April 7, 2010 1 Comment

Einstein. Socks. Cab fares.

Yesterday coming home I was thinking about Einstein, socks, and cab fares.

Let me explain.

There are many things that baffle me. Mens socks are one. You never lose a pair of socks. You always lose one sock. Every six months I go to the closet and find a handful of socks none of which match. Where did their pairs go? So I go to the store and buy a dozen pair. Slowly the phenomenon repeats itself. Months later another drawerful of single socks each forlornly in search of its match. Back to the store.

Hold that.

einstein So yesterday I was on a day trip to New York. I took the 8 am shuttle from DCA to LGA. Caught the 7 pm back home. Fare to the city: $38. Fare back from the city to the LaGuardia: $30.

Then it struck me. Why are cabs from the airport TO the city are ALWAYS more expensive than cabs FROM the city to the airport? It was a phenomenon that has been bothering me for some time. Just like socks. I travel a lot. Boston. St. Louis. Atlanta. San Francisco. Every time it is the same thing. Cab fares from the airport to the city are X … cabs from downtown to the airport … less than X.

I’ve tried to identify all variables. Time of day. Tolls. Traffic. None seem to fully account for the difference. After I net everything out it is always cheaper to go from the city to the airport than the other way around.

The only factor I can think of is that coming home always seems quicker to me than going away. This is a phenomenon that is widely recognized. There are all sorts of theories but as best I can tell they all boil down to how we perceive time.

Things seem longer when you are under stress (going away) and things seem shorter when you are in delight (coming home).

As Einstein once said:

“Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT’S relativity.”

So I get how the cab ride can seem shorter or faster or easier going one way or the other.

I just can’t figure out the fare part of it all.

And the socks.

March 30, 2010 2 Comments

Our certain future

I am constantly amazed. Not only that. I seem to be constantly amazed at things that happen … well … constantly. You’d think that seeing something over and over and over would eventually wear you down and erode wonder, awe and amazement. Not for simple minded people like me. I sit back and watch people do the same silly thing over and over. And I say to myself, “wow!” … “that is amazing!”

What the heck am I talking about?

It is the audacious certainty with which people predict the future.

toy2r-emilio-garcia-jumping-brain-toy And I’m not talking the simple stuff. Things like, “if you don’t brush your teeth will rot.” Or, “if you constantly lie eventually people won’t trust you.” Or, “if you’re disciplined and sacrifice today you can reap the benefits tomorrow.” That is the simple stuff … the natural and predictable consequences to simple actions.

No, I’m talking about situations that are hopelessly complex, that have multivariate and fast changing events, that computers the size of Big Blue could never figure out.

But here we are with our little 3 lb brains and not only have we figured it all out (and well into the next decade no less!) … but we do so with absolute, unapologetic and unqualified certainty.

This is more than just the “half full vs. half empty” syndrome. It is not a question of style, character, or even slant. It is the ability of people to see the same data, the same information, the same images, the same facts and draw opposite conclusions with the certainty of the sun coming up tomorrow.

Welcome to the health care debate.

It will decrease the deficit. And it will raise the deficit.
It will increase abortions. It will decrease abortions.
It will help business. It will hurt business.

The Wall Street Journal says that health care reform is leading to the “wholesale destruction of wealth and capital.” The White House says it simply is closing a loophole. According to one Congressman the health care reform will lead to more aborted babies. According to Bart Stupak nothing changes. According to columnist and commentator Fred Hiatt health care reform is a ‘fiscal catastrophe.’ According to a former official of the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. DeWater, it will reduce the deficit.

No wonder the media reports that the average American is confused. The so-called ‘experts’ are not only disagreeing. They are violently disagreeing with even more violent confidence and conviction.

I suspect that the average American isn’t as much confused as he or she is simply recognizing the simple fact that all the “experts” ignore. We just don’t know exactly what is going to happen. There’s some good. There’s some bad. There’s some risk. There’s some opportunity.

But we just don’t know. None of us do.

In many ways the health care reform package is a lot like life. It is hard to know what the future holds.

So what do you do? You go back to those simple, historically proven, reliable things you can depend on.

Like brushing (and flossing!) so your teeth don’t rot. And telling the truth so you can earn someone’s trust and confidence. And working hard and sacrificing today so you and your family can benefit some day down the road.

