In progress without a purpose

In an interview with the Danish author and poet Søren Ulrik Thomsen in the Danish weekly newspaper Weekendavisen on the day before Christmas Eve, I read a very nice passage (in my own, most likely inadequate, translation):

I find that when you write, you do not quite know what you're doing. If you knew what you wanted to say, there was no reason to write it, as it would have been there already.

I've pretty much heard it from Thomsen before: that there is something in the poem, which is not in the poet, but when it becomes drafted in the above manner - and even followed up with:

When the book as written, you are as the author also its first reader. Then, you can spot some contexts, which were not aware existed while writing.

- it is as if something falls into place for me. Maybe it actually would be better to write something where one does not quite know what one does, instead of always trying to be in full control of the purpose of writing? Maybe thereby, one could see some of the contexts one did not know existed before things got written down?
(Translated from I færd uden formål)

The territory under the hat

I am what you might call a sucker for quotes, to such an extent that I happily stop to write it down if I come come across some particularly interesting.
I met two such quotations on a wall at a large company, which I had a business purpose to visit some years ago. One of them, I later discovered, can be attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., an American physician and author, and it sounds in its simplicity:

Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions.

And it immediately made me think that there is no need to think twice - it's just to get started stretching. And here the other quote - which I unfortunately have not found any source for - comes in very appropriately, as it states that

The greatest undeveloped territory in the world lies under your hat.

It is a thought I think it's worth staying with, as the country, in which I stayed when I read these two quotations, was India. Curiously, a place which is considered underdeveloped by many people; people, who perhaps have plenty of potential to stretch something under their own hats. If not, our part of the world might be lagging behind even faster than one might otherwise fear.
(Translated from Territoriet under hatten, originally published September 25th, 2010).

On the topic of knowledge and wisdom

I recently stumbled upon a quote attributed to Jimi Hendrix - but when searching, I could not really find any evidence that I had found the right source of the quote.
However, this in turn led me to a quote from the american author and doctor Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., who with some certainty should be the author of the following:

It is the province of knowledge to speak, and it is the privilege of wisdom to listen.

I think it is a beautiful quote - and so obviously true. If you carry knowledge, you have a good point from which to speak - but wisdom is achieved by listening (and reading, and in other ways absorbing knowledge).
(Translated from Noget om viden og visdom)

On the topic of avoiding unfortunate projections

Most of us know well enough the experience of struggling with personal problems from time to time. In many cases, nothing is easier than to blame other people or other things for the obstacles in one's way. But if a solution to the problems is needed, a little rule may be advantageous to keep in mind. I do not know whether there is a canonical form of it; the version I like to follow is this:

Do not project internal problems onto external circumstances.

It is so easy to give difficult times and other people's absurdities the blame for one's own demons, but it only rarely leads to anything constructive; times are no more favorable, and people no more reasonable, when they are blamed for something you go around struggling with yourself.
This does not mean that you should mess with your problems on your own. Much good can be achieved through the help of good friends in confidence - or, in severe cases, through professional help - but basically one has to resolve one's internal problems oneself, with or without help.
(Translated from Noget om at undgå uheldige projektioner, originally published January 29th, 2013)

On the topic of knowing too much

Back in 2012 I read a news story with great interest. It was the story about how a Swedish chemistry professor had help from his ten-year-old son to solve a complicated problem, which he had worked on for eight years with no luck.
As the professor Sven Hovmöller said about the problem and the son in the article: "Linus’s main contribution was coming at it with an absolutely clear mind, being smart and able to put the puzzle together. I sort of knew too many things and when I tried to do it myself, your brain just gets exhausted by all the different things you keep in your head at the same time. With a fresh, empty brain so to speak, you can do something. When solving problems, it is always good to have someone to discuss it with."
I value the story so highly, because it is so closely related to one of my favorite quotes; in the words of Henry Ford:

I am looking for a lot of men who have an infinite capacity to not know what can not be done.

Because as Hovmöller's example indicates: who knows, how many of the problems of the world we would be able to solve, if we were better at asking those who do not know what cannot be done.
(Translated from Noget om at vide for meget, originally published October 3rd, 2012)

On the topic of questions and answers

Image courtesy of pixabay / qimono

I have in recent years had the pleasure (and just the fact that I call it a pleasure, shows how far I have moved me in recent decades) to scratch the surface of the subject of psychology a bit. And in this context, I encountered some of the smartest stuff I've ever had the pleasure to hear. In all its simplicity:

Don't think you know the answer before you have heard the question.

It sounds so simple, because it is so obvious. But try to think about it: How often isn't it that we try to solve the problems of our friends, colleagues, family members and acquaintances, seen from our own point of view? How often isn't it that we try to address such situations based on the approach "I have tried the same myself"? In fact, I am convinced that this kind of situation should rather be addressed using additional, more detailed questions. By allowing the other party to answer the additional questions will probably make the person wiser about his or her own situation and thereby answer the big question on his or her own - and thereby, more is achieved than by oneself trying to deal with something that one does not understand the full extent of.
(Translated from Noget om spørgsmål og svar, originally published October 7th, 2012)

What would I do?

