Live Your Life Be Free!

We are got our first snow today in Toronto after record-breaking warm weather so far this winter. With global warming, it is interesting how many elevator conversations, telephone small talk and professional lunch-time chats are turning into big debates about world pollution, what we can do as a society, if the science behind global warming is sound and whether or not the warming of the earth is "God’s will" (this actually happened in my friend’s elevator).  Talk about the weather is no longer a good refuge for those who want to keep the conversation "lite."

These recent warm days have taken on a sinister feel. Being in Canada with a warm January is like the unnatural feeling of being at a night-time baseball diamond when all of the lights are on. It feels like it is day… which is cool, but it is night – so the effectiveness of the unnatural light doing the work of the sun is eerie.

Welcome to the snow! I hope you stay a while!

I  have the book cover here for Everything Bad is Good for You not because I have read the book yet (but I will since it looks interesting) but because of the picture on the cover. The picture, with a guy with a screen on his head, illustrates exactly what I have been thinking about lately.

It is a simple theory of perception, where everyone sees the world through their own personal TV screens, not through objective reality – especially when it comes to people. What you expect to see and what you  have seen before effect the screen. You can only see your own screen, not reality directly. This phenomenon is apparent even in the field of science, where despite the rigorous scientific method there are still sincere practitioners who have been betrayed by their hopes, fears and ambitions into proposing false theories.

This means when someone criticizes you, they are simply criticizing what is on their screen, not who you actually are. The same goes for when someone compliments you – they are complimenting what they see on their screens. I find that in all relationships, whether it be friendship, professional or romantic, usually one person’s screen differs from the other.

The friendship means more to one person that the other – so on one person’s screen the importance of it is exaggerated, where as on the other’s it may be very faded and distant. Professionally, a boss may see a lot of potential in an employee but meanwhile the employee hates the work and is just doing it to pay the bills. The boss sees the employee following in his footsteps on his screen whereas the employee tries to eclipse her job on her screen with what is most important to her.

It makes a lot of sense to say to people you are in a relationship with "hey, this is what I see on my screen, what do you see on yours?". Of course it is impossible to see someone else’s screen without becoming them, but a description can make sure that you are on the same page. I just did this in my most recent 3-month dating relationship. I saw our interactions one way, he saw them in another. His way was diminished down to a strictly physical relationship where mine wasn’t. I asked him to leave because his perception was insulting to me and now it is over. So in the end we rejected each other because we rejected the versions of the relationship that were on our screens.

Aligning screens would be easier if people were honest all the time, but unfortunately we aren’t. People will lie about what is on their screens for all kinds of reasons, including safety (I find my clerical job putting stamps on envelopes very fulfilling!), fear of hurting others (I think the sexless marriage is just going fine) or because of pleasure (if I say ‘I love you’ will you still let me stay over once a week?) Despite this, it is worthwhile to at least try to be objective rather than being in your own world. After the initial sting, living in reality is much better than living in some fantasy Matrix dream-world or "lala land" as my friend Sylvia calls it.

The trickiest part about the screens is that the more distorted your screen becomes, the more certain you will be that what you see there is accurate. There is no one so sure as someone totally deluded.

*Thanks to Matthew McKay for inspiring these thoughts

1. Use a Title with a Number:   "5 Best Stock Tips for 2007", "3 Ways to Improve your Exercise Routine" – these titles pull traffic better than something like "Stock Advice". Maybe it is because users like to scan short bites of material rather than long essays. Perhaps they think that they can improve their odds of getting something out of the article if there are more tips. Regardless, add a title with a number to your site or newsletter and you should see a lift in clickthrus.

2. Be Direct: For example, “How to Present Effectively” pulls better than the ambiguous “How to Get More Done”. When people are scanning your site or newsletter, certain titles will jump out at them based on their interests or what is currently going on in their lives. Overall, a specific and direct title is more successful than a general and ambiguous one.

3. Be Current: If you are talking about a catchy subject that is popular (eg. The Starfish and the Spider) use it in the title so that your site or newsletter looks up to date.

