I found this incredibly helpful. Could you list any additional resources for CBT and positive thinking you might have? I have some other question if you don't mind, my email is in my profile.
Contrary to what some would have you believe in this thread, you can change your beliefs and emotions through consciously directed thought, but it's not easy.
I think you mean, consciously directed intent and will. Intent and will are not necessarily the same as thought. Perhaps you are using the wrong tools, and making it more difficult than it needs to be.
There's a good mix of iterative changes and structural changes. I think the structural ones (that don't deal with aesthetics) are the most interesting.
One trick I like to do is stand a few feet back from the monitor/LCD, and try to, in 3-5 seconds, figure out what I'm looking at. I think its a good trick because you'll realize where your eyes go to first (smaller text/details usually gets blurry), and the time interval will tell you what you're communicating clearly.
When you compare the first version in the video with the last using this trick, there's a huge difference.
The 2009 version has an overwhelming amount of detail, with an ambiguous "Change your Business"/"Change the way you work" title. A lot of information is crammed in the first frame (company history, latest news, etc). The 2011 version is remarkably clearer: The two large texts explain the product offerings and that they are kind of a big deal (social proof) - both keys to selling. The rest of the information is prioritized descendingly. "Style" (what people most typical mean when they say design) has been minimized.
Another company's website that is great with this (standing back/first thing that pops in your head) is, suprise, surpise... apple.com
Is it a lack of coverage or just strategically staying under the radar?
I think the lopsided press coverage of VC-backed vs. bootstrapped makes sense when you think about the incentives: VCs are focused on liquidity events (acquisition, IPO), so their startups might aim to be in the tech press and divulge details about revenue, growth, etc in an effort to pump up their valuations.
If you run a profitable bootstrapped company and you are reaching your customers, why speak to the tech press and discuss your financials? It would attract competition and I can't think of any upside.
"If you run a profitable bootstrapped company and you are reaching your customers, why speak to the tech press and discuss your financials? It would attract competition and I can't think of any upside."
I don't know about disclosing financial details, but the answer to the rest of your question is ego. Many people succumb easily to the desire for social recognition, even at the cost of strategic advantage.
Speaking from personal experience, it is sometimes difficult building a solid business that goes completely unrecognized outside of your own customers. It's a normal and accepted part of doing a boring business, but I can at least understand those who allocate resources to the pursuit of a little bit of ego gratification.
Also, I can imagine if someone is extremely talented/gifted in one domain, its extremely alluring to measure the world against that attribute. It can be self-affirming 95% of the time, because you're better than most people. But the other side of that coin is the 5% who are better than you, make you question your talents and create insecurity.
The whole Kenyon speech is good material. The kind of commencement speech everyone wishes they'd had. (I don't recall word one that Raymond Lane said at mine.)
The parts of it about traffic come to mind /every day/ I'm on the way home. Especially: "In this traffic, all these vehicles stuck and idling in my way: It's not impossible... that the Hummer that just cut me off is maybe being driven by a father whose little child is hurt or sick in the seat next to him, and he's trying to rush to the hospital, and he's in a way bigger, more legitimate hurry than I am -- it is actually I who am in his way."
I find this happens when
1. we fruitlessly compare ourselves to others, and
2. 'worship' smartness. I'm reminded of a quote from David Foster Wallace's commencement speech:
Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And an outstanding reason for choosing some sort of God or spiritual-type thing to worship -- be it J.C. or Allah, be it Yahweh or the Wiccan mother-goddess or the Four Noble Truths or some infrangible set of ethical principles -- is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things -- if they are where you tap real meaning in life -- then you will never have enough. Never feel you have enough. It's the truth. Worship your own body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly, and when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally plant you. On one level, we all know this stuff already -- it's been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, bromides, epigrams, parables: the skeleton of every great story. The trick is keeping the truth up-front in daily consciousness. Worship power -- you will feel weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to keep the fear at bay. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart -- you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. And so on.
Thank you for posting the quote. I found the speech online (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/sep/20/fiction) and read it, it's incredible. And saddening, considering the fact that DFW probably succumbed to the negative feelings he was warning against here.
