How To Break Anything

Thoughts and insights on culture and human behavior, living blissfully at the intersection of rationality and irrationality (but mostly irrationality)

I sometimes wish we could freeze a person and examine - in a very comprehensive way - how any one person's thoughts and experiences have led them to see the world in the very specific way they perceive it. Why any one person is exactly where they are, making the decisions they believe they are making, when they could be in an infinite number of other places, thinking and deciding an infinite number of other things.

This site exists because I've come to believe that we learn something from everything we experience. It's not always big. It's not always what we expect it to be. We might think it's contrary to what we already know. Or believe. But it's always something. And it always has a greater impact on our choices and experiences than we ever realize.

Kyle Cameron Studstill's profile »

Subscribe to this posterous »

Filed under

time-orientation

March 7, 2010

"A mere 300 years later," long enough timelines, etc

via theessentialman.tumblr.com

Couldn't help but reblog this, given my propensity to think about things in terms of "a long enough timeline..."

Noted that the actual excerpt from the above linked post is: "On a long enough timeline, every decision is a success, in the "you learn something from everything" sense. On a short enough timeline, every decision is a failure, in the "you haven't accomplished your goals yet" sense."

The idea of course is that on an even longer timeline, every decision is a failure. Or a success. Whatever 300 years later happens to mean to you.

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // perspective time-orientation

Comments [0]

February 20, 2010

Time-orientation: decisionmaking is not just about what matters; is also about when it matters

via amber-rae.com

Essentially, the idea behind time-orientation is that the decisions we make have a lot to do with our perspective on time; specifically: what matters when. Phillip Zimbardo has some excellent thoughts on this here:

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // decisionmaking perspective time-orientation

Comments [0]

February 15, 2010

re: "How to learn from failure": time-orientation and judging events/outcomes

via thinkingalaud.posterous.com

Learning from failure is not intuitively rational, but only because of the context we assign to the event of 'failing.' Like many problems of context and definition, it is one of time perspective.

This isn't too profound of a concept; essentially the reason time perspective applies is simply because if you're conceptually judging an decision as a 'failure' or 'success,' the only thing that matters is whether you're looking at the the immediate consequences of the decision or the distant consequences.

On a long enough timeline, every decision is a success, in the "you learn something from everything" sense. On a short enough timeline, every decision is a failure, in the "you haven't accomplished your goals yet" sense.

Obviously there's a balance to be struck here. The best part: where that balance is found is entirely within your perceptual control. (somewhat related: "If you have control over conditions, you have control over decisions)

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // irrationality perspective time-orientation

Comments [0]

February 2, 2010

I think the concept of things being 'ruined' is absurd.

Mostly because it's hard from me to think that the last x number of years of humanity [choose your own number, anywhere from 30-3000] have been an exercise in things getting worse. I mean, when did things first start to get 'ruined'??

Most people you ask this question, should they happen to be on the 'things need saving' side of the world, will give you a very predictable answer. Humanity stopped progressing usually when they were either in their early 20's, or when they were established in their careers.

Which I of course find laughably hilarious.

Who will save book publishing?

What will save the newspapers?

What means 'save'?

If by save you mean, "what will keep things just as they are?" then the answer is nothing will. It's over.

If by save you mean, "who will keep the jobs of the pressmen and the delivery guys and the squadrons of accountants and box makers and transshippers and bookstore buyers and assistant editors and coffee boys," then the answer is still nothing will. Not the Kindle, not the iPad, not an act of Congress.

via sethgodin.typepad.com

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under // doomsday perception time-orientation

Comments [0]

February 1, 2010