As for the other stuff, it would be refreshing if someone said what everyone else has already figured out:

“Who knows?”

March 16, 2010 3 Comments

“I hate you!”

[NOTE … this post is about phones and one of my clients is Research In Motion, the maker of the BlackBerry. This post represents my thoughts, not anyone else’s. If anyone agrees with this it was simply dumb luck. I never consult, advise, or otherwise communicate with any of my clients about this or any other JuiceBar post past, present or future. And sadly, no one pays me to do this. Just me doing my thing. Now that I’ve made the FTC happy …]

Quick. How many recent rivalries can you think of?

stewie Let’s check. In entertainment there was Leno and O’Brien dust up. In politics we recently had Cheny vs. Biden. And in business there are those great Apple vs. Microsoft ads. I’m a Mac! I’m a PC!

Enter Google vs. Apple.

With a vengeance.

This is no Coke vs. Pepsi or Starbuck vs. Dunkin Donuts.

This is personal.

First there was the piece in the NYTimes about how much Google CEO Schmidt and Apple CEO Jobs hate each other. That included reports that Jobs believes Google is the devil incarnate.

Now newly hired Google tech wizard Tim Bray claims that he indeed wants to ‘kill’ the iPhone. In his blog, Bray writes:

The iPhone vision of the mobile Internet’s future omits controversy, sex, and freedom, but includes strict limits on who can know what and who can say what. It’s a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord’s pleasure and fear his anger.

I hate it.

My my. Tell me how you really feel.

That’s a lot of hating.

It makes the Israeli-Palestinian discourse sound civil. At least the Irish can hate each other based on centuries of history and theology. While you may think both are assholes, at least Olberman and O’Reilly hate each other based in part on some basis in public policy and the role of government. Even Kill Bill Uma Thurman’s hate — while excessive — had a legitimate source (torture).

But all this this vitriol?

It is about a freaking phone. That’s right guys (and gals) … a phone. Does phone technology merit us to rise (or sink) to the emotion of hate? Killing? It can’t be about the money because as best I can tell all these guys (and they are guys!) are filthy rich.

So what gives? I suspect it is egos and marketing.

I’d note that the dictionary defines ‘bray‘ as to ‘make a loud, harsh, disagreeable sound.’

Hard to say “I hate you” and not have sound like … a bray.

March 12, 2010 1 Comment

The stupidity of crowds

Let me start by saying (a) that I am a fan of James Surowiecki and enjoy his writing and insight; and (b) I think he has a point in his ‘wisdom of crowds‘ thing.

Heck, the whole idea of democracy is based somewhat on the premise that large groups of ordinary folks can exhibit common wisdom. As Lincoln once said, “God must have loved the common man … he made so many of them!” I know that some of you read this and think of the current political environment and might conclude otherwise but over the long term democracy has served us … ok, it has served most of us … quite well thank you.

But the cold reality is that crowds can also be stupid. Very stupid. And crowds are particularly stupid when then face things that they find foreign, strange, and uncomfortable.

8527stupid-people-posters A recent case in point. The Mississippi school district that canceled their senior prom rather than allow a lesbian to attend in a tuxedo with her girlfriend. Yup. You read that right. Grown adults so afraid of a teen age lesbian couple that they canceled prom night.

I don’t think it matters what you think about gays and lesbians. And I don’t think it matters what you think about teenage gays and lesbians. You may believe it normal and a sign of a maturing, evolving culture. Or you may find it unnatural and a sign of society going to hell in a handbasket. Or somewhere in between. Doesn’t matter.

That a school district would cancel prom over fears that kids might see two girls making out is just stupid. Don’t Mom and Dad know that their children have already seen that and more on Fox? Do they think that if they cancel prom gays and lesbians will disappear? That their children won’t get ‘infected’? Don’t they realize that this lesbian couple is already in their children’s high school? That rather than make this go away that it shoves it in everyone’s face.

Crowds do bizarre stupid things when faced with cultural fears.

I know first hand growing up in Jefferson Parish Louisiana in the 1970s. I attended a public high school that was ALL boys. Yup. Public school. All boys. Why? Because after desegregation some of the white parents – let’s call them a crowd of white parents at the time – figured that while they may have to accept that their white children will have to go to school with blacks, they could make sure that their white girls won’t have to mingle with black boys!