Sounds amazing. Jobs is such a remarkable business figure, but I often wonder if people like him are rare, or if people like him are rarely given positions at the top of companies?
Depending on who you ask, people will tell you companies should be run by either MBA types or engineers. Jobs doesn't seem to fit either of these archetypes. Of all the big tech execs, he has to be the strongest systems thinker.
I think outside of the business success and technological innovation at Apple, one of Jobs largest contributions has been to bring the 'design process' to the center of management. Engineering has great models for problem solving, as does management theory, but design thinking is often the most overlooked. Its not given enough credit. Often when people talk about design they are really talking about aesthetics. When Jobs talks about design, he's talking about process. Hope the book sheds light on this.
I think it's fairly obvious that Apple is exceptional, and Jobs is exceptional. How do we know people like Jobs are rare? Well, have you heard of any others?
Then again, maybe it's the combination of Jobs, Silicon Valley, and that formative era that is rare. Take a young Steve Jobs and put him anywhere else, and who knows what would happen? I doubt he would end up in business--not a legitimate one, at least.
His first business was quasi-illegitimate, he and Woz were selling Blue Boxes so the average Joe could cheat MaBell. (I believe they bragged about thermite lined units for the mafia.)
Funny how 40 years later he's got one of the most restricted phone systems.
Check out Alan Mulally. I think he's an underrated CEO. While he is an engineer, I still admire his business acumen. I would think (and I know I'm going to get criticized for this) he might actually be better than Jobs. If not, it's 1A and 1B. Steve is in Alan's class, not the other way around.
You must view Alan's body of work and what he's done to turn around a company from the very bottom to where it is today. Totally different brand image. He's done it twice.
It looks like Mulally has turned around large, moribund businesses like Ford and Boeing from complete mediocrity to relative competence. I don't mean that in a negative way, because it's miraculous for a company like Ford to turn around the way they did, but let's be honest here. Jobs led a large, established company into being the most valuable public corporation in the world, competing successfully not with behemoths like GM but with Silicon Valley. Name a tech company half the age of Apple that can even hold its own against the forces of creative destruction in the Valley, much less grow like a startup.
I had to google to find out who Mullaly is.
And frankly, Jobs having his vision for years (check out his 1997 WWDC video) and bringing it into fruition looks much much more impressive to me than some cost cutting.
It's hard to argue that there's anyone better than Steve's vision. But Steve also did some cost cutting when he took over Apple (when it was a few months away from bankruptcy).
We all know what Steve would have done if he took over Ford:
1) Elminate all models with the exception of a few. Alan sold off Land Rover, Aston Martin, Volvo and a few others. He also closed Mercury.
2) Take those models and offer one or two different versions of it and offer it in two colors--black or white.
3) Put an emphasis on design. You'll notice that Ford's cars are now much more diverse and much more attractive.
4) Focus on reliability. Again, Alan did the same thing with Ford. He took the engineers to consumer reports and had them scrutinize their reliability right in front of the engineers.
I hope I'm making a point. Steve would of likely did the same thing Alan's done at Ford. Alan would have likely did the same thing Steve's done at Apple. Maybe not quite as good as Steve's done it, but very similar.
I've been watching Mulally a little bit over the past few years. What source(s) of information would you say are best to get a better idea of his thinking and of what he's done? Do you get all that only from interview and maybe annual reports, or is there a better source?
You actually don't "have to" do any of that. If you don't wake up early tomorrow or take your kids to school, you will not be hauled off to jail and the world will still go on.
What you're really doing, if you stop and think about it, is making a deliberate choice - between the cost/benefit of sleeping in and taking it easy, and the cost/benefit of employment/income/future of your children. You may not think of it as a choice, but it is. Plenty of people decide its not worth it, and don't take their kids to school or hold a job. For you, the inconvenience of your morning is offset by the value of a more secure future.
So when you say you "have to" do these things, that's false. I wouldn't even call it "pushing" yourself. You actually want to do it, because you value it on some level. The fact that its not pleasurable or emotionally exciting doesn't even enter into the equation of deciding.
