Blayne Sucks

Below is a (hilarious) video about executing ideas that I saw thanks to Merlin Mann’s posting of it at the beginning of the year. Warning: this video is possibly not safe for work watching due to some language.

[Side note: If you've never heard of Ze Frank before, then I would recommend Ze Frank's TED talk.]

One of the things I would like to focus on is a quote from Ze Frank that Merlin highlighted as well. This quote from the middle of the video:

And the longer they wait, the more they convince themselves of how perfectly that idea should executed…But the bummer is most ideas kind of suck when you do them.

I love this quote and really the whole section in the video where Ze talks about ideas. There’s something both true and subtle in what he says. Think about everything you’ve ever seen, read, heard, or come across that made you think, “Wow, that’s clever.” You would never have felt that way without someone else executing their idea. Here’s the subtle part: How many ideas are just as clever, but were not executed upon by their thinker?

Good economists recognize the possible value in unrealized potential. Bastiat may have been the first to write about what is seen and what is not seen. Essentially, his argument boils down to this: Fixing a broken window may appear to be productive, but if that were really the case, then we should all break every window we can find to help improve the economy. In reality, the money spent on fixing the window could have been spent on something else that would have improved the world before the window was broken.

Although Bastiat was talking about the allocation of resources generally across industries, I think his argument applies equally well at the personal level. We need to allocate our resources on things that are actually productive and not just on things that appear to be productive. We need to stop convincing ourselves that our ideas are inherently valuable when they are actually not. If you convince yourself that you should hold off in executing on your idea until you’ve completely thought it through, then you will never realize the potential of the idea. It’s not enough to stop being actively unproductive; we have to force ourselves to continually produce.

Paul Graham has an excellent essay on ideas for startups that also touches on the value of an idea without execution. The hardest part of founding a successful startup is not generating the idea, it is executing the idea. In other words, there’s no such thing as a million dollar idea. Google was not a million dollar idea. Facebook was not a million dollar idea. Graham’s proof of this is dead simple:

Actually, startup ideas are not million dollar ideas, and here’s an experiment you can try to prove it: just try to sell one. Nothing evolves faster than markets. The fact that there’s no market for startup ideas suggests there’s no demand. Which means, in the narrow sense of the word, that startup ideas are worthless.

In other words, Google and Facebook are examples of million dollar execution, and I believe this concept is just as important at a personal level. Executing ideas is much harder than not executing them. There are all kinds of blogs out there that are devoted exclusively to dispensing advice on how to be more productive. It is easy to feel productive by reading them. It is easy to feel like you’re working on stuff. We humans are extraordinarily good at distracting ourselves or, as Ze Frank pointed out, convincing ourselves not to act, which is probably why executing ideas is so valuable.

The Cult of Done is the only example I can find that might (maybe) take executing ideas a step too far. They take an extreme position on doing things rather than thinking of things to do. (Here’s a good analysis on the Cult of Done.) We certainly need to emphasize actual execution of ideas since most people fall so far on the side of thinking and not even close to the side of doing. Perhaps adopting the spirit of The Cult of Done wouldn’t be a bad thing. After all, Ze’s right: most ideas really do suck when you do them, and the only way to find out is through execution.

John Stossel had another great special entitled “Bailouts and Bull” that takes on topics ranging from the recent spate of massive government bailouts to the current reality of the American dream. Other topics include medical marijuana, privatization of the highway system, universal pre-kindergarten education, and the US-Mexico border. Previously, I posted about his Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics, which focuses on similar themes. If you liked that, then you’ll absolutely love this show. Here’s a great (short) introduction to the show (and a more complete interview with Drew Carey):

Part 1 of the show:

Part 2 of the show:

Part 3 of the show:

Part 4 of the show:

Part 5 of the show:

Part 6 of the show:

Outliers: The Story of Success is the latest best-selling book by Malcom Gladwell, author of Blink. It describes the impact of culture, opportunity, and environment on the extraordinarily successful. For example, it provides an explanation for the success of Bill Gates, the Beatles, and Joe Flom. It also provides an explanation for the lack of extraordinary success of some for whom extraordinary success seemed likely. If you are interested, here’s a New Yorker article with a similar premise.

The premise of Outliers is that extreme success is driven more by opportunity than talent. This means that our cultural background can give us small advantages that accumulate almost like compound interest over the course of our lives. Gladwell argues that the typical understanding of outliers in society is wrong. He claims it is easier to believe that the Hollywood hero is heroic based on some inherent quality rather than hard work, seized opportunity, and a little bit of luck. He believes that inherent talent is emphatically not the real story of success.