Some time ago, I encountered the idea that it is advantageous to be able to form a fictitious "advisory board" for oneself: a panel of advisors that one respects and would like to be able to ask for advice in case of existential doubt.
The beauty of it is that since it is a fictitious panel, which one only keeps and asks for advice in one's own mind, it is possible to pick and choose between the living and the dead, or even between real and fictional people. Grundtvig, Einstein, Newton; even Sherlock Holmes and Jesus, if so desired. The idea is that in these cases of existential doubt, one should ask the advisory panel for advice, in order to set a clear path through the doubt.
It is not dramatically different from the people who have a single person to take into consideration, as in: "What would Jesus do?" - And basically it's just a matter of that one seeks connection to the side of one's own personality that one's perception of the advisor represents - it's all just something going on in the head of the seeker of advice.
To believe that it is possible to get an answer without introspection, without first seeking deeply within oneself, is simply to deceive oneself. Basically, there is only one person on the panel - the seeking person itself.
(Translated from Hvad ville jeg selv gøre?, originally published January 29th, 2011)

On the topic of (in)fallibility

Scary... the reason that people seem able to walk on water will often not be understood until the exact moment they crash through the ice.
(Translated from Noget om (u)fejlbarlighed)

On the topic of true friends

A thought, which often comes to me when I think about the closest of my many good friends and acquaintances, is the following, which I can enjoy over and over again.

True friends remember the secrets you have repressed and pretend to have forgotten them.

No further comments are really necessary to accompany this.
(Translated from Noget om sande venner)

In slow motion

In the book "Naar man mailer" (which literally could be translating to "When you're mailing", but that would alter the pun), the Danish author Svend Aage Madsen and the Danish journalist Flemming Chr. Nielsen publish a number of mails, they have exchanged over time. Here Madsen describes how inspiration can be a mischievous phenomenon (in my translation):

I have experienced getting a first-rate idea while watching a movie on the television. Such a clear and obvious one that there was no reason to write it down. And then afterwards ... alas. Then I get the urge to look through the movie again, if it's a recording, hoping that the idea will appear again in the same place. Which it of course won't, because you are now seeking it.

I know the problem. And not only when I get a good idea, and not just in front of the television; it can be anything that flies through the brain at any point in time, just to have disappeared, when I need to use it. A classic is when at home, I stumble upon something, I want to say to someone else in the house; then I become distracted and the thought is gone. Hereafter, I can force myself to meticulously go through the same routines that occupied me when the idea arose, right down to the tiniest details, meandering through the rooms in the same as I went before, and still I simply cannot succeed rediscovering the inspiration. Possibly because it's been a combination of things, and it is not that easy to restore all the prerequisites; possibly something as trivial as because I just noticed that there was something on the radio at the time that I simply did not see as important, eventhough it was.
There is only one thing to say: write it down, write it down, write it down. And in sufficient details to afterwards remove all doubt as to what the notes mean.
(Translated from I langsom gengivelse, originally published August 3rd, 2010)

On the topic of constructive waiting time

A lot of people are concerned about the fear of the blank page - about having the urge or need to write, but not be able to do so.
I feel privileged not to suffer from such anxiety, and I think I know why. I am well aware that inspiration is something that can not be forced, inspiration is something one has to wait for, and use the time waiting constructively.
If at the same time, one has a plethora of stuff on the reading list, this is a match almost too good to be true. For how to spend time better while looking for inspiration, than by seeking inspiration, for example by reading something one finds interesting?
One should not wait for inspiration with idle hands. On the other hand, inspiration should not be left waiting when it arrives.
It will obviously not always turn up in an opportune moment, but as a minimum, enough key words must be written down to enable rediscovery of the inspiration when time and quiet is available to get it translated into text.
(Translated from Noget om konstruktiv ventetid, originally published February 2nd, 2010)

Plagiarism and inspiration

There is a thing which has been on my mind for some time - the difference between plagiarism and inspiration: why is it that something will be categorized as plagiarism, while others slip through the eye of the needle and are recognized just to have been "inspired"?
When one subscribes to the opinion that not only have most things been said before; most have also been said in a better and clearer way before, then one must simultaneously accept that most of the things one can acheive, must be acheived through inspiration - very little comes from nothing. So the important thing must be to make sure that one has something to be inspired by.
Somewhere, I have seen the quote that you have to read thousands of books, before you can write one, and most likely, this is true, then you will have been exposed to sufficient amounts of information (and quite probably also information of divergent nature and content) to form and formulate your own opinion.
And when you have formed and formulated your own opinion, then you can always start looking back at the things you were inspired by and use these as references, make sure that quotes appear verbatim et cetera - and then, you have not leaned on any single source, not copied, not plagiarized.
(Translated from Plagiat og inspiration, originally published January 18, 2010)

On the topic of originals, copies and collages

While discussing authenticity, I came to think of a quote, which we Danes like to attribute to Søren Kierkegaard - symptomatically enough, I think it actually originates from the English poet Edward Young, who died about half a century before Kierkegaard's birth:

We are all born originals - why is it so many of us die copies?

For that question, I think I know a good answer: we die copies, because we have gathered inspiration from people, we have met over time, from whom we have let inspiration rub off. And the fascinating part is that hardly anyone - maybe not even in totalitarian regimes, eventhough, fortunately, my knowledge of said regimes is limited - die as exact copies of a certain other person. Rather, we die as collages of numerous other people, who then again themselves were collages of those people who inspired them.
Which is quite fortunate, I think. Otherwise, none of us could reach higher by standing on the shoulders of giants of the past.
(Translated from Noget om originaler, kopier og collager, originally published October 17, 2015)

On the topic of dreaming

This was not originally thought to be a post about quotes and their origin, but it ended up beginning like that anyway - as I dived into the quote:

If you can dream it, you can do it.

I found that it did not originate from Walt Disney personally, eventhough it is attributed to him by many people. It seems to be a quote by Tom Fitzgerald, who put the words together while working as  "imagineer" - a job I would love to have, dragged together from "imagination" and "engineering". It covers a position in design and development within Walt Disney Imagineering Research & Development, Inc. - but now I think I have started digressing...
The original point was that I do not necessarily believe in a one-to-one-relationship between what can be imagined and what can be done. On the other hand, I am pretty certain that another relationship exists - a relationship which can be described by

If you can't even dream it, how could you dream of doing it?