4. Be Useful: Titles that look helpful with phrases such as “How to”, “Make Better” “Tips on” pull well. People click on them because they think they can immediately benefit from reading the article.

5. Be Predictable: Include product and service names of what your company is typically associated with. You may have a different strategy coming, or you may want to make a drab product seem more exciting by sprucing up the title, but this is not effective. The web is a big place so if people are on your little piece of it, they want to see specific information on what you offer.

If you are looking for more information on this kind of stuff – check out Marketing Sherpa.

I got this link sent to me from The World Question Center. This year’s question is "What Are You Optimistic About". They put the question out to the scientific community and they got 160 Answers. Here is how they describe it:

The 160 responses to this year’s Edge Question span topics such as string theory, intelligence, population growth, cancer, climate and much much more. Contributing their optimistic visions are a who’s who of interesting and important world-class thinkers.

Topics include "The Evaporation of the Powerful Mystique of Religion" and "The End of ISMs". There is a mix of celebrities such as Steven Pinker from Harvard University and others who are not well-known outside of their field. 

This site is interesting, but from a usability perspective it stinks. There is not an easy way to navigate through the different responses other than the mysterious number system at the top, especially if you are looking for something specific. For example, if you are only interested in Physics, there should be a way to find only responses on that. Also, I think it is a bit disorienting for first-time users to wade through all of the press articles at the top of the answers.

That being said, the site has a lot of great insights, and really helps brighten my day when I need that sort of thing (like right now). 

My friend and I were eating at Fresh last night on Yonge and Spadina and then walked over to the Starbucks in Yorkville. I brought along my MacLean’s Magazine to read on the subway and I showed her the cover story featuring Michael Rae (Rogers Media has opted not to put all of their content on line so I am linking to a search.) We stretched the magazine across the chairs and read the article avidly.

The story? Michael, who is six feet tall and weighs 115 lbs, is trying to live to 110 by reducing his calorie intake dramatically. He follows a strict regimen called the Calorie Restriction (CR) diet – he has been following it for almost nine years. He says that the more you reduce your calories, the more you increase your lifespan. For example, if you reduce your calories by 10%, you will get a 10% increase in average maximum lifespan. According to the article, studies spanning 70 years have shown that rats, mice, fish, yeast and rhesus monkeys have shown up to a 50% increase in life-spans from dramatic reductions in calories. So why not try it on humans?

My friend and I looked at the gaunt pictures of Michael – he looks like an anorexic person. She used to be in Social Work and thinks that he has a condition similar to anorexia, where instead of obsessing about being beautiful, he is obsessing over not dying. He is letting a fear dictate what he does with large amount of his hours on earth. I wondered… if you are living such a restrictive life, are you truly living life to the fullest? If you spend all of your life delaying the immediate gratification of food – are you really living? What happened to being in the moment?

Another article about increasing life-span was posted on the New York Times earlier this week called The Surprising Secret to a Long Life: Stay in School. They found that staying in school for a longer period of time increases your lifespan. One economist concluded that going to school for one more year could increase your life-span by one-and-a-half years. James Smith, a health economist at RAND says that the education piece teaches you to delay gratification:

“Most of adherence is unpleasant,” Dr. Smith says. “You have to be willing to do something that is not pleasant now and you have to stay with it and think about the future.”

He deplores the dictums to live in the moment or to live for today. That advice, Dr. Smith says, is “the worst thing for your health.”

Wow. Like Michael, James seems to think that longevity is all about not being happy today. What about the geeky folks who like getting educated? What about the people who enroll in endless degrees to avoid the real world? Is it still delaying gratification in that case? Fortunately, according to the article other important factors to a long life are: wealth, health and nutrition in early life and a strong social network. Some of those actually seem enjoyable. To me there is definitely a balance between being as healthy as possible and living a happy life in the moment.

If there is such a thing as "winning" in life, I don’t think that it is scored by living to 110 compared to 86.