In a very broad sense, I agree with Gladwell’s assessment of extreme success. Success looks more like Batman than Superman. For those who haven’t kept up on their comics, Batman was a human like everyone else on the planet, but he was wealthy (opportunity) and had a random tragic event shape the course of his life (luck). Then he dedicated himself to his craft (hard work) and became a superhero crime fighter. On the other hand, Superman was an alien from another planet who, quite simply, was more powerful than everyone else. Now, Superman clearly had to choose to be a superhero and he had to make sacrifices along the way, but his overpowering natural gifts represent the typical way people view those who have achieved extraordinary success.

Aside from this broad agreement, I take issue with the way that Gladwell defines success throughout the book. ‘Success’ is described as everything from making the championship game in a junior hockey league to being one of the 75 wealthiest humans to ever walk the face of the Earth. Sure, if you want to be a founding partner in one of the world’s top five law firms, you’re going to have to have a few lucky breaks along the way, but what if your definition of success is living the upper middle class American dream? It’s never clear just how far ‘beyond normal’ Gladwell believes his premise holds.

One great example that stretches the ‘beyond normal’ limit is Gladwell’s discussion of the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) in the context opportunity over talent. KIPP schools are open-enrollment public schools for traditionally under-resourced urban areas. They are intense. Students at KIPP schools spend far more time working, learning, and doing homework than in traditional public schools. They have also had dramatically better results. Imagine that: If you work harder, you achieve more.

Gladwell argues that we can manufacture ‘success’ by paying attention to cultural legacies and understanding the importance of providing opportunity. This is where the book becomes transparently political. The thesis seems to evolve into a rainbow wonderland where we are all capable of extreme success. Of course, this all depends on what he really means by ‘success.’ It’s idiotic to think that we can all be professional athletes or one of the 75 wealthiest people ever. (Hint: there are more than 75 of us.) Not everyone will be lucky enough to fit all the background criteria and cultural landmarks necessary to have tons of opportunity staring them in the face. Some things cannot be controlled; some things, such as hard work and discipline, can be.

What the book really needs is a clarification of what Gladwell means by ‘success.’ Without this clarification, the book loses cohesion and it becomes unclear how broadly applicable the ideas described really are. In some stories, he clearly shows that hard work and discipline are necessary, but not sufficient, for extreme success (Bill Gates, Joe Flom). In other stories, he advocates that we can all achieve extreme success by simply manipulating our cultural environment (Korean Air, KIPP). In one story, he tells the story of Christopher Langan as someone who is apparently unsuccessful (or at least as someone who hasn’t lived up to his potential). These disparate stories make the book feel like more of a collection of anecdotes about different types of success than a single “story of success.”

All in all, it’s a very entertaining book, but I recommend reading it with a critical eye. It’s important to understand the definition of success for each story and to separate things that can be controlled from those that cannot be controlled.

Before we get too far into 2009, I wanted to post something that I probably should have posted before 2008 came to a close. I chose not to write about the passing of Randy Pausch when it happened (He died on July 25, 2008 at the age of 47.) because I felt that I needed time to reflect on everything that I’ve learned from him. I was never a student of his in any class that he taught, but I certainly learned a lot from him.

Long time readers of this blog know that I’ve covered Randy Pausch’s work several times. I wrote about his now-famous “Last Lecture” back before the video deservedly became a huge sensation. I wrote about his excellent Time Management talk twice to cover both versions. I wrote about his growing press coverage and the book version of his Last Lecture when it came out.

Despite all of that, I wasn’t really sure what to write about his passing when it happened. Time Magazine covered his passing rather well at the time. Although it has been half a year since, I’m still not entirely sure what to say. Certainly, there’s a lot that could be said of him. Carnegie Mellon has a memorial site up with excellent coverage of his work. ABC News considers his story to be one of the best stories of 2008. He was named the “Most Inspiring Person of 2008” by the online Beliefnet community. His Last Lecture book is one of Amazon.com’s best books of the year.

Of course, all of these things strike me as things that Dr. Pausch wouldn’t have said himself. He continually credited those around him because he realized that we – none of us – aren’t capable of this sort of success alone. Everything worth accomplishing in life requires teamwork. When he got tenure, he rewarded his entire research lab with a trip to Disney World. When his Alice Project received well-deserved praise, he deflected all of the credit to those around him.