And that was that. High school was divided into all boys and all girls schools.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Conclusion? Crowds can be dumb. And it isn’t hard to find examples (can anyone say … housing bubble?). So look around. What crowds are you hanging out with? What are they doing? Occasionally they can be wise. But they can just as easily be stupid.

Chart your own course.

March 2, 2010 No comments

More human and political insight from my therapist

Let me be clear. I’m not in therapy.

Maybe I should be. Nothing wrong with it. Just not for me right now.

By “my therapist” I refer to my beloved and longsuffering wife the social worker and therapist who explained to me and for all of us the real story behind the Tiger Woods ‘apology’.

obama-carex-inset-community Recently she enlightened me on another recent event – the President’s health care reform summit.

Did you see it? Any of it? I found it fascinating and apparently others did as well. There was so much interest that it crashed some of the sites that were carrying it live.

If you did see it you may remember the opening by President Obama and his desire to focus on the positive things they can agree on.

Focus on the positive. Talk about things upon which we all can agree.

It went down hill from there. Apparently the one thing they couldn’t agree on was to focus on what they agreed on. What they did seem to agree on was sniping, digs, invectives, and occasional ad hominems – typical political talking points.

As my wife explained it, this was (like the Tiger episode) therapy in motion. Again, let me paraphrase:

It looked like some of the first sessions you have when you are working with dysfunctional families, spouses, or parents with their children. You always start with asking them to identify positive things about each other. It never works. Never. Every time they come back with criticisms. You’re not five minutes into the session and people are screaming at each other, letting loose f-bombs and a host of “asshole”, “jerk”, “bitch” commentary. They just have all this pent up anger and hate for each other. They want — no, they need — to get all that stuff off their chests and on the table for everyone — at least the ‘independent’ therapist — to see. They can’t help it. They just have to go negative before they can begin getting to the positive.

The problem with the President is that he didn’t do this sooner and didn’t do it long enough. You can’t do therapy in one session. You only get people to move over time, little by little. You have to wear them down. If the President had done this twice a week for six months, I bet he’d have gotten folks to open up and talk about those positives.

But like therapy, this stuff takes time.

My therapist! She’s not only beautiful but absolutely brilliant!

February 24, 2010 No comments

Tiger Woods: Making Amends, Not an Apology

The problem with most people’s view of the Tiger Woods apology is they view it as making an apology — not as making amends.

There have been no shortage of critics of the Tiger Woods’ televised apology.

George Will said of it on ABC News, “if your problem is that your behavior has revealed your public persona to be a fake, you shouldn’t stage this grotesquely fake press conference.” The folks at the industry publication “PR Junkie” had a field day.

It was awkward, and it felt like one of those hostage videos when someone is forced, at gunpoint, to read a statement damning his or her nation and culture.

Even gold medal skier Lindsay Von got into the act.

alg_tiger_woods_press Not only do we have a plethora of experts on public apologies, it seems that a good portion of those experts have about as much compassion and forgiveness in them as Nurse Ratched.

Clearly there’s a good portion of the public out there who never think along the lines of “there but for the grace of God go I.”

Tiger Woods is a dog that is down and there sure seems to be a lot of kicking going on.

Good for him? Not really. Good for us? Absolutely not.

I look at it very differently and have my wife to thank for that. Yes, my wife feels bad for Tiger Woods. You might think that wives would be the first to cast a stone at Woods. But you see my wife is a social worker. She sees stuff like Tiger Woods all the time. Much worse, actually. She not only works with people that have addiction problems, she works with their victims as well. She’s no softie when it comes to this stuff but I’d argue that she has more real world experience — and perhaps even more moral standing — to comment on this type of behavior than do Mr. Will or Mrs. Von.

Her reaction to this video was (and I’m paraphrasing):

This is a man in therapy.

His apology is not an apology, it is an effort to make amends. Go read the twelve step process. He is on the middle steps. He went through each group of people that he hurt. One by one. Apologized to each. Said it would be actions not words. He’s doing exactly what he is supposed to do.

Let me tell you how awful the type of therapy is that he is going through. It is humiliating. It is degrading. You have to accept that you’re a pervert. A predator. A sicko. It isn’t pretty. He’s not apologizing in the sense that people know it. He’s trying to make amends to those he hurt. He’s doing what he’s supposed to do.