All that's left to say is: make sure to keep your dreams and your powers of imagination alive and well. Who knows? Something worth turning into reality, might come out of it.
(Translated from Noget om at drømme, originally published February 4, 2014)

A word of warning

This time of year, a word of warning might be appropriate. Very soon something will happen, as it used to in earlier years, but this year, a slightly (ever so slightly) larger crowd will wonder what's happening in the next month or so.
For the fourth year in a row, I have decided to accompany what is popularly known as "cucumber season" or "silly season" with a concept, I have chosen to name "cucumber blogging" - a line of blog posts on a common predefined topic. Just like Danish media use their summers on special topics made in a more or less strictly specified mold, why not do the same?
In that fashion, I spent the summer of 2013 on quotes, summer of 2014 on my most heavily used blog topics, and summer 2015 to work along tangents that might not otherwise have been given quite as much time.
Tomorrow, the Danish blog will see, what the summer of 2016 is to be spent on. For readers with better things to spend their time on, I foresee the end of the cucumber to be reached when August begins. Come August, I will promise to make an effort again. In the meantime, I might even consider preparing the effort a bit.
A special warning goes out, as this is the first summer since I decided to start translating certain posts. There might not be much translation for the next month or so - but August will come, almost before we notice.
(Translated from Et ord til advarsel)

On the topic of being able to fly

It was supposedly Ray Bradbury, who once said that

Living at risk is jumping off the cliff and building your wings on the way down.

It reminds me of an incident I was involved in recently, when a person present felt that the initiative we had started out to set the rules for could be compared to cutting the branch on which we were sitting.
As it happened, I did not quite share the point of view, which led me to the other extreme, stating that "Well, let's see. I do not think that we are cutting our own branch. But if we are - who knows, maybe we'll find that we can fly?"
The outcome is still undecided, as the points of view unchanged. Until the moment when at high speed I simply hit the ground, I am in the - for me quite uncharacteristical - situation that I am foolhardily convinced that I'm right.
(Translated from Noget om at kunne flyve, originally posted June 26, 2016)

Honestly, did you even read it yourself?

I came across some scary statistics the other day - Washington Post brought some recent research from Columbia University and INRIA, the French national institute for research in computer science. According to the article 59 percent of the links shared on social media are passed, without the person who shares them has ever clicked on them - in other words: we make things viral without ever having read what it is all about.
It is basically the old point made by Nicholas G. Carr proven once again: the internet does not do any good to the way in which we get informed.
There'll be those people who find that their time is too valuable to read something that happens to be of interest to other people - but on the other hand, if it is important enough to contaminate others social media feed with, the forwarder should probably also be able to find time for it.
I will not pretend to be holier-than-thou. Occasionally, I forward something after having only skimmed it - but then it is only to individuals, and only after having skimmed it thoroughly enough to be reasonably sure that the recipient will be able to use it for something. I am simply too old to fancy the thought of answering the question: "Honestly, did you even read it yourself?" with a "uh, no ..."

(Translated from Helt ærligt, har du overhovedet læst det selv?)

Internet makes stupid - unless you're careful

...what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.

This is the American author Nicholas G. Carr's interpretation of, what Google, Facebook and other of the marvels of the internet do to us - we become zappers, constantly chasing new bites of information, without being able to dive into anything. Our power of concentration disappears, and we barely register the title of one article before we are in search of the next, which we do not have time to dive into.
I have thought about it before: that I myself was about to be hit by it, news and general information junkie as I am, but I do think, however, that I will be able to escape.
Or rather, my eternal quest to know everything about everything, not just keywords about everything will save me. For instance, it was not enough for me just to read on the front page of a news paper that "Facebook and Google will change your mind."
First, I had read the article in the paper, then the original piece from The Atlantic, and finally I had to find out who Nicholas G. Carr was. Fortunately I think that is more reminiscent of scuba than jet skis, and that's how I intend to continue to operate. But then again, I know all too well that I am reactionary and old-fashioned.
(Translated from Internet gør dum - hvis man ikke passer på, originally posted December 15, 2008)

On the topic of having the time to sit here

In an edition of the Danish newspaper Politiken dated a few weeks ago, I saw a couple of thought-provoking pages. On the left page, a text - on the right page, a photo, both by Daniel Hjorth. The photo showed a location in Copenhagen with two benches, one in the foreground, one in the background. On each of the benches an elderly gentleman was sitting alone, and the text said (in my translation):

A simple thought.
What would happen,
If I asked:
'May I sit here?'
Although the next bench was vacant. 

It is, perhaps, a simple thought. But isn't it so that we are not good enough to seek the company of other people? It is far from certain that other people sit alone due to an active choice. What if we gave each other the opportunity to meet each other? Perhaps even the opportunity of conversation?
I think I'll ask next time.
Perhaps even though I do not really need to sit down.
Perhaps even though I do not really have the time to sit down.
Because: what does it actually mean - "to have the time"?
Maybe the world would become a better place if more people asked, "May I sit here?", although the next bench was vacant?
(Translated from Noget om at have tid til at sætte sig her)

On the topic of big dreams

In relation to the death of Muhammad Ali a couple of weeks ago, I ran into a quote which might (or might not) be a Muhammad Ali-quote. I have seen it attributed to Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, president of Liberia, as well; she said it in a speech to the graduating class from Harvard in 2011. Deep down, however, it is of less importance who originally said that:

If your dreams do not scare you, they are not big enough.