There are times in life that I wish I were a poet. I would love to be able to write a proper requiem for this teacher. But I am not a poet. I barely know the first thing about poetry. I am a dreamer. Sure it sounds silly or corny, but there’s nothing wrong with being silly or corny from time to time. I thought I knew a lot about dreaming before I heard Dr. Pausch’s lecture. I thought it was something people did for fun, or something that had little bearing on reality. I was wrong. It doesn’t have to be that way. Our dreams and aspirations can affect the way we live, and as a result they can affect reality for everyone.

Maybe the best tribute is to continue to dream big every day and not worry about sounding silly. It sounds simple enough, but doing anything consistently every single day is extremely hard. It’s hard because most days are pretty bland. We get caught up in one mundane thing after another, and pretty soon the day’s over. One day bleeds into the next and it turns into a lifetime.

If you’re already feeling bogged down by a return to normal life after the enervation of the New Year, I would encourage you not to forget whatever audacious New Year’s resolution you may have made, regardless of how far behind you may already be. Take some time to watch the lecture again. And get back on that horse. You don’t have wait another 11.5 months to try that resolution again.

Although this was produced a couple months ago now, I wanted to post a link to John Stossel‘s Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics. It’s essentially a 45 minute introduction to basic libertarianism (without using big words like libertarianism) and a thought-provoking show about the role government should play in our lives. You can either watch it on the six embedded YouTube videos below or find it here on ABC’s website.

Malcom Gladwell’s recent New Yorker article compares “the quarterback problem” to the challenge of finding a good teacher. It’s an interesting article, but it is, perhaps, too narrow in its focus.

For those who don’t know, the quarterback problem is defined as the extremely difficult task of selecting a quarterback to play in the NFL from the pool of college football quarterbacks. It’s deceptively challenging to do this because there’s so much data available and so many ways to rank college football quarterbacks. However, the college football game is so different from the NFL game that success at the college level seems to have very little correlation, or perhaps no correlation, to success at the professional level.

One of the best examples of this is the comparison of Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf, who were both extremely successful college quarterbacks drafted first and second in the 1998 NFL draft. Most experts thought it was a toss-up as to which of these two would have a better career. Of course, it’s clear to everyone now that Peyton Manning is a lock for the Hall of Fame while Ryan Leaf is famous for being a complete bust in the NFL.

The key element of the quarterback problem is that past results simply aren’t useful in predicting future success. Gladwell argues that this is also true of selecting good teachers. He claims that the usual metrics used to measure hiring and promotions for teachers, such as master’s degrees, teaching certifications, and other cognitive standards, are just as useless in attempting to determine a good teacher as college football statistics are in trying to determine a successful NFL quarterback.

Another important element of the quarterback problem is that the difference between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is extremely large, potentially several orders of magnitude. There are very few ‘good’ quarterbacks in the NFL. There aren’t even very many quarterbacks decent enough to serve as an emergency backup. The quarterback position in the NFL may be the single toughest position to play in all of professional sports. Gladwell argues that the same is true of teachers:

Suppose that Mrs. Brown and Mr. Smith both teach a classroom of third graders who score at the fiftieth percentile on math and reading tests on the first day of school, in September. When the students are retested, in June, Mrs. Brown’s class scores at the seventieth percentile, while Mr. Smith’s students have fallen to the fortieth percentile. That change in the students’ rankings, value-added theory says, is a meaningful indicator of how much more effective Mrs. Brown is as a teacher than Mr. Smith.

It’s only a crude measure, of course. A teacher is not solely responsible for how much is learned in a classroom, and not everything of value that a teacher imparts to his or her students can be captured on a standardized test. Nonetheless, if you follow Brown and Smith for three or four years, their effect on their students’ test scores starts to become predictable: with enough data, it is possible to identify who the very good teachers are and who the very poor teachers are. What’s more—and this is the finding that has galvanized the educational world—the difference between good teachers and poor teachers turns out to be vast.

It follows that if you want a school system filled with good teachers, then you have to be willing to identify the poor teachers and get rid of them. This is the only solution to the quarterback problem. It’s a brutal process for both the teachers and the administration. Time Magazine recently had a cover story on Michelle Rhee’s unusual approach to improving schools in the nation’s capital, which is attempting to implement this brutal process.

Rhee wants to solve the quarterback problem the only way possible: by mitigating its effects. Simply put, if you can’t identify good teachers without seeing how they perform in the classroom, then you have to hire a bunch of teachers, watch their classroom performance, identify those that are succeeding, and reward them. Similarly, you have to identify teachers that are failing and eliminate them. Time’s article does a good job explaining why doing these two things is extraordinarily complicated in the teaching industry.