I Feel for him.

That, my friends, is the attitude of compassion.

Criticize the apology and Woods all you want. What was most interesting to me was that his focus WAS NOT golf, the Masters, getting back to the game. His timetable appeared to be in function of his ability to climb the twelve steps of recovery. And I saw Friday’s televised event as him working on steps 8 and 9:

“make a list of all persons we had harmed, and be willing to make amends them all; and make direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.”

Can’t fault a man for that.

In fact, isn’t that something everyone should consider?

February 15, 2010 2 Comments

A social media lament … Jaron Lanier’s “You Are Not a Gadget”

I’d like to introduce you to an important book. It is Jaron Lanier’s “You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto.”

But first, a few questions.

How are you? Everything good?

How about your life on social media? How is that going?

Have you updated your blog? Gotten any comments lately? Any trackbacks? And your Facebook page? What is your friend count? Who’s writing on your wall? How about your Twitter feed? Have you checked in with your Google account? Gone through your Google alerts? Charted your progress with Google Analytics? Have you checked in with Foursquare? Did you get a new badge? How are your Twitter client numbers? Is your following getting bigger? Are your “retweets” growing?

Is this you? Is this what social media is doing to your life?

For those who are regular visitors to the JuiceBar you’ll know that I’ve a love/hate relationship with social media. I think a lot of us do. And the irony of me taking on social media through social media is certainly not lost on me.

Enter Jaron Lanier, the father of virtual reality. He is an admitted computer genius and geek but also a musician and artists. And as he looks around at what social media has done, he’s none too happy. His recent book “You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto” is a great read. Yesterday’s Washington Post review had a good summary paragraph up front.

A self-confessed “humanistic softie,” Lanier is fighting to wrest control of technology from the “ascendant tribe” of technologists who believe that wisdom emerges from vast crowds, rather than from distinct, individual human beings. According to Lanier, the Internet designs made by that “winning subculture” degrade the very definition of humanness. The saddest example comes from young people who brag of their thousands of friends on Facebook. To them, Lanier replies that this “can only be true if the idea of friendship is reduced.”

If you think that’s good, try this. Here are a couple of excerpts from an interview on Amazon’s site.

Here Lanier talks about how Web 2.0 actually works against the average Joe …

The problem is not inherent in the Internet or the Web. Deterioration only began around the turn of the century with the rise of so-called “Web 2.0” designs. These designs valued the information content of the web over individuals. It became fashionable to aggregate the expressions of people into dehumanized data. There are so many things wrong with this that it takes a whole book to summarize them. Here’s just one problem: It screws the middle class. Only the aggregator (like Google, for instance) gets rich, while the actual producers of content get poor.

And the big problem according to Lanier is this crazy idea of the “liberation” of information — as if what we’re doing on the social media front is akin to the storming of the Bastille. Lanier writes:

The original turn of phrase was “Information wants to be free.” And the problem with that is that it anthropomorphizes information. Information doesn’t deserve to be free. It is an abstract tool; a useful fantasy, a nothing. It is nonexistent until and unless a person experiences it in a useful way. What we have done in the last decade is give information more rights than are given to people.

Think about that.

With the whole huffing and puffing of social media claiming that “Content is King” … are we in turn making ourselves slaves?

February 9, 2010 No comments

Familiarty Breeds Contempt … The True Nature of Trust

There’s a buzz around a recent report by the public relations firm Edleman. For ten long years they have invested in something they have called the “trust barometer.” Think of it like a trust weather vane. Where is trust going? How strong is that wind? Who becoming more trustworthy? Who is becoming less?

Now I’ll admit that I’m skeptical about all such research. One reason is that I do that for a living. I know how tricky it is to measure ANYTHING related to public opinion, much less values and beliefs. Measuring trust is right up there with predicting the path of nanoparticles. In fact — to carry the quantum physics analogy further — you can spend a lot of time just defining what you mean by the word trust.

But I digress.

The most recent report by the Edelman Trust Barometer is a juicy “man bites dog” story.

Amidst the growth of social networking and consumer generated content, people are trusting their friends LESS, not MORE.

Yes, you read that right. All that money and time we spend on peer-to-peer communication has resulted in people thinking less and less of each other.

Seems that the more and better I get to know you, the more I realize that you’re not smarter than me. You’re just another Joe. Warts and all.