- I am certain that it is true. Because if our dreams become so small and unambitious that they are mostly there for cosiness, then we have dragged them so far into the comfort zone that we should have been living them long ago, while starting to dream more ambitiously. Otherwise we have just arrived in a situation, where we do not dream. We have simply fallen asleep. (Translated from Noget om store drømme)

On the topics of trust, care and inflation

Recently, I read at the website of the Danish newspaper Berlingske a blog post written by Jonathan Løw, who is characterized by the beautiful title "serial entrepreneur". Løw writes about how important trust is, between people and between companies, but also highlights the dilemma that trust is necessary to cooperate, but you can not know in advance whether the recipient of your trust will abuse it. And he also writes: "Trust is not just something we share. Trust is the currency of the future!"

Image courtesy of pixabay / Myriams-Fotos

I think that is very precisely observed. And as a result of this, I must conclude that the best, any of us can do at any time, is to show to as many people as possible that we are worthy of their trust. For it may well happen that trust is the future currency. But if you spread it with care, you can spread virtually unlimited amounts without no risk of inflation.
(Translated from Noget om tillid, omhu og inflation)

On the topic of being authentic and natural

I have in recent times grown into somewhat of a fan of psychology professor Adam Grant, and therefore, I am paradoxically pleased , when I manage to find something written by him, with which I disagree - as it shows me that I still carefully consider the impressions I take in, rather than just blindly accepting them and passing them on because they are rubber-stamped by the trust (very much in line with yesterday's post), I have in the person from whom I have gotten the impression.
Thus, I read over the weekend in the Sunday Review of the New York Times a post by Mr. Grant under the heading "Unless You're Oprah, 'Be Yourself' Is Terrible Advice". In this, he concludes that "Next time people say, “just be yourself,” stop them in their tracks. No one wants to hear everything that’s in your head. They just want you to live up to what comes out of your mouth."
Initially, it made somewhat of an impression with me - partly because a few weeks ago I stood in front of a couple of dozen people and made a speech with the main conclusion: "Be yourself. Act naturally." - and is Adam Grant not opposed to this?
The more I read Grant's post, I think that the question lies in what you put into "being yourself". For if it means to be yourself, without filters, right down to the level where you release all your innermost thoughts - well, then I completely agree with Grant that it is not the best advice; who may well disagree with that? Then we would go all the way to the level where I need to tell people if I prefer cats to dogs, and at this level you can go terribly wrong, even though it has no relevance at all to the relationship, one has the people to whom it is disclosed. But on the other hand, I think that the second part of Grant's conclusion with advantage can be reversed to support my point. "No one wants to hear everything that’s in your head. And they do not want anything to come out of your mouth, if you are not able to live up to it."
So yes: Be yourself and act naturally - to the extent applicable within the framework set by the relationships you have to the people in front of whom you should be yourself and act naturally . It is relevant for the boss to know that you are not a dog person, if you apply for a job in a kennel. Not if you apply for a job at a factory where the boss happens to have dogs as a hobby.
Interesting enough, later on, Brené Brown - another person, I am somewhat of a fan of - wrote a piece defending autenticity and vulnerability, and Adam Grant replied to it; when the last word is said between them, I am pretty sure they have ended up in an agreement on how one can apply authenticity, sincerity and vulnerability to become one's best self. I will follow the debate with great interest.
(Translated from Noget om autencitet og naturlighed)

Edifications from abroad

(Translated from Turèll-blogmanifest nummer 19, eller: Opbyggeligheder fra det fremmede)
Recently, I got yet another idea for yet another one of those blogs, for which I get the idea which I then refrain from doing anything about - I still have to shamefully admit that this is the way it often goes. It came from the fact that I came across an excellent English blog post somewhere, and when I came to the end of it, it appeared that it actually was originally a blog post which was written in French on another blog.
It made me think that there are masses of such observations that deserve to have their footprint increased to people who simply do not understand English, or are most familiar with reading in Danish. It will obviously only be a translation as good as I am able to do it - but it will probably in any case have a certain possibility to be at least comparable to what Google Translate can offer.
I will obviously behave nicely, ask the original author's permission and write the credits due as befits, and explain that I only do it because I find the author's work so excellent that it should be shared as widely as possible.
One day I will make such a blog.
When I grow up, I will make such a blog. I can hardly wait.

The Most Important Task

Not many days ago, I used almost one and a half minutes on Daniel Pink and his Pinkcast - now I did it again. This time his talked over a topic he picked up from the writer Leo Babauta - a topic, abbreviated into MIT (no, not that MIT, but rather): the Most Important Task: if you want to get the right things done, start the day by picking out the Most Important Task of the day, and without hesitation get on with it: allowing no outside disturbance such as e-mail, Twitter or other procrastination to get in the way until the MIT is completed.
It is, as Pink also indicates, somewhat of a revelation, because it is so obvious, when you think about it. Just get on with it.
And, well, just hope for the stakeholders of your Second-most Important Task being unable to physically place themselves between you and your MIT...
(Translated from Den mest betydningsfulde arbejdsopgave)

On the topic of decisiveness

Recently, I saw an interesting video, where Daniel Pink in a "Pinkcast" in less than one and half minutes gave some good advice on how to make better decisions on your own.
The recommendation originally came from Chip and Dan Heath's book "Decisive: How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work", and I found it so interesting that it immediately drew me towards an internet bookstore.
In all simplicity: if you need a good decision, one should simply think: what advice would I give a good friend, if he came to me and asked me for advice in relation to the same dilemma?
It turns out that in this way, if one is able to free oneself from the tangle of emotions that often accompany the big decisions, one is messing with, it is possible to make better decisions.
Much good can be achieved if one can get away with cheating oneself with a laudable purpose.
(Translated from Noget om beslutsomhed)