There could be many reasons we're seeing a rise in the number of incubators, principally the cost of technology startups are falling (makes sense from a diversification standpoint to invest the same $$$ in 10 companies that you would in one) and as a investor/mentor you stand to reduce your capital risk if you have some say in the early stages of product development.
Investing in early stage is cheaper and riskier. Investing in later stages (when a company has traction/growth - VC/PE stages) becomes more expensive, but is less riskier. The incubator model has the advantage of managing some of that early stage risk that angel investors traditionally didn't control by having experienced entrepreneurs on-board/within a network and in a collegial environment.
Any successful model will attract competitors, so you now have more incubators. He's equating the rise in incubators as a sign of a bubble. It would only be a bubble if you had tons of incubators sitting on cash and not finding any place to invest it. His second mistake is equating failed incubators, that result from poor investment decisions/leadership, with some kind of market correction ("the bubble bursts").
Sorry, but electric cars are not infallible. There are some real issues involved with using them, and people are getting upset because a entertainment show about cars is poking fun at those issues in an exaggerated way.
All this sharpening of the pitchforks over ethics/editorial guidelines/facts is just a red herring to debase a TV show that isn't going to march in lockstep with a car manufacturer's marketing literature, or support the environmentalist's point of view that electric cars are utopia.
Do note this article is in the environmental section of the guardian. Top Gear bashes all cars of all types. They can be downright offensive (there was a somewhat tasteless joke about mexican cars a while back), but when it comes to electric cars, for some reason there is this clamoring for facts/journalistic integrity, etc in the media. These people don't really care for the show, they just care how electric cars are being portrayed in the media.
I think everyone agrees that electric cars are associated with certain disadvantages with respect to the availability of recharging facilities. The issue raised in this post is not that Top Gear misrepresented how inconvenient running out of charge could be, but that by deliberately running out of charge, ignoring all of the warnings, and by concealing from viewers that they were ignoring all of the warnings, Top Gear misrepresented how easy it is to run out of charge during normal use.
All they had to do was say, “The Nissan does a good job of warning you not to run low on charge, but we all know how often people in the real world ignore the out of petrol warning on their cars and run out of fuel. Let’s see what happens if we ignore the warnings and try to drive to Lincolnshire anyways.”
Presto, they make their point without maliciously or inadvertantly making another and wrong point.
Which they did in order to show the obvious problem in a safe and entertaining way. It doesn't matter if the battery was going to die in 10 more miles, or 40 more miles on a highway. It would be just as inconvenient and less safe.
"ignoring all of the warnings, and by concealing from viewers that they were ignoring all of the warnings"
What warnings did they conceal? They were talking to each other over radios about how their cars said they were almost out of juice.
Which they did in order to show the obvious problem in a safe and entertaining way. It doesn't matter if the battery was going to die in 10 more miles, or 40 more miles on a highway. It would be just as inconvenient and less safe.
Again, you’re entirely missing the point, namely that they decieved the viewer about how this came to be, not whether it was inconvenient to run out of charge. Imagine, for example, that I wanted to demonstrate the catastrophic dangers of Scuba Diving. I go on a tour with a noted guiding company. I am trained in my equipment’s features. I am outfitted with a mechanical gas gauge and an air integrated dive computer. I deliberately breathe my tank down to less than full capacity before submerging, and then I deliberately exhaust air on the bottom to run it out. Instant emergency.
This would be a fine way to discuss the dangers of being out of air at depth, but it would be ludicrous to stage the whole thing as if a diver would actually submerge on less than a full tank of air and would continue the dive even if his air integrated computer were to warn him that he could not complete the dive as planned.
I’ve seen tons of videos showing this kind of thing, but none have suggested anything other than human error is the problem. If what they want to do is say that petrol is more convenient because you can get gas even if you’re a complete idiot, they can make that point easily and entertainingly without deception.
Again, you’re entirely missing the point, namely that they decieved the viewer about how this came to be, not whether it was inconvenient to run out of charge.