Perhaps even worse. With all your tweets, and posts and streams I come to the startling realization that you are even MORE screwed up than I AM. And I’m a really screwed up person! I should know.

Because I know myself only too well, I don’t trust myself with a lot of things. Now I’ve read your blog, your Facebook page, your Twitter stream and I’m not impressed. I thought you had it all together. But you sound a lot like me. Why the hell should I trust you?

I write all this knowing people who read this blog are saying the same thing about me. They read this and say — “who the hell is this guy?” Why the hell am I listening to him? I’m perfectly fine with that.

And that’s the lesson of social media. We knew it before blogs and MySpace pages. Familiarity can indeed breed contempt.

And that was the mistake all along. The big myth in social media was that peer-to-peer communication would elevate everyone. That there would be wisdom created in crowds. That trust would emerge as we all got to know each other.

But something different happened along with way. We didn’t change. We remained ourselves, just with a lot more avenues to express that. And we exposed the true nature of trust.

I don’t trust the shallow frat boy. I don’t trust the occasional remark. I don’t trust just any old joe just because he or she is my age and looks like me. I don’t trust folks shilling for that latest cause.

I trust people who don’t look at me as a customer, a potential sale, or a Linked In connection.

I trust people who look at me as a person, a human being, and a friend.

February 7, 2010 2 Comments

Super Bowl Sunday – Geaux Saints!

I have to credit this to my brother, Jim. This was the letter he sent to folks at his firm. I did a short write through and sent to folks at my firm.

Dear Friends of the JuiceBar,

I grew up in New Orleans.

images Our family had season tickets for the first years of Saints existence. My dad took me to the very first Saints game in 1967. I was 11 years old. Tulane Stadium. The Los Angeles Rams kicked off. Rookie wide receiver John Gilliam caught the ball and ran the kickoff back for a touchdown! A touchdown! Our very first play.

Saints then went on to lose 13 to 27. It has been downhill ever since.

I have been a Saints fan for over 40 years and experienced only 9 winning seasons.

Having the Saints in the SuperBowl is a surreal and a bit delirious.

As you also know, New Orleans citizens look for any reason to party. The song Stand up and Get Crunk is being blasted out of speakers all across the ‘Nawlins’. Regardless of tonight’s outcome, I encourage you to stream it, download it and play it on Sunday evening. Don’t forget the volume. If you feel inspired, do a little dance with beer in hand in tribute to those who have suffered for so long.

Know that you’ll be joining every New Orleanian in the country – whether they’re in the Crescent City or not – whether the Saints win tonight or not …

“Laissez Les Bon Temps Roulez”.

Geaux Saints!

February 3, 2010 4 Comments

Experts, commentators, and streams

I have long maintained that the biggest asset of any individual, brand or organization is ALWAYS is also its greatest liability.

Really. I really say this. A lot.

Don’t believe me? Just ask folks that work with me.

twitter_bird So now the rage in social media is “streaming.” That is not what I’m doing now. I’m blogging. And now I find out that blogging is passe. Twitter stream. Facebook stream. Posterous.

Experts say blogging is so … “slow and methodical.”‘

We don’t want that! What we need today is “fast and chaotic.”

While fast and chaotic may indeed be a more accurate reflection of everyday life … allowing a constantly changing free exchange of thoughts and information … there’s always a dark side.

For a funny but insightful look at this dark side I strongly encourage you to read Ed Docx’s article Twittering Fools, in the Utne Reader, reprinted from Prospect.

Tired of the mindless commentary from ordinary people who have less knowledge and expertise about subjects than my three-year-old grandson, he writes:

I don’t care what Andy from Cheadle thinks about the Gaza Strip, the ice caps, Manchester City, or even Cheadle. Nobody cares. Nobody except Andy, and presumably he already knows. When I turn on the radio or the television, or when I open a book or a newspaper, what I want is an expert. I want insightful commentary. I want stylistic elegance. I want eloquence. I want uninterrupted expertise.

And that’s the dark side of all the social media wackiness out there. I’d just as soon my life not be a Joycean stream of consciousness. Given everything going on out there I’m getting more and more attracted to things being a bit slower, a bit more methodical.

“Streams”. Stream this. Stream that.

But you’ve got to ask … streams of what?