About a month ago, the excellent Avery Edison linked to an episode of the show by Ze Frank, which had quite a large impact on me:
I have transcribed the relevant bit below for your reading pleasure:
I run out of ideas every day. Each day I live in mortal fear that I've used up the last idea that'll ever come to me. If you don't want to run out of ideas, the best thing to do is not to execute them. You can tell yourself that you don’t have the time or resources to do 'em right. Then they stay around in your head like brain crack. No matter how bad things get, at least you have those good ideas - that you'll get to later. Some people get addicted to that brain crack, and the longer they wait, the more they convince themselves of how perfectly that idea should be executed, and they imagine it on a beautiful platter with glitter and rose petals, and everyone's clapping - for them! But the bummer is, most ideas kinda suck when you do 'em, and no matter how much you plan, you still have to do something for the first time, and you're almost guaranteed the first time you do something, it'll blow. But somebody who does something bad three times still has three times the experience of that other person, who's still dreaming of all the applause. When I get an idea, even a bad one, I try to get it out into the world as fast as possible, because I certainly don't want to be addicted to brain crack.
The thing is, there are two factors involved - knowing how to do stuff, and doing stuff - and there are four combinations of these two factors. We can all agree that people that neither know how to do anything, nor actually do anything, are not especially useful. Additionally, we can agree that people that have both the knowledge/skill to do stuff, and actually go out and do it, are especially useful. However, the contention comes in when you look at the other two categories of people: people who have the knowledge/skill but don't use it, and people who aren't especially talented or clued up, but still try and do things (badly or not as the case may be).
I think that most people, whether they realise it or not, would consider the talented/intelligent individuals to be "better" (or "more useful"?) than the people that try (possibly unsuccessfully) to do things without having the actual talent to back it up - even though the talented ones don't actually really use their talent for anything "extra", other than getting a job and that sort of thing. I'm finding it difficult to explain this without sounding insulting or condescending, but it's fairly common to hear some very snide remarks about a website that somebody has tried to put together amateurishly, or an implementation of some service which just doesn't work too well. There seems to be a natural bias towards the talented, without regard to what is actually getting done.
Well, I disagree.
It seems like an obvious thing to say, but I don't think people have internalised the full implications: doing something, whether you're good at it, or successful at it, or not, is better than knowing how to do it and never bothering.
Perhaps geeks tend not to implement their ideas because once they work out how to solve a problem, it's not interesting any more. This is understandable, if regrettable. Whether or not this is the case, though, I think that a much more common reason for never implementing an idea is that you think it won't work, or won't work properly, or isn't worth trying. This sort of thing has been said so often that it's almost a cliche, but people still don't seem to believe it: just do something, and it may work.
A lovely example of a good idea that you'd never believe would work is the zipper machine:
![]()
As the article says:
I have to imagine the person that first proposed creating this device was thought to be crazy. I suppose they had to fight their way through nay-sayers in their company until someone believed them. However, now that the machine exists it just seems like a natural thing to do.
Every time I see this machine I think it makes a great analogy for IT projects. The more audacious an IT project is, the more crazy it looks. After it is complete and people are benefitting from it everyone thinks it is obvious.
What about closer to home? As Alastair Pott says in the about page of DoStuffCT:
While hiking on Table Mountain I found myself wishing that I knew more of the many available hikes. I realised that a site where users can easily contribute to a collection of activities in Cape Town would be perfect. A Wikipedia of things to do in Cape Town.
I hacked together a quick prototype and the whole idea has developed into something of a hobby for me. I knew that I was onto something useful when I found myself using the site from my mobile phone to get restaurant details. It is my hope that others will discover the site, and that together we can create a useful and complete resource for those looking to enjoy our wonderful city.
This is exactly what I am talking about. Al thought "hmm, that could be cool", and he did it, and now it's one of my favourite sites. A slightly less successful example is Jonathan Endersby's new site, HalfPriceTuesdays. It died in its first incarnation, but he revived it, and it's in private alpha now, so hopefully we'll see it taking off like DoStuffCT.
The ideas behind these two sites are not unique. There are tons of ideas out there, and I bet that you had one just the other day. Just in the course of discussing what I'm saying in this post with some friends, two new ideas got brought up simply as examples to back up the discussion:
They may not be great ideas, they may not work, but they are ideas.