No, you're missing the point that it's a television show. As such, things must be done in a predictable, safe, and visually appealing manner. They can't have the crew sputtering to a stop on a blind crest or busy highway.
The show you want would go like this:
Clarkson: "Welcome to Top Gear. Tonight, our challenge is to drive electric cars from X to Y!
hosts climb into cars
May: "Oh, the on-board computer tells me I can't go that far."
Clarkson: "And on that bombshell, thank you for watching!"
That version communicates exactly the same point, but with zero entertainment.
Your SCUBA example is ludicrous, and completely the opposite of what happened here. i.e. increasing danger.
I get that your point is that since it’s “entertainment,” they have a blank cheque to do whatever they like to make whatever point they like, and that misleading the viewer about something other than what they want to convey is fine.
Believe me when I say, I understand you, I just don’t agree with you.
The overarching point is that there aren't recharging stations as ubiquitous as the fuel pumps and that it takes anywhere between 30 minutes and 12 hours to recharge the batteries. Was the point proven clumsily, yes, it's Top Gear, they're nothing if not clumsy especially Jeremy Clarkson.
The point still stands. Also note that Nissan itself says that repeated fast charging of the Leaf's battery will cause it to be unable to hold a full charge. The fast charge option being the 30 minute, 80% charge option which is the fastest you can charge a currently-in-production electric vehicle.
These are the facts and there's no agreeing or disagreeing with them. Top Gear presented them in a clumsy way, but they're still facts.
No, you still don't understand me. Or, you want people to be endangered for the sake of... what, running out of electricity a few miles further down the road?
They didn't mislead the viewer about anything. Did you watch the show? They were very clear about how many miles were left. I fail to see what your problem is, beyond, "they did not promote the things I like, and they focused on issues which I want to ignore."
Edit: upon re-reading what you wrote, it's clear to me that you really don't understand what I'm saying. This isn't about freedom to do whatever they want to prove some point. This is about how a television show is made. Television is produced, deal with it.
> Which they did in order to show the obvious problem in a safe and entertaining way
And the "obvious" problem is...? The car electronics was showing they had charge for 30 miles. Sat-nav was telling them their destination is 60 miles away.
For me the conclusion is that for the math challenged, driving an electric car is an "obvious" problem.
Seriously? The problem is that range is rather limited, but more importantly, refill stations are hard to find and take a very long time to complete, compared to refilling a gas tank.
That is precisely why people in this thread repeatedly emphasize its an entertainment show first, car show second.
There is a story arc for the show and car reviews. Nissan may have a well designed system to limit blackouts, but in this case it didn't play well with the entertainment/comedic elements of the show.
Do you think afterwards they should mention it wasn't real?
They have a narrative, and entertainment/comedy takes priority over car reviews. It only seems to ruffle the feathers of electric car/environmental group - and I posit it has little to do with "presenting the facts" (where is their outrage about the claim that the stig can blink horizontally or is non-human?) and all to do with advancing their agenda.
I do not consider “It’s an entertainment show” to be sufficent excuse for deliberately mileading people. If you find that satisfactory, that is your business.
> ... and I posit it has little to do with "presenting the facts" (where is their outrage about the claim that the stig can blink horizontally or is non-human?)
Just, wow. How does one even reply to a comment so profoundly stupid?
Top Gear is an entertainment show with cars as the backdrop. Just like Daily show is a comedy show with political clips.
If you want a car review show, take a look at Motor Week.
I think these claims of "faking" are ridiculous when you have episodes where cast members "die" (top gear apocalypse), and characteristics are emphasized for comedic effect (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQh56geU0X8).
This article claims because of Top Gear's antics, the public is being misinformed about the benefits of electric cars. It completely misses the point that 1. it is not a car review show, and 2. there is a major poetical component of the show that celebrates automotive history. They like exciting cars and bash boring uninspired ones (except if its remarkably boring). Their reviews emphasize a car's essence, not necessarily a list of facts.
I think this view is coming from a place that has a vested interest in electric cars, and not anyone who really watches the show. Otherwise they'd be attacking all the claims ("Some Say") made about The Stig.
