Kevin Vogelsang

Do you have a Gift? a natural talent specific to you? Did it always seem to be a Gift?

Do you have a Curse?  Something about you that keeps you from getting your work done or doing whatever it is you want?  Do you have something that keeps you up at night and won’t leave you alone?

Are Gifts and Curses so different?

I don’t think so.  In fact, I believe that, most of the time, they’re the same thing.  And when something feels like a Curse, you’re in the wrong context, ignoring a part of yourself, and wasting something.

If ideas keep you up at night, use them.

If you love talking with people and building relationships, you’re a social beast. Find a job that harnesses it.

If you’re hopelessly distracted, try putting yourself in a more intense environment that demands swift action.  See what happens.

If you’re obsessive over the details to the point it’s problematic, find work that is clean and neat that needs someone to obsess over the details.  You’ll do things no one else can.

Or maybe you just need a change in perspective.  Even afflictions classified as severe disorders can bear Gifts.

Talents and intrinsic qualities tend to be highly specialized.  The human mind is incredibly diverse; the brain is capable of many things.  And when a quality or a talent isn’t being used or recognized, it starts to rebel. It will take its role by force sooner or later.

Just be sure to remember that no matter who you are or what you’re trying to accomplish, it’ll take commitment.

-Kevin
3.10.2010

I think about the Future a lot.  I enjoy it, but it’s something I just do.  I don’t seem to have much of a say in the matter.

When thinking about the Future, I do use structured approaches that are utilized in other forms of problem solving.  Here’s some structured approaches for  thinking about the future:

1. Thinking about constraints. What are the constraints that will influence the events that occur in the future?  For instance, are their aspects of human nature that will not change? This is a top down approach.  Constraints allow us to narrow the space of possible events. By making assumptions, and attempting to test those assumptions, you can learn a lot just from that exercise.
2. Data. Data extrapolation can be a helpful exercise.  However, I think looking at data is more valuable to see what has happened in the past and what is the current state of things.  By doing this, you can attempt to think and learn about where people were in the past, where they thought things were going, and where they actually went.  Data combined with a little history also allows you to understand how people make predictions, and the mistakes they make.  Ray Kurzweil’s work is a good example of data-driven futurology.
3. Causal Reasoning. (I use “causal” because reason is used in all of these).  If there’s a specific event that could happen, or is happening, by thinking through steps in the causal chain, we may come to certain conclusions that we would not have come to otherwise.

These are the structured approaches. Ideally, you make use of all these, and you are able to get a glimpse of convergence of the conclusions you come to through each.

There is also another method: intuition.  Humans possess abilities of pattern recognition that subconsciously lead us to ideas.  We are constantly making and testing predictions throughout the day, and we do it with no deep thought, or much of any thought at all (“If I order food now, it’ll be there by the time I get home”).  Of course, the information and patterns we gather through all other means and experiences play a role in our intuition, so if we’re serious, we should also analyze what types of scenarios our intuition is capable of predicting.

There’s another side to intuition: vision.  The Future is what the doers make it, and our vision will lead us to the Future.  This is why I capitalize “Future.”  It won’t turn out exactly how we thought, but vision will guide us.

As with all things, we should approach these with humility and understanding of the shortcomings and weakness of the human mind.

-Kevin
3.9.2009

Back in high school, I was required to take a philosophy course.

My teacher made the following statement, “It has been said that The Western Tradition of philosophy, men sitting around in discussion, is a predatory mechanism.”

This is certainly a curious statement.  And I’m not sure it’s limited to the Western Tradition; this could just be an illusion of the way history is recorded.

The statement does not refer to men sitting around plotting strategies of war or something of that nature.  The statement refers to discussions that seem to have begun with the likes of Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato.

So what does this have to do with predation?  Here’s my theory of why this could be:

Any group of people sitting around discussing deep questions are making connections with each other.  Sharing deep personal thoughts requires some level of intimacy.  Additionally, discussing such questions also provides a window into the minds of those participating.  By listening to you answer tough questions, I’m able to learn something about you: what you value, your motivations, your biases, your weaknesses, your talents, and even your alliances with others involved.

These factors create dense and intelligent connections between people, which are the ingredients for creativity and action.

Here’s another theory as to why this could be true:
Discussions harness collective intelligence and collective creativity.  Consequently, they’re meme machines; discussions lead to ideas and attitudes that spread from an epicenter out to a network’s peripheral (and then perhaps amplified by other epicenters).

If you hear about an idea that resonates with you and strikes you as important, you’re likely to share it with others.  Shared experience is powerful, and it brings like-minded people together.  This creates social alignment–an important part of getting things done at a large scale.

