“What do you do?”

Whether I am at a business networking event or just hanging out with my friends at a bar, somebody (or everybody) will always ask me a scary and sometimes boring question - “What do you do?” 

 

This kind of question generally comes at the beginning of a conversation with a new person or at a lull in an ongoing conversation.  It is both a way for somebody to get some context as well as find something familiar to talk about so the conversation can continue.  Personally, I like to ask ridiculous questions like - “What is your SECOND-most passion in life?” 

 

Now if somebody asks me “what do you do?”  I tell them exactly what I am currently doing – “I’m retired” or “I’m searching for my soul” (those of you that know me understand why I can’t put my most favorite and third answer on this blog!).  Generally the shock value of these statements is completely worth quitting my job over.  What I am trying to do is create an answer that engages people in conversation and makes me the center of attention (which I really like).  Most people I talk to think I’m lucky or want to know how/why. 

 

The bottom line is – when you are having a conversation with somebody and are trying to keep them engaged.  Don’t follow the standard patterns of conversation (“what do you do?”) but try to talk about something you are passionate about!

Knowledge by Trial and a Review of Objectivism

I read Ayn Rand’s Fountainhead many years ago but definitely did not understand the philosophy.  Now, while I read Atlas Shrugged, which is especially relevant in the current economic situation, I have a much better understanding of the Objectivist philosophy – but certainly not enough to defend it in a rigorous philosophical debate, I could probably do it at a cocktail party, though.  700 pages into the book and I am drawn to the Objectivist philosophy because I believe in the idea of “Relative Value” and “Selfishness.”  These are concepts that were hammered into me while studying Free Market Economics at University of Chicago.

 

As a good University of Chicago student, though, I am always looking for a flaw in the argument.  I keep getting the gnawing feeling during certain scenes that there are contradictions and false premises but am just not smart enough or perceptive enough to articulate them . . . yet.  “Check your premises” is what Francisco d’Anconia (one of the protagonists in Atlas Shrugged) always says. 

 

So l searched for critiques of Objectivism and was directed towards Greg Nyquist.  I have only read his introduction and a few portions of his blog and I have to say that it is really tough to find an easy simple summary of his critique.  In what I have read of his work, I keep seeing the same type of “verbal web” that he criticizes Rand for – i.e. complicated ideas with long words that I need to keep consulting a dictionary for.  There are many large terms – metaphysics, epistemology, etc. which I do not understand.  Maybe the lesson is that I cannot look for the absolute right or wrong answer, just the RELATIVE inconsistencies in both Author’s arguments – that is a pure Objectivist philosophy though!  Regardless I will finish the book and also read Nyquist’s critique in full to get a better understanding. 

 

Part of the introduction of his book is online and in a base criticism of Rand’s “verbalism” he says the following – which I agree with fully:

“Knowledge comes, not from words, but from experience. The knowledge of any complex skill, whether it is cooking, judging the motives of other people, or writing a novel, can only be learned from immersing oneself in the activity from which the knowledge springs. To learn how to cook, you go into the kitchen; to learn how to judge the motives of other people, you begin by sharply observing those around you; to learn how to write a novel, you read other novels and attempt to write some of your own. Of course, learning in this way is difficult and time-consuming. Hence the appeal of philosophers who, like Rand, declare that knowledge comes from words. It is very flattering to think that, once one masters the vocabulary of a given subject, one has mastered the subject itself. Yet it should be obvious to anyone who has given the matter serious thought that, just because you are familiar with, say, the general concepts of cooking, this does not mean that you know how to cook. Knowledge of cooking must derive, not from the terms in which cooking is described, but from cooking itself”

To gain knowledge you have to participate and experiment in the physical activity itself.  Time for me to get crackin’ . . . . 

I am finding it tough to make lots of money by doing minimal amounts of work

I really wish I knew a way to make a lot of money where I could do minimum amounts of work.  That would be ideal.  If anyone has any ideas, please let me know . . . . .

 

One of the great parts about David Allen’s “Getting Things Done” (GTD) productivity system is that it forced me to break my tasks down into smaller manageable, and more importantly, ACTIONABLE tasks.  Over the last two years it has really help me increase my productivity at work and home and also make me feel like I am in control of my life. 

 

The system has worked well for me in a job where my objectives were reasonably well defined and thus the expectations and tasks were also well defined.  When your objective is less defined (i.e. making a lot of money by doing minimal amounts of work!) it is tough to find clearly defined tasks to accomplish your end goal.  For instance, the obvious first way is to start researching some “concepts” on the web.  Fine.  Now identifying compelling opportunities is very tough because there are a lot of qualitative as well as quantitative measures that you can use and they change on an idea to idea basis.  So, how am I supposed to choose a way to accomplish the overarching goal when I can’t rate the different ideas because they have complex ratings mechanisms that are not even comparable to one another.  The end result is complete and utter standstill . . . . zero productivity (check out the link, how hilarious is this)!

 

Let us say for a moment, that I was able to find something worth trying.  The next step presents an even  bigger problem.  You typically have to do something you have never done before AND spend money dong it.  Now without any sort of income (since I have “left the corporate” so to speak) I can’t bring myself to spend even one cent on a business where I have not already proved the return potential – that means I’m already refining my search to the “getting something for nothing” category which I anyways believe is just not workable. 

 

What I keep hearing from successful, for budding entrepreneurs is that you don’t know what will work until you have tried it – and you have to expect a bit of failure.  You need to learn from your mistakes and TRY OUT your new ideas!  I think I'm just stalling because I’m scared to try new things.  I bet that by the end of March when the prospect of zero-income fully hits me I’ll probably start trying new things in earnest.