On the topic of good reasons

We see quite it often in our daily lives - for example in the public or in our jobs - that we are subject to procedural changes that seem downright foolish; but there must be a good reason, because why change the procedures if there isn't?
The big problem is just that in most cases the modifications are allowed to appear stupid without contradiction because no good explanation is given; and one simply begins to assume that there probably are no good explanations. Much of this could be avoided if only a good explanation was given when it was there - because then we would understand that a good reason actually existed. And the same principle we should use in our own communication: if there is a good reason - tell it!
Of course there is a risk to end up in situations like the one known from the movie "A Few Good Men," where the words come from Jack Nicholson's mouth: "You can't handle the truth!" But well - let's take these situations when they arise. I think the biggest problem will be that in the cases that remain unexplained, one will become even more convinced that the good reason does not exist.
(Translated from Noget om gode grunde, originally posted August 22, 2013)

Not enough to make a difference

Recently, I came across a blog post, in which law student Silvana Mouazan talks about how since she started blogging she has been greeted with a question about whether she was Muslim or not.
People who ask such questions may well do so because they are unsure. And if this uncertainty is based on Mouazan's writings, I guess it should be appropriate to conclude that she is probably not so much of a Muslim that anyone should consider it dangerous?
Or to generalize - for it is not only about Muslims and non-Muslims: if one finds it reasonable to divide the world into two groups; we can aptly call the two groups "them" and "us" - and is compelled to ask the question: "are you one of them?" - then even before asking, the conclusion should probably have been that the other party is probably not so much "one of them" that it makes any difference. And then, why ask the question at all?
Or to see it from a completely different angle: at one time it was so popular to say that "if you're not with us, you are against us". Why not turn it over and say, "if you're not against us, you are with us." Maybe even enhance it with a "welcome"?
(Translated from Ikke så meget, at det gør noget, originally published May 16, 2016)

In the right room

One of the points that Sydney Finkelstein carries in "Superbosses" is not really news - I have not been able to find out where it originally came from, but this does do not necessarily make the point uninteresting:

If you are the smartest person in the room, you are in the wrong room.

Of course, there are exceptions - school teachers are obvious examples - but otherwise it makes good sense: if you aren't in the company of people you can learn from, then you have not chosen the right companions.

But you can argue that then there will of course at any time in any group of people be a person who should not be there? Fortunately, I do not think it's that bad. For it may well be that when it comes to some fields, a person is the smartest in the room - while being a novice in other fields and thereby easily able to learn a great deal from some of the others.

The point can therefore equally correctly be interpreted in the way that at any time, one should surround oneself with a wide range of different people with different skills and areas of interest - so that at any time, there are fields in which one can learn from the people one is surrounded with, and thus, one will always be in the right room.

(Translated from I det rigtige rum)

On the topic of superbosses

From time to time, I am fortunate enough to get hold of a book, which pages almost turn by themselves because the author handles an interesting topic and is able to illuminate in an appealing and relevant way.
Recently, I experienced it when I stumbled upon Sydney Finkelstein's book "Superbosses". Based on numerous examples of superbosses in a variety of fields - ranging from music, american football and the restaurant business to marketing and other professions where business leadership is a more conventional topic - Finkelstein details what makes these leaders so excellent, causing the success of their own business, and members of their staff to later successfully spread like wildfire as leaders in the same industry.
Finkelstein does it so enthusiastically that it can make anyone want to, if not develop superboss personality traits, then certainly work for a superboss - or wish that one's boss developed that kind of personality.
I at least could easily find someone for whom to place this book under their Christmas tree.
(Translated from Noget om fremragende ledere)

On the topic of empty calories

Some time ago in a radio broadcast, I heard the Danish term "pædagogsandwich" (in English, it would be something like a "teacher sandwich") in connection to the topic of feedback - on how to deliver a message, which in this context was described as negative, between two positive things; in the same manner as in a sandwich, the meaty part which is to give energy comes between the two pieces of soft, sweet bread. As the slight sneering term suggests, it's not necessarily something that should be covered with positive connotations - because it so easily becomes a mechanical construction, where the person giving the feedback frantically searches for parts to obey this sandwich construction.
Not much later than I had heard about the teacher sandwich, one of my sons returned from scouting to tell about "Grandma's Law" - on how to make evaluations with a set of three good things and then a proposal for improvement. It seems better to me - also because there can easily be found room for further development, so the 3 + 1 thing can be followed more or less strictly.
But the bottom line must be that the feedback works best when both parties, the giving and the receiving one, acknowledge that there are two types of feedback; affirmative (what should be maintained) and developmental (what can be improved) feedback - there is no such thing as positive and negative criticism; and in fact the developmental feedback is the one with the greatest potential to be positive, because it is the feedback one can learn the most from. If I am told in the right way, I get so much more from knowing in which areas I can improve myself, than to knowing where I am "good enough".
(Translated from Noget om tomme kalorier, originally published August 10, 2014)

The killing of a good idea

The other day I read an interesting piece on Eric "Astro" Teller, who heads the Google X department that does stuff, which seen from a perhaps slightly more earthbound view would be regarded as an R&D department for high-flying ideas.
The point is that when you run a department, which is limited (and who aren't these days?) with regards to time, manpower and other resources, it is imperative that one does what one can to kill ideas early - you simply must go to work with the mindset: "how do we kill our project today?"
It is an extreme interpretation of Linus Pauling's view on how to get good ideas: get a lot of ideas; hereafter you "simply" have to find out which ones should be discarded. And it is in excellent thread with so many other theories about failing quickly and celebrating mistakes, something at which we probably all should be better.
If there is just one good idea that you simply aren't able to kill, it would be worth it.
(Translated from Mordet på den gode idé, originally published April 28, 2016)