Of course, this is exactly how they solve the quarterback problem in the NFL. On-field performance is everything. Many of the best quarterbacks were identified as such by their play in real NFL games as backups for injured quarterbacks. Matt Cassel is a great example. In college, he never started a game and served as a backup for Carson Palmer and Matt Leinart. He was drafted into the NFL and played as a backup for Tom Brady, who suffered a season-ending injury in the first game of the 2008 season. Brady’s injury made Matt Cassel a starting quarterback for the first time since high school, which would undoubtedly determine his future in the NFL. If he played well, he would likely be rewarded with a starting role for another team during the off season. If he played poorly, he would fall into the nameless abyss of all the other failed NFL quarterbacks.

After reading Gladwell’s article, I had to wonder, how many other professions are like that? Surely the quarterback problem isn’t just limited to teachers and NFL quarterbacks. The first thing that came to my mind was a Paul Graham essay about great programmers, which is really a must-read for anyone in the software industry. In it, Graham talks about the nature of great programmers, and summarizes the problem of identifying them by saying, “The problem is, if you’re not a hacker, you can’t tell who the good hackers are.” Fred Brooks also talks about the vast difference between a great programmer and an average programmer in The Mytical Man-Month. Here’s Fred Brooks on great software designers:

The differences are not minor – it is rather like Salieri and Mozart. Study after study shows that the very best designers produce structures that are faster, smaller, simpler, cleaner, and produced with less effort. The differences between the great and the average approach an order of magnitude.

Clearly, selecting a software engineers fits the definition of the quarterback problem. It would be very interesting to study how the extreme challenge of creating a start-up company performs as a system for identifying great programmers.

Apparently, some people believe there’s a quarterback problem in selecting good lawyers. Although, I have no particular experience with this, I think the environment in which lawyers at big law firms operate is strikingly similar to the ideal solution to the quarterback problem. There’s an incredibly small percentages of lawyers who end up making partner at a big law firm, which indicates to me that there’s a quarterback problem in trying to hire a big law firm partner.

I’ve also seen the suggestion that selecting a mate is a version of the quarterback problem, but I personally think that’s taking things too far. I don’t think that people really have an objective idea of what a good mate is, let alone what metrics to use in measuring potential mates. Furthermore, the role of being a “mate” really isn’t the same thing as having a job.

I believe the quarterback problem is potentially much more prevalent than people currently recognize. I also think that the solution to the quarterback problem is clearly defined. The two important lessons to learn and apply from the quarterback problem:

• Don’t be afraid to give people a chance. They might surprise you.
• Don’t be afraid to make a change when things aren’t working out.

These two steps are the best known solution to the quarterback problem. What other fields could benefit from implementing them? If you have any suggestions for other areas where this problem seems to occur, please mention them in the comments.

If one were to take a national poll on the most important year in United States history, 1776 would easily be a top contender. Thomas Paine published Common Sense in January. Although not an American, Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations, which had (and continues to have) extraordinary influence on American financial history. The Continental Congress signed the The Declaration of Independence that summer. Perhaps most importantly, George Washington held together the young and inexperienced “rabble” that was the Continental Army throughout the course of that entire year and eventually through the conclusion of the war in 1783. This is the story told by David McCullough’s novel 1776.

Although 1776 is the first book by David McCullough that I have ventured to read, I had most certainly heard of the author before I began reading it. McCullough is one of the most decorated living historians in America, and I would be astonished if more than a few American readers haven’t heard of him. He has twice won the Pulitzer Prize and twice won the National Book Award. He has also received the highest honor bestowed to American civilians: the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

As a result of the author’s fame and previous success, I had extremely high expectations for 1776 in several areas. First, McCullough is known as a fastidious researcher, so I was expecting the book to provide details on the inner workings of the fledgling American Revolution. Second, McCullough is often praised as an exemplary story teller, and with the material he has to work with in the American revolution, I was expecting something amazing. Third, McCullough used many of his notes originally compiled in writing his biography of John Adams, so I was expecting much of the book to deal with the political relationship Washington maintained with the Continental Congress.

In regard to my first expectation, I was quite pleased with the details found throughout the novel. If anything, these details were the most redeeming aspect of the book to those who already know the story quite well. McCullough goes out of his way to drop some now-famous names of people who were at the time merely rising stars, including Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Aaron Burr. I was also quite pleased to see many misconceptions dispelled. For example, I grew up learning that the Hessians in the Battle of Trenton were drunk or hungover at the time of the attack. Of course, this has been dispelled in many accounts, as McCullough dispels it here, but it was through this book that I learned the truth of the matter stated plainly.