And here's the nub:
The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas.
--Linus Pauling
My boss, Vinny Lingham is involved in the venture capital landscape, and he recently gave a talk on investing in startups (which are essentially "people implementing ideas"). As confirmed by the maths here, Vinny said that in order to be successful, a venture capitalist needs about a third of his ventures to succeed, and a third to break even (i.e. make their money back). That's not impossible, but it's a risk that a VC has to take.
However, I am not talking about VCs. I'm talking about you. You don't have that one-third burden on your ideas. Because, no matter how many ideas you implement, you only need one to succeed. If you try six things, and one becomes a success, you've won. If you try twenty things, and only one becomes a success, you've still won. And, of course, the more things you try, the more likely it is that some, or any, of them will succeed. There's, like, no excuse not to!
Another thing Vinny went over in his talk was his big idea of "making money while you sleep". This brings us back to the distinction I made earlier between the knowers and the doers. If you're very knowledgeable or skillful, you can make a lot of money by selling your knowledge or skill. You can freelance, or contract yourself out, or even get a permanent position, and the harder you work, the more money you'll get, because you've got the skill and the knowledge to make it happen. But to be really successful, you've got to work really hard. There's a direct correlation between the time you spend and the amount you get back. And that's all well and good, but there's only so much time you have. It's much more efficient (and pleasant) to make money while you sleep. If you implement an idea, and it works, and becomes successful, then you can sit back and let it work for you, and bring in the money for you. Or, better, you can start on another idea, and hope that that one works, too. If, instead of just "being good", you actually produce something that is out there and tangible, separate from yourself, the correlation between your time/energy and the amount you get back no longer exists.
My friend Dom makes an important point about this: if you are only making money from your job, you start to rely on your job. You get tied down, and start accepting more downsides and problems, because you worry that if you don't, you'll lose your job, and have no income. You need to be earning things on the side in order to be free enough to put your foot down when your job becomes intolerable. You may be lucky enough or skilled enough to walk straight into another job, but... you know... you may not.
And now, to my final point.
The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor's research findings over the past five years show that the percentage of people between the ages of 18 and 64 in Cape Town who pursue new business are 190% above the national average.
In Johannesburg, it is only 60% above the national average.
But only 5% of new entrepreneurs in Cape Town and only 6% in Johannesburg make use of the latest technology in their businesses.
Only 15% of new entrepreneurs in Cape Town expect to have more than ten employees in five years' time.
We are in the most entrepreneurial city in the country. It has been referred to as the next Silicon Valley. Not only that, but we, as geeks, are also capable of making use of "the latest technology". We're perfectly positioned to take our ideas and make them work (if we have the confidence to "expect to have more than ten employees in five years' time"). I know that a lot of the people reading this have already been nagged by me: this post has been burning a hole in my brain for a month (I'm only publishing it now because I'm presenting this exact material at the GeekDinner tonight). But even if I have already said it to you, it's time to actually do something about it.
So, from now on, some rules:
I know I'm the worst of the lot, and let this blog post hold me accountable if I haven't started doing things in six months.
Comments
if I haven't started doing
if I haven't started doing things in six months
Hahaha, in 6 months??? I thought the point was to execute immediately? :)
I think a balance has to be struck. I have friends who execute a lot of ideas. They get something makeshift together, or something half assed, and it has a half assed success. As Einstein is famous for saying, genius is 1% inspiration 99% perspiration. Merely executing an idea in and of itself will not lead to anything.
One must execute, pursue, and persist. For it is persistence above all else that will determine one's success in any field of life.
Re: if I haven't started doing
What I meant was - check back in six months and see if I've been living up to my words, not "I'll start doing things in six months time".
You're also right about doing things half-assed - that's as bad as not doing it at all, because you're still guaranteeing that it will never take off. I'm certainly not saying that you should blast a whole bunch of shoddy implementations out there and hope that one of them is just unshoddy enough to work. Once they're out there, you almost have a duty to ensure that they keep ticking over, and to make them better, and basically give them the effort and care they need to become the one that actually works.
Re: Re: if I haven't started doing
As you said last night, if you over-analyse and over-design to get your solution just perfect, you'll never implement it. I happened to read something yesterday morning that preaches this point:
"A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault" - John Henry Cardinal Newman.
