Nice conversation with John Robb
Friday, September 28, 2007 at 8:28AM Spoke with John on the phone for about 90, after deciding it made sense we should connect on that level.
Very enjoyable conversation.
The blogosphere thrives on a certain perceived competitiveness, and that dynamic is certainly there (Steve DeAngelis and I, for example, are highly competitive and highly collaborative at the same time, which I simply love) between any two thinkers, but the overlaps and similarities are always so much more vast than the differences, if for no other reason than we simply enjoy working the puzzle as much or more than finding the answer--much less getting credit for it.
The older I get, the more fascinated I become with the effect than with the appearance of contribution. It's more interesting and its more effective to focus on getting it done rather than getting the perceived win. Money is nice, appreciation is nice, but none of that answers your personal mail at the end of the life.
So connecting with similar people on similar journeys becomes a good in its own right. Frankly, that's my gut instinct on China and the U.S., as far out as that appears to many people today.
Connecting with John is like connecting with Art Cebrowski: no conversions are desired. I'm least interested in finding another me; that's why I have children. I'm interested in finding the variations on a theme.
One thing I find interesting: a lot of people like John, Steve and I seem to share this one weird physical characteristic--a slight lisp and a bit of a stuttery delivery at the margins. It's very subtle. I've had mine pointed out to me on the basis of C-SPAN videos. Of course, no one's perfect on any scale, but I can't help wondering if that physical manifestation naturally goes hand in hand with the sort of thinking we engage in, like we're biologically cross-wired in many ways, "suffering" cross dominances and systematic asymmetries, and that conquering or balancing all those imbalances is part and parcel a dynamic that both informs and reflects the way we think--like music that overwhelms the speakers.
I'm not interested in changing myself at this point in life, perhaps that's why I didn't bother noticing those traits in me until now. I like how it humanizes my delivery.
Plus, the halting (when I speak normally vice broadcast mode, where I conquer and bury the tendency) way I speak reflects that ADHD-like tendency of good horizontal thinkers to constantly get distracted, circle back, loop around and so forth. Of course, you can make this tendency endearing in its own way by being funny. Mark Warren, an acute horizontal thinker, does so to the point where I like to refer to him as "the Texas Hugh Grant."
So the faults don't mean you can't be a smooth speaker--just the opposite I would argue from my own personal experience and observation (though I've never tried the stones in the mouth like Cicero, a couple of Fisherman's Friends is a decent substitute, although I find that many people assume I doing chew). That may sound counterintuitive: Are such people born or made? I think they're born and they're made.
A simple stab. There's a school of psychology that says what you are is essentially a conquering of your physical limitations or collection of abnormalities (which we all have in various mixes). I suppose it's a celebration of diversity in some way, naturally Darwinian. But I do honestly think there's something to it.
Steve and I often joke that Enterra's staff is like the "island of misfit toys." I suppose many start-ups perceive their ranks in this way: a weird mix of strange people that naturally gravitate to create something new and different--very new economy, in that Kevin Kelly sort of way.
I actually counsel my kids on that a lot: that which makes them "odd" today is that which will make them very fulfilled and appreciated later on--if they can figure out the path. It's almost like the bit about child actors getting ugly when they get older: your having that "right" face for kid acting is often a predictor for having the wrong one later on. I felt I had the wrong mind to be a kid, hence I was perceived as precocious. I've only felt like I fit into this world over the last decade or so, as the rest felt like a "wrong" that needed correction.
That may be a very universal feeling of 40-somethings (John, Steve and I are all roughly the same age), and there's a lot of psychology that supports that notion.
Still, I think there is a biological quotient to why we are the way we are. I don't think my kids, given my choice of spouse, actually have that much choice regarding what they will excel at. We can argue nature versus nurture, and certainly I have the grand experiment staring me in the face with Vonne Mei Ling Barnett, who's already surprising me.
But I will say, even there, that I suspect more biological similarity than dissimilarity (perhaps every doting father's natural inclination--another assist from evolution). The Chinese went to great lengths on picking the "right" baby for the "right" family, meaning a sense of "this type" for "this type." Why? They're just into that, and I was impressed about the effort they made in this regard. To me, it was a systematically loving gesture that I respect deeply.
Anyway, I'm clearly in a contemplative mood, which is a very good sign regarding my interaction with John. I always say that there are two types of people in this world: the ones who make you feel happier and smarter after you've interacted with them, and the ones who make you feel worse on both scales.
You want to get ahead?
Realize the difference.
Where does this interaction go?
Ah, the things people worry about ....
Reader Comments (5)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,870239,00.html
It seems Ike was a fan.
You made a comment on two types of people in the world: the ones who make you happier and smarter after you have interacted with them, and the ones who make you feel worse..... This sentence clarifies the reason thousands read your blog daily. You not only inform us, but you let us in on your life and make us part of your family. It is a rare person who can convey that feeling.
--explains your blogospheric writing as well; witness this post!
Also, when I'm going full steam in a head-to-head but casual conversation, I'm a lot like that. I leave it to the listener to piece things together in a way he or she can understand: that's their problem; their minds are their own responsibilities. While at times a full-steam conversation with me turns into this speaker-listener dynamic (I can hog the conversation, being so lost in my own meandering and yet iterative thoughts which I'm voicing as I go), I do have translation needs built into the process -- I just don't worry overmuch about translating that type of conversation. It's not about hogging the conversation, but about leaving the other person free to take it however he likes, while recognizing that I've quite given up on wanting to be understood or attempting overmuch to be understood.
My problem is that the few comments another can squeeze in inspire me down about another 100 miles of criss-crossing thoughts -- which I voice, usually.
For me, the really good blog post is one I write while canceling out many of the bends in my thought. The others I write just bounce around the place.
Anyway...
The best ones for me engage in what Warren calls "pre-writing," which I compare to those little musical intros that often preceded 1930s songs ("... and this is what she said"): you start off with the trigger and then run with it. Feedback is mostly about you anyway, so why not run with it in a so-called web log or diary of the mind?
To me, the blog remains a function, not a product. If you turn it into a product, you kill the essence, which is personal transparency--no matter what the subject ("this is how I think about ..."). I try never to confuse it with formal writing, although I know and understand why so many use the format to self-publish.