Out of the ordinary

Habit wields an uncomfortable power over us - a power which we should try to restrict as much as possible, even if it falls us hard. And the very fact that we are so adverse to attacking the habit is sinister, as it really ought to be so easy. For example, when it comes to meal times, we tend to have a portfolio of a handful of recipes or, in particularly adventurous cases, two handfuls of recipes that we have a tendency to return to, again and again. Not necessarily favorite foods; it's just an easy habit. On the other hand, in these times when the Internet is common property, you do not even have to own a cookbook to have access to a cornucopia of recipes that you could use to provide some variety in everyday life, with a wide palette of flavors and degrees of difficulty, so that there - literally - should be something for everyone. And yet we let the force of habit be the greatest.
It is so little that is required. Just decide that once a week, you will allow yourself to break this habit and try out a new recipe. If it is not possible once a week, then just every other week, or once a month. The probability that something interesting comes out of it is considerable. And that's just one place where you can attack the force of habit. You could walk another way, when going grocery shopping. You could watch something different on TV than what you usually kill time with - or perhaps do something else than watching TV? The possibilities are endless. The force of habit is considerable - but it is extremely easy to attack.
(Translated from Udover det sædvanlige, originally published May 6th, 2013)

When friends disappoint

I was disappointed by a family friend the other day. Not one of the closest of family friends, but after all, someone who has been part of the family network for just over ten years, which still amounts to something, eventhough I have friends that I've known well for more than the double amount of time.

The way, in which I was disappointed was that the friend was in a situation where daily life was a little difficult to grasp, and I could easily have been able to contribute, if only she had reached out and asked. And when later I discovered that there had been a stressful situation where I could have made my little contribution to make a difference, but did not notice it because I was not asked - well, then I could not avoid being slightly disappointed. For why did she not as the most natural thing in the world consider that I could as easily have done such a small thing?

I think this is one of the situations where we can do ourselves and others a favour: if we are able to understand our friends and acquaintances to such an extent that we know when they would be happy to be asked for help. Some of the things for which we need help are so insignificant - or we might actually find these things so fun to do - that we do not need to know each other particularly well to ask.

So basically: when in need, consider asking your friends and acquaintances whether they would be able to help. There are actually people out there who will rather say "I'm in it for you!" than "What's in it for me?"

(Translated from Når venner skuffer, originally published April 24, 2016)

Beyond the borders of the comfort zone

I have taken on a new fancy, so to speak; I have recently seen a lot of excellent examples of what is known as "sketchnoting" - that is, to note stuff in the form of sketches just as much as in the form of notes. There's supposed to be many positive traits to it:
It should be possible to better remember stuff, if the brain is put to work by drawing rather than just noting - and if one draws rather than just notes, it should engage both hemispheres.
I often sit around doodling on paper while listening, and why not doodle something productive?
And finally, I feel excellent to challenge myself to a point, where I am painfully aware of my own limitations - I do not, to say the least, draw very well. But I would be extremely happy to become better at it, and I have recently made the point that we should move outside our comfort zones to become better at doing things.
So all in all - there is no reason to think twice. Well, maybe one should think twice before announcing anything, but on the other side it is probably also very good to start off immortalising the state at rock bottom.
So be it - here it is; currently only in Danish. Whether there will ever be more? Well, time will tell.
(Translated from Hinsides kanten af komfortzonen)

Debate or freak show?

In October 2013, I read a piece by Kasper Fogh Hansen, Director of Communications in FOOD, Food Organisation Of Denmark - an interesting feature article in the Danish newspaper Politiken under the heading that "The debate universe of the media has become a freak show", about how it appears to have become increasingly interesting for the media to promote extreme positions, shrill tone and confrontation rather than constructive debate. There are many interesting observations in the feature article - for example (in my translation):

A lot of good stuff is published. But can't you decrease the level of madness? What's the use of having people shouting 'fascists' and 'Leninists' at chefs, artists or simply people with moderately different opinions? And nobody becomes any wiser us 'having the debate'. And it is not important that everyone gets their say - there are plenty of words and websites in the world.

And it does not end here. We have seen it for a long time; it started when it became possible to comment anything on newspapers' websites, where it became obviously that people simply communicate with fewer filters in use when communicating with "the bravery of being out of range" - when one does not see the counterpart eye to eye. And journalists are not substantially better - two debating parties can hardly disagree, before it immediately hits the headlines as the fact that one "rages" against the other. Far too few people can be heard in their attempts to make us talk politely to each other, because the debate is too filled with people screaming at the top of their voice.
(Translated from Debat eller freakshow, originally published October 8, 2013)

Going beyond the comfort zone for expertise

I recently read an interesting point on expertise - the point being that if you are interested in becoming an expert in a field, it is not enough simply to repeat the same routines over and over again until you become an expert. A golfer does not become a champion by standing in the same place and repeating the same stroke to perfection. A car driver does not become a good driver just by going back and forth to work every day, and an artist does not become a good one just by painting the same type of image again and again.
If I want to be an expert, I should of course allocate plenty of time for the disciplines I want to become an expert in. But most notably, I will have to leave my comfort zone. I have to try something new; hit some more challenging balls from different angles; artistically experiment with more challenging subjects or with choice of colour; drive my car in a closed circuit to get out of the comfort zone without putting other people's lives and livelihoods at risk.
And I must accept occasional failure - and find an acceptable level of failure to avoid killing the motivation, without excellent results every time, as that would only indicate lack of challenge - and thereby lack of proper improvement.
(Translated from Udenfor komfortzonen efter ekspertisen)