Kerry-Anne's crafting web site is a prime example. It's not perfect but it does work. There's loads wrong, but people are using it. The challenge now is "to find the time" to make it better. :)
Not enough time
Don't say you don't have enough time: you're lying
Up until I read this comment, I was agreeing wholeheartedly; but seriously, I don't have enough time for my projects. I'd be happy to debate this point with you, except you *know* how many unfinished projects I have; maybe I'm just not getting it.
Re: Not enough time
Look, I know that a lot of people's time is taken up with a lot of stuff, and I know there are only 24 hours in the day. That statement was mostly hyperbole for effect. But seriously, how much time do you spend arguing on IRC, and reading blogs, and so on? If something was really important, you would make time for it. And the fact that you (we) have all these unfinished projects is just an indication that my post is right about you (us, although, I think me more than you).
Okay, fair enough. I do think
Okay, fair enough. I do think it's important to note that I couldn't just do away with the time I spend arguing on IRC, reading blogs, and so on; for one thing, probably more than half of the knowledge I apply to my projects comes from those activities. (And, of course, there's also the need to rest the mind, vary your mental activities, etc.)
HoldMeAccountable.com
I see the domain has been registered (there's a placeholder page there). Did you do it, or did someone beat you to it?
In order to incentivise you to get the accountability engine set up, I am going to start cluttering your blog with all my undertakings, so that you will be forced either to provide me with an appropriate portal for documenting such things, or ban me from your blog and thereby risk all sorts of unpleasant ramifications resulting from the disturbance of our systemic social interconnectedness.
Undertaking Number One: I now weigh over 60 kg in the morning. The maximum mass I am prepared to tolerate is 57 kg, which, when achieved, would mean an effective reduction of 18 kg of in terms of the vector force borne by my knees during walking or climbing (which is significant, considering that I have a deteriorating medial cartilage, a frayed meniscus and a Baker's Cyst in one knee alone); and ideally I would like to weigh 54 kg, which is the minimum healthy mass for my height and age, according to an aggregation of the figures provided by a number of purported authorities on the subject. Hold me accountable for taking the necessary steps to return to a mass of under 57 kg before 20 November.
Undertaking Number Two: My doctor told me today that my cholestrol level is 6 and it should be 4. Hold me accountable for coming up with a remedial plan before next Monday, and for a further undertaking regarding the implementation thereof, to follow.
PS: I love that zipper machine.
Re: HoldMeAccountable.com
That site is being squatted on. I do, however, own HoldMeAccountable.net, and I've started working on the code behind it ;-)
But, consider yourself held accountable anyway.
HoldMeAccountable.net then
Righto!
Day One:
Update on Undertaking Number One: I have lost half a kilogram since yesterday.
Update on Undertaking Number Two: No significant progress. Have put Omega tablets back on the shopping list, though, and will go to the doctor before the end of the week to pick up the dietary guidelines which he left at reception for me. Very sorry that I didn't buy that raw food 'cookbook' which I was flipping through at the organic expo in the CTICC on Sunday!
The sooner HoldMeAccountable.net is up and running, the sooner I will stop blogdumping at Vhata.net.
Jonathan, I like the points
Jonathan, I like the points you make. For a long time I've been frustrated with the "lazy" attitude of I-want-to or I-will-do something, but nothing ever comes off it. Moreover, this expression is often coupled with a feeling of a distinct lack of fulfillment - that kind of empty depressed what-the-fuck-am-I-doing thing you get when you've just spent your sunday morning watching the Isidingo marathon instead of catching up on some research time, reading the book you are really dying to read, or going down to that wicked new coffeeshop that you've been eyeing out for weeks. (ok, luckily I have to admit here that I never watch TV, but you get the idea).
However, I think your article is very confused, man. Firstly, it's a strange notion to speak of people with so-called potential. I guess people do tend to think this, but it's whack - can somebody really have "the potential" or "the capacity" to do something their whole life long and never do it? I'm not so sure about that. I used to feel that this was a possibility, but now I think this is bullshit, and more likely substance for a straw-ed argument. Secondly, you say it's best to get a bunch of things out there, but then you say we have to make sure they are great once they are out there - "Once they're out there, you almost have a duty to ensure that they keep ticking over". This is not possible man. What homey upstairs said is true - we need time for other things too, and at the end of the day, there are only so many hours available for us, so which is it? Do we really just put a bunch of bad things out there? I don't think so.