You could say that philosophizing is a means of initiating a community-driven movement, which are capable of quickly accelerating.

The two theories are similar.  However, the first is more about the formation of a band of warriors that will take on a mission.  The second is about social alignment–which is an advantage harnessed by many species.  Both of these could be considered and used for forms of predation.

These are just two theories.  There are many others.  There are also other interpretations of the statement itself.  Perhaps the act of learning itself (which is done through discussion) qualifies philosophizing as a predatory? Perhaps discussion and the resulting debate allows a thought leader to emerge (which could relate to predation on different levels)?

So is it possible philosophizing is an act of predation?  What’s your theory?

-Kevin
3.8.2010

To add a little more clarity to what complexity is:  complexity is not “complicatedness.”

Complexity is intricate, but it is not convoluted.

-Kevin
3.6.2010

Both are important.  They are the two sides of elegance.

We tend to push simplicity: “all things should be as simple as they can be.”  And this is probably best.  It’s harder to mess up simple things.  Think about architecture.  It’s hard to go wrong with columns and arches and domes (assuming they are constructed properly).  But, ultimately, it’s about elegance, not simplicity.

Very few people are skilled enough in an art to highlight complexity.  But, it exists and it’s part of the world.

It’s also beautiful.

-Kevin
3.5.2010

Yesterday, I talked a little about Hunter vs Farmer theory.

I’d say many entrepreneurs are absolute hunters.  They like high stake missions, go after opportunities, etc.

But this offers a paradox, can a hunter build a business?  Once they get a hold of the opportunity, they’ll eventually need to start farming: getting the details right, being methodic, etc.  (You could say the same paradox exists for venture capitalists.  They have to hunt down investments, but they need to farm their portfolio).

The entrepreneur deals with this by putting the right people in the right place.  The personnel needs of a company change over time.

They also deal with this by doing what they need to do, making the right decisions, and keep going until they get they get the kill.

This is why truly great hunters are relentless. Relentless hunters turn the “farming” aspects into part of the hunt;  they do this by hunting down the right personnel and by seeing farming as another step in the longterm hunt.

-Kevin
3.4.2010

I’ve alluded to Hunter vs Farmer Theory somewhat before.  It’s time I brought up the concept directly.

The basic idea: at some point, humans diverged.  Some became farmers.  Others remained hunters.  This created an important dichotomy of characteristics found in people.

Of course, people aren’t simply one or the other.  An individual’s characteristics exist within a multi-dimensional, continuous spectrum of possible characteristics. However, the Theory provides an excellent framework for thinking about the neurological differences in people.

The Theory is particularly interesting because it highlights society’s failure (particularly our education system’s) to understand the neurodiversity of humans, and how society often only admires a limited set of characteristics, while disregarding other valuable traits that are naively considered to be “deficiencies”.

The wikipedia page is a good primer.  Here’s Hartmann’s illustration of the Theory by placing ADD “deficiencies” in juxtaposition to their value when placed in a different perspective/context.

On a similar topic, also check out Sir Ken Robinson’s TED Talk on society’s failure to make use of the full potential of the vast array of intelligences humans exhibit.

Think about it.

-Kevin
3.3.2010

Back in July of 2009, I published my friend Luis Fernandez’s essays on the five most important lessons to learn in life on the blog.  I wrote an introduction and some notes to supplement the essays.

This body of writing has now been published as a physical book.

As Luis pointed out, there is something different, and special, about publishing in book format, as opposed to digitally.  It feels immortalized, written in stone.  It feels like a bigger step.

The prospects of digital publishing are very exciting to me.  But, something special still exists for books.  People have said, “The same thing that happened to records will happen to books.  People will stay attached to them  for a while, but they’ll quickly move on.”  I’m not so sure it’s quite the same.

The publishing industry has become a big focus of mine. This represents my first foray into physical publishing. Exciting things are happening.  Books can now be printed on-demand.  Self-publishing platforms have matured.

Of course, Tim O’Reilly, founder of O’Reilly Media, maintains that there is no such thing as “self-publishing.”  People that self-publish, that keep doing it, and are good at it, just become publishers.  “I was a self-publisher once,” Tim said in an interview.

There’s a whole new set of tools out there now that can be used to spread and distribute information, ideas, and insights.  This is incredible.  These tools have brought Luis’s essays to the world in a new medium.

You can purchase a copy of “The 5 Things to Learn in this Life” here from CreateSpace. As far as the Author’s margins are concerned (and consequently Luis’s daughter’s college fund), this is the best place to purchase right now.

For added convenience, you can also purchase the book on Amazon.