As to my second expectation, McCullough is certainly a master story teller. Even knowing this beforehand did not prepare me for the fluidity of the book. I was truly surprised at how easy to read it is. It flows so quickly and effortlessly that I found my self reading it in large chunks. One of the primary reasons that I even picked the book up was to find some respite from the large amount of technical reading I have been doing recently, and I am pleased to say that it did not disappoint in the least, even though I was already quite familiar with the major events of the year.

Lastly, I was expecting a focus on Washington’s political discourse with the Continental Congress over the course of the year. This expectation was simply not met. Although there is some discussion of this important relationship, it was certainly not a highlight of the book. Each discussion of the relationship feels unbalanced because the book does not introduce or develop most of the important characters in the Continental Congress. I was left wondering if that is due to the coverage it received in his biography of John Adams, which I will endeavor to read.

My one major disappointment with the book was the artificial framing of the subject. Although 1776 was an extremely important year, it was just one of eight years (1775-1783) that comprised the American Revolution. Quite a few important events are not covered by this book including the winter in Valley Forge, enlisting the aid of France, signing the Treaty of Paris, and George Washington stepping back into the role of a civilian. Perhaps feeling a bit cheated at the missing events was somewhat inevitable. The entirety of the American Revolution itself has been the subject of many books, so I can understand why McCullough would not want to plow the same field all over again. However, I have no doubt that his talents would have made the remaining years and events of the Revolution exceedingly enjoyable stories to read.

On the whole, I can heartily recommend 1776. Owing to its easily accessible nature, it is perhaps best geared towards the average American, but there are certainly details that may interest those more deeply involved in studying history.

I know many readers of this blog also follow ThePrivacyPlace.org, but I wanted to ensure that those who simply follow this one where aware that there is a research survey currently being conducted at ThePrivacyPlace.org. I encourage everyone to participate as this is an excellent way to contribute to academic research and our understanding of online privacy concerns.

Cross posted from ThePrivacyPlace.org:

ThePrivacyPlace.Org Privacy Survey is Underway!

Researchers at ThePrivacyPlace.Org are conducting an online survey about privacy policies and user values. The survey is supported by an NSF ITR grant (National Science Foundation Information Technology Research) and was first offered in 2002. We are offering the survey again in 2008 to reveal how user values have changed over the intervening years. The survey results will help organizations ensure their website privacy practices are aligned with current consumer values.

The URL is: http://theprivacyplace.org/currentsurvey

We need to attract several thousand respondents, and would be most appreciative if you would consider helping us get the word out about the survey, which takes about 5 to 10 minutes to complete. The results will be made available via our project website (http://www.theprivacyplace.org/).

Prizes include $100 Amazon.com gift certificates sponsored by Intel Co. and IBM gifts.

On behalf of the research staff at ThePrivacyPlace.Org, thank you!

I have talked about some of the things I would like to see in electronic book readers before. I have a feeling that this is a list that is fundamentally incomplete simply because I haven’t sat down and actually analyzed the problem from an engineering standpoint. However, I read something on Cult of Mac recently that was truly depressing.

It appears that analyzing electronic book readers from an engineering standpoint is probably fruitless because they are fundamentally crippled from a marketing standpoint. Cult of Mac cites a New York Times blog post about Steve Jobs passion for computers and electronic devices. In that post Steve Jobs is quoted as saying the following about the Amazon Kindle:

“It doesn’t matter how good or bad the product is, the fact is that people don’t read anymore. Forty percent of the people in the U.S. read one book or less last year. The whole conception is flawed at the top because people don’t read anymore.”

His opinion on this area is probably more important than the average person might realize. One of the things that Jobs has demanded mercilessly has been incredible user interfaces. This goes back a long way to his interest in calligraphy. If anyone were to design an electronic reader and do it right, it would be Apple. If I were to bet, I would bet that they have considered making a product like this in recent years and ruled it out based on their findings.

Of course, Cult of Mac also posted a link to a recent study on reading by the National Endowment for the Arts. The full study is morbidly fascinating and about 100 pages long, many of which are charts on reading trends. It seems that at every level reading is in decline.

In particular, I thought that the statistics on those who were college educated or above were frightening. The report also makes some general conclusions that the decline of reading skills will affect our democracy. This makes sense if you consider the fact that our government was designed based on the idea that the citizenry would be educated and actively engaged in the process. Sort of an ominous thought to consider…