Lastly, I think you shouldn't try and make it a one or the other kind of argument. It's just not that simple and it is kind of weird. It's like saying "it's better to have a bath 5 times a day than never to have one (but be able to)". In this case, yeah, sure, obviously, but so what? Whatever man. What is really better is to have one a day. 5 a day is kak. Somewhere in between being-able-to-but-not-doing and being-crap-but-doing-a-lot is a world of superb work, and most people fall into this middle area and what we are after is for people to aim at the top of it, but not to such a point where it prevents the doing of it.
And of course I really just have issues with bad quality things. The world is tooooo full of this, and we should aim for less, not more, of it.
Re: Jonathan, I like the points
Hi Rigard,
Thanks for your comments. To answer your first point - YES, I think somebody can have the "potential" to do something and not do it. In fact, I struggle to see how this is a contentious point. Matth and Tristan have the potential to write some killer songs, and in fact they have done, but they could easily have never put the effort in to polish the tune, tweak the words, and change the last line from "umpty pumpty pumpty ra" to something with more punch - we'd be left with them drunkenly strumming for us occasionally, but never actually producing albums or performing live. You and I have the potential to write some killer apps, but you know, maybe we just don't get around to it. I'm not sure why you think it's not possible.
As to the rest of your comment, I suppose I did go a bit far in the one direction. If you are lucky enough to have a dozen good ideas, then implementing them all is going to swamp you and, as you say, you'll be left with a bunch of useless half-baked attempts. The point my hyperbole is trying to get across is that you must get at least SOME out there - sitting around waiting until they're perfect won't work. Get as much out as possible, but be wise enough not to overburden yourself. The thing is, once something is in the wild, there's a lot more incentive and pressure to improve it (and much bigger possibilities of other people helping you).
I totally hear on you the world being full of bad quality crap. But that's what actually prompted this. I want the people with the good ideas to get them out there, because the people who are spewing crap are already doing so.
Well john, to clarify my
Well john, to clarify my point above, i suppose what i find troubling is that the notion of potential reeks of what Popper would call an unfalsifiable claim. There really seems no way for you to be able to prove to me that i am able to do something, unless i have done it. You say i can write a killer app, but until i do so, what makes you so sure i can do this? You can take a look at my code perhaps and that might give you an indication, but what if i had a serious psychological problem with completing a so called "killer app", then i don't truly have the potential because every time i get to almost "killer app" status, i fold. The point is that until i actually do it, we will never be certain. And this goes for all kinds of potential. So yes, i think that it is not a particularly difficult concept to grasp - if i go through my whole life and i don't write that killer app, it's just as well to say that i wasn't able to.
I think it is precisely the notion that people have in their heads about potential that prevents them from doing stuff. They believe they can do it, so they don't need to. But I can believe all the things i want in the world (i will be president, i can fly, the ceiling is the floor, i am a tree), but these beliefs are restricted by matters of fact and remain in the realm of belief. Believing something does not make it the case.
Re: Well john, to clarify my
I suppose it's like the whole "it works in theory, but not in practice" thing - if something doesn't work in practice, then there's obviously something wrong in the theory. So, fair point, I do see what you mean, but as you say: we'll never know whether you can do something, until you try it, and what I am trying to get people to do is to try it. If the only thing stopping them is laziness or demotivation, then hopefully we can encourage them enough to get them to at least take the first steps - you can't deny that that is something worth atempting.
Your second point about people not doing something because they believe that they can is an interesting one. I think I mentioned this problem with geeks especially in my post: once it's a solved problem in their heads, it's no longer interesting. I don't know what to do about that - all we can do is encourage them to put it out there.
haha, ok i hear you cowboy.
haha, ok i hear you cowboy. as i said above - i too feel like if we want to do stuff we should. i just suppose it has to be a reasonable affair altogether. as for the geeks, well perhaps it's better this way, cause otherwise they would take over more quickly than they currently are.... (they? us? hmmmm.....)
cool,peace homeboy.
Post new comment