Luis’s book is currently only available in paperback.  As I learn my way around the publishing world, it’ll become available in digital formats (ex. on the Kindle) and hardback.

I’ll be sharing what I’ve learned about the publishing world as I go through this process.

-Kevin
3.2.2010

Image by CyboRoZ via Flickr

Imagine you’re stuck on an island.  Just you, a few others, and the wilderness of the island.

You’re primary source of food is fish. You catch the fish by sticking them with a sharpened stick.  It takes a long time to catch fish this way.  You miss a lot.  It’s tough to hit them hard enough.

You have a few minutes a day that don’t have to be focused on getting food and water.  During this time, you look for rocks that you could use to make a pointed tip.  Eventually, you achieve this.  You then are able to find the right plants to attach it to your “fishing spear.”  Catching fish is a little more efficient now.

You now have more time to experiment with the plant fibers you discovered in search for a way to create the fishing spear.  Eventually, you learn to make a net.  Catching fish can now be done by anyone.  You’re now able to pass the fishing task off to someone that is less capable.

You can now spend your time surveying the island.  You find rocks that can be made sharper.  You discover deer on the island.  You learn how to kill the deer.  You have a new source of food and materials.  You’re now able to make canoes, which are much faster than wooden rafts.  You can now travel faster and go farther.

~

This is an example of the compounding returns of knowledge.

We observe it now, more often than ever.  Technology is created that enables non-specialists to perform a needed task on a larger scale (like the fishing net in the example.)  Technology also allows us to discover new technology.  We see this in fabrication, software, and soon, in brain-scanning preparation.

We also have empirical proof that it exists.  Ray Kurzweil has collected some incredibly interesting data on the exponential acceleration of technology. (You can find videos of Ray talking about this phenomena on Ted Talks.)

However, we tend to forget this phenomenon on the level of the individual level.  When we learn and gain new skills, we gain resources.  And resources can lead to more resources.  People think about this more in terms of monetary investing.  But it’s true elsewhere.

So what does this mean for us?

If you spend a little more time working, and study just a little harder each day, you’ll find yourself much further along.

-Kevin
2.25.2010

This post is part of a series on “Community-Driven Movements” , a mission that is taken forward by a large, connected group of people.  Here are links to the rest of the series:  People Focused on Their Sphere of Influence , Sphere of Influence

If a community-driven movement is a group of people focused on their Sphere of Influence, and if recognition from the community allows us to personally recognize our Sphere of Influence, how do these communities initially form and grow?

In the very beginning, it’s about a problem or  a passion.  Somebody starts doing something because they like doing it, need to accomplish something, or a mixture of both.  Other people that share this experience, eventually find this network of people.  They likely need help or want to learn more about the activity that the community focuses on.

This describes why an individual might seek out a community and get to the fringe of the community.  But what is the force that drives them to become a member?  This same force ultimately accelerates the activity and scope of the community.

It’s the Law of Reciprocity, a human social law that causes people to have a feeling of gratitude, or even obligation, and respond to this feeling.

To illustrate, I did a simple experiment on Aardvark.  Aardvark is a service that allows a user to ask a question.  Aardvark then finds other users that are best suited to answering your question.

My question: “Why do you answer questions on Aardvark?”

I got 6 responses.  5 of these responses directly cited reciprocation, a  feeling of gratitude toward the community and a desire to return the favor.  One response also acknowledge the enjoyment of the gratitude of other users.  I’ve posted the responses at the bottom of the post.

The process of personal need, reciprocation, recognition, Sphere of Influence describes how an individual goes from the fringe to the interior of a community-driven movement.  This is not the only means of this process, but it describes the most fundamental process.  The forces are so fundamental to the human condition that community-driven movements begin and gain momentum when their mission is irrational or even detrimental (ex. cults).

Through this process, communities create Spheres of Influence, allow people to recognize Spheres of Influence, and motivate action.  The positive feedback causes a community-driven movement to gain momentum.

-Kevin
2.22.2010

karma

I work in customer support and I was a teacher before, so I enjoy helping people when I can. Plus I learn a lot doing this. Sometimes people will ask a question I know nothing about, but it encourages me to go learn about it at a later time.

A little bit of altruism,
Curiosity to test the aardvark system,
gratefulness to the network “as a whole”
Making my time useful instead of playing flashgames

thats a give and take situation, I have received a few rather helpful replies to questions and I can offer some expertise for other questions

I’m excited to answer questions where I can share my own experiences. It’s just fun to share what you know, especially when it’s something you’re interested in and a lot of people on here are very grateful for the help

I feel grateful when I receive any answers to my questions. It’s only fair to reciprocate when I can.