100 days of creativity

If you listen to the same circles on Twitter, as I usually listen to, you will know that today, Elle Luna starts a new round of #The100DayProject: "a free and open project for anyone who is hungry to jump-start their creative practice, who is curious about being a part of a supportive, nurturing community that celebrates the process, and those who are busy busy busy and searching for a bite-sized way to nurture their creativity: one chooses an activity that one wants to pursue, repeats the activity daily for 100 days, while publishing it under a common hashtag, to have all the activities gathered in one place.
If I had listened to these circles for a longer time, I probably would have been prepared, have had a plan ready and would have started - regrettably, it tells a bit about how spontaneous I am (not); now I will most likely settle for yet another 100 posts (of which some will hopefully be translated) in 100 days - but it is clearly a call that is worth passing on to others: jump on the bandwagon and get creative. I have touched upon it in a previous post: It works!
(Translated from 100 dages kreativitet)

On the topic of being creative

Image courtesy of Pixabay / qimono

In my list of blog topics was a point taken from a lecture I heard the Danish professor of educational psychology at Aalborg University Lene Tanggaard give in the fall of 2010 - it merely said:

Be creative - it works!

- to cut a long story short: let the creative ideas loose when they emerge; have them written down to an extent so that they can be reconstructed as needed, and then leave them to mature and have a critical look at them later.
As it has been said so often: if there is just one good idea that turns into something, then it has been worth it - but it begins when you give yourself the permission to get the good ideas; and the easiest way to do this is to allow yourself to have a lot of ideas and hold on to them. Then, you can always later find out which ideas that are indeed good, and try to use these as the basis for innovation.
(Translated from Noget om at være kreativ, originally published January 5, 2013)

A matter of silence

Image courtesy of pixabay / Predra6

As surely a number of other people, I am somewhat preoccupied with the question of how to ensure quality in what one expresses in daily life; how to ensure quality in communication, so to speak - basically, how do I ensure that I express something that people are at all interested in listening to? For I do not hesitate to draw the conclusion that if I just occasionally end up in the situation where I'm not worth listening to, it will be all too easy for people to generalize that I am not worth listening to at all.
And then it struck me in its simplicity; one of these every day revelations which I sometimes experience: this is most likely obvious to the world, but I still feel a need to disclose it, as I find it so universally valid: when communicating, one should confine oneself to expressing things that can stand a very simple test: would I find this interesting if the roles were reversed, and someone else said it to me?
I think that if in general, we use this - let's call it a mirror principle, eventhough I know that Peter Drucker proposed such one has long ago - silence would be much more prevalent in the world, and what was said would be of a higher quality.
Paradoxically - it's probably so obvious to everyone that merely by discussing the principle, I myself violate it.
(Translated from En formel for stilhed, originally published September 9, 2013)

Who are we?

The headline became a bit more catchy than it ought to have been - it should rather have been "Who are 'we'?", as it is a question of correct language rather than of actual identity, I want to touch upon. But the headline still reflects the almost existential doubt that caused it in the first place.
I think most people have experienced it: standing in a situation where someone presents a message to them, repeatedly using the word "we" in the flow of words.
And then the uncomfortable doubt rises: who are "we" after all?
Could it be everyone assembled?
Could it - as it is often heard in a work context - be the entire company? the entire department? the entire company and its partners? Or maybe just the person talking and the person listening? Not to mention the really uncomfortable situations where the listener has to ask herself the question "Who are 'you'?" - because the listener does not feel included in the "we" at all.
Some might find that if people can ask this type of question, it is because they do not get the big picture. But communication problems should be resolved just as must by adjustments in the speaker as by adjustments in the listener.
(Translated from Hvem er vi?, originally published February 13, 2014)

Leaders and leadership - where's the connection?

Once again, I had the pleasure to visit TED.com to listen to a presentation - this time, it was Simon Sinek, author of the books "Start With Why" and "Leaders Eat Last". In the presentation, he tells us abour leaders, and leadership in general:
In the presentation, Sinek draws the following conclusion, which i find immensely interesting.

Leaders hold a position of power or authority, but those who lead inspire us. Whether they're individuals or organizations, we follow those who lead, not because we have to, but because we want to.

- in other words: if one claims to be a leader, it does not necessarily have any connection to whether or not one is able to exhibit leadership abilities - as we do not follow leaders because we are told that they are leaders, but rather because we want to follow them. And it is the leadership rather than the title that is important.
Maybe more leaders should take this into consideration?
(Translated from Hvad har ledere med lederskab at gøre?, originally published February 28, 2016)

Promises made to readers

Image courtesy of pixabay / MiraDeShazer

I saw a very interesting video the other day, where professor Adam Grant visits author Daniel Pink in the latter's backyard, and they speak on the topic of "writing books". A particularly exciting sequence comes towards the end, where Daniel Pink talks about an editor who had commented a passage of 4-5,000 words that do not quite work, by asking Pink consider what promise he actually makes to his readers.
And then it becomes interesting how Pink reflects on the question:

I'm asking the reader to say: oh, no matter, what you are doing in your life, just stop. Please stop, spend how ever long it takes, 20 minutes, half an hour, with me, because it is more important than anything else you're doing - more important than doing your work, more important than exercising, more important than spending time with your family - just spend that time with me, and it will be a better use of your time. And you're like "whoa, wait a second, I'm actually making the promise that that's the case, I better deliver on that promise."

It is very beautifully and accurately put. Because that's what it's all about: in this world where time is often regarded as our most precious resource, we are wasting people's resources if we make them read something for a span of time they could have used for something better.

