most of our food comes from somewhere else. Most of the products we have, we can have because parts of it were made in the 3rd world where we don’t pay those 3rd world citizens enough for them to live like us. If we had to fend for ourselves, food, shelter, clothing, supplies, medicine — in the wild — we would probably be busy ALL THE TIME. We don’t live in the wild anymore. But our environment is still not complete. There’s plenty of good left out there, to be done.

And yes, it’s a hard world. Even if you want to help, businesses and institutions won’t accept you on your good will. You have to be able to actually contribute. To get paid AND make a difference. Sometimes it takes someone giving you a chance. We shouldn’t take that for granted. Even if we live in a ‘first world’ nation (and I assume you do if you have access to the internet and time to read all this lengthy stuff) — we shouldn’t just go about fucking everything up even more. After all, someone like, say, Britney Spears might think she’s earned her position (and yes, legally she has), but really, her life isn’t exactly her own… she’s made money on the dreams, ambitions and stardom of many young fans. She’s a public figure now, because that is the life she has led. Her celebrity status is her cage. She can turn her back on other people and trash her life (if she likes) but that’s just plain selfishness and narcissism. If she lived in a more upstanding way and made a difference to the world, to help others, I am sure her life would also be richer. It may not be what she wants, and of course the decision is hers and hers alone. I am sure she (and many others) would like to be good, upstanding people. But many of us are not.

I think the problem comes about when we fail to grasp the actual relationship of what we are doing. We want the fruits of our labor but we don’t understand what it takes to really achieve (and sustain) that. For example, in order to be accepted to a position where you can maximize your good you have to study, learn the shit other people have learned and CONTRIBUTE. Being a big shot isn’t supposed to be the goal. BEING A BIG-SHOT COMES ABOUT WHEN PEOPLE RECOGNIZE YOU HAVE SOMETHING OF VALUE TO CONTRIBUTE. Then they respect you, and come to you and look up to you.

I know it doesn’t always work that way. We hear about big shots in stories, leaders who are really shit heads, who cheat people. Leaders who screw the little guy. Who have been changed by the journey to success. (In stories such leaders almost always fail). Well, that topic is for another time. What I am talking about are the values which surround the life. In a way, success is much like love. Does a self-help book tell us that love isn’t something to be found on the street? Do self-help books tell us that love should not be the goal or the FIX-IT PATCH to a relationship? Love is what happens when two people work out a good situation. Love emerges from that. Love is a side effect of good, respectful and sustained effort on both sides. Love is not a goal. Love is not gotten like winning the lottery.

I suppose it’s possible that self-help books say that. I’m sure some do. But I haven’t read them. And I don’t think people get that about love, or success or money.

This sounds really boring, maybe. It may be kind of boring. It’s also hard, and involves sacrifice. Having a productive evening can be quite satisfying. I get home from work and I try to work on the program I am writing. This doesn’t often happen, many times I spend a few hours unwinding and my entire evening is done. Time for bed!

Long term gain most often involves sacrificing short term pleasure… a personality characteristic which many of us lack. Do we as a people value hard work? Do we have what it takes for a sustained effort? If we read a self-help book, do we in fact derive help from it? I am sure only some us actually read it — and even fewer put it into practice. But can we even find knowledge about life in general from a book? Therein lies a gap between knowledge and practice… Self-help books can be useful but they aren’t complete. Individuals who read a shit ton of them probably don’t get what they need. The answer for the soul isn’t in chicken soup. Therein lies irony, since what you buy is in a book and not a can.

Books are good. They are a good place to start learning. But they aren’t the answer. There also isn’t anyone to teach us how to be mature, contributing adults — just like there isn’t anyone to teach us how to stop being children. This decision is something people have to decide to do for themselves. Most people will decide at some point that they want to be mature, or an upstanding person. And then they try and reinvent themselves — but then inevitably they since they have no idea of how to do it. We want instant fixes to things, but that’s never going to be the case. Reading a book won’t change our lives — no matter how powerful the message — unless we also start to change our behavior… and changing our behavior in ways that affect the basis — not just the symptoms. Taking a pill to solve anxiety may work in the short term, but if it’s a long term goal, then you’re probably going to have to take that pill for a very long time. Likewise, looking for love qua love isn’t the way to go.

Now, it may be a bit of a tall order to stop buying diamonds because they are blood diamonds, or stop drinking coffee because coffee generally comes from exploited coffee bean pickers. Or stop driving gas powered cars because of the United State’s dirty dealings with other countries. It may be a choice, but like success, real change can only come with small steps. Doing massive, radical movements isn’t sustainable. Liberal guilt isn’t the answer either. Liberal guilt prompts people to alleviate their guilt by doing certain charitable things and then ‘allowing’ themselves reprieve in other ways. Like, I give to breast cancer, or I did my time in India, therefore I should be able to… or I drive a hybrid car, therefore I can feel superior and lecture to others who don’t… No one has the authority to balance things like that, and guilt of that sort is ridiculous. It’s like being ashamed of being born a certain race. No real change takes sustained effort. Ask anyone from Alcoholics Anonymous or anyone trying to wean themselves off meat. Meaningful change is a one day at a time thing.