It is one thing that all those of us who carry an unhatched author inside, should think carefully about.
As well as, for that matter, something that one as a blogger should keep in mind. If we haven't got something important to say, we should remain silent. Alternatively refrain from wondering why no one reads what we write.
(Translated from Løftet til læserne)

Choose Must, Originals!

I have recently held two fascinating books in my hands: Elle Luna's "The Crossroads of Should and Must" and Adam Grants "Originals".

 
And eventhough I have not yet finished reading Originals, I can tell that central to both books is the idea of ​​doing something original, and how one does not have to throw everything overboard and puts one's standard of living at risk simply because there is something that one feels one must do - there is nothing wrong in abstaining from throwing everything overboard and burning all bridges in the process just because of an urge to live out an original idea - still, there are enough available hours every day to do things like that.
And hence, I became fascinated by the thought: "Gee, if I do not have to give up my standard of living, my daytime job and my way of life to do something original - why must I have to do it for an original idea that I can earn money from? Why don't I simply find something other people could enjoy and benefit from, now that I do not have to worry about the money, it might bring?
It is a tempting thought indeed - and the very moment you have accepted it, it sets you off on creative thinking about the best ways to do something that other people can enjoy and benefit from - not just what everyone else do, but something original, exiting and challenging? Or, combining the words of the two authors who inspired me, into the summoning I felt: Choose Must, Originals!
It is a path that I have only just begun to tread, and most likely I will become increasingly inspired while reading Originals. But already I feel a deep sense of gratitude towards Adam Grant and Elle Luna for having inspired the thought in me. And if more people joins in, this might become a revelation in the service of the common good.
(Translated from Overskriften, der ikke ville oversættes)

On the topic of (lack of) focus

Following a recent post, I came to think of a Calvin and Hobbes strip, an old colleague had pasted up on a kitchen cupboard - a strip in which the conclusion is the following one-liner from the mouth of Calvin: "Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!"
I am afraid that we modern people have become so focused in our search of euphoria that we cannot hear happiness when it comes knocking on our door. That we have become too focused on how much more that could be poured into the glass of our life that we do not recognize that it is well above half way full. And that we have become too focused on pouring into our own glass without regards to the fact that what we have to fill it with is also important for others' attempts to fill their glasses. And we have thereby become too bad to focus on what is really important.
Now, fortunately, our deceased ancestors are not here to look at us. Because I am really afraid that they would be disappointed to see how we handle glasses, which already contain much more than what would have filled their glasses far beyond spilling over the edge.
(Translated from Noget om (manglende) fokus, originally published March 27, 2016)

On the topic of the least worst alternatives

Once upon a time, I had a colleague - he was British, married to a Finn, living in Denmark, and frequently complained about various things he found wrong in this country.
At one time, we other colleagues (of different nationalities, incidentally, but that's a parenthetical remark) had enough of it. We asked him why he actually stayed in Denmark, now that there was so much obviously rotten in the Danish system.
His answer was brief and to the point: because Denmark was "the least worst country to live in". But he found that this should by no means make him refrain from pointing out what could be improved and how.
I am afraid that one thing, which we have far too little of in the world at the moment, is people able to appreciate "the least worst alternative". Too many are too busy protesting to appreciate what they have, or to at least try to put up a qualified alternative to what they are protesting against. Too much is purely destructive protest and anyone trying constructively to put into words how to make the best of the existing, or to put forth alternatives, fall an easy prey to the voice in the street and the social media, to click-baiting debaters, and to journalists who knows all too well how to maximize their audiences.
I recently read a piece by the American journalist Anne Applebaum on how we have enjoyed half a century of political stability, prosperity and freedom - and on how all this is something we take for granted until it's gone.
Regrettably, it is a thought-provoking dystopia, Applebaum draws up ... but to make the best of it, I hope it will actually provoke a lot of thought.
(Translated from Noget om de mindst ringe alternativer, originally published March 23, 2016)

What can I do for you today?

When this post was originally written, I had recently written about psychopathy and management in a way that would make would think I experienced it on a daily basis, despite the fact that this is not the case. So therefore I found it appropriate to provide an example of the opposite; the best CEO I have ever met and had the pleasure to work for.
He was brought into a company in which I was then employed, with what was later understood as the agenda to sell the business to the highest bidder. He was presented to the rest of the company in an information meeting called for in a flash - and the meeting started with this one strange man going around to all the staff, greeting and shaking hands with all hands. After this he told us who he was, a little about his history, and what he stood for - ending up in the mantra:

What can I do for you today? 

And actually, he succeeded - by taking the first step and practicing his mantra, by highlighting that management did whatever it could for the employees, as far as it was within his power - to make practically the entire company operate in the same way; to meet each other in the offices with a spirit of "what can I do for you today?"
And finally - when the company actually found a buyer, and probably about one-sixth of the company's employees refused to sign a new contract that gave the new owner the intellectual property rights to virtually any idea that the employees would to get at work or in the leisure time, awake or asleep, it was he - personally - who were able to make ends meet. Because everyone knew he was a man whose word was to be trusted.
If anything, there is certainly a phrase that I have brought with me from there to remember to this very day. It may well happen that I do not often speak it out verbatim. But I try my best to live the spirit of it.
(Translated from Hvad kan jeg gøre for dig i dag?, originally published September 16, 2010)

On the topic of changing the game

The other day I read an interesting article by Shane Snow on "best practices" - how it represents one of the universal solutions of today: to search for particular best practices within one's industry in order to achieve excellent results. But Snow's point is actually thought provoking - as Snow puts it:

Best practices don’t make you the best. They make you the average of everyone else who follows them.

It is actually in line with the Muriel Strode quote that I took into account when arguing against copying the achievements of great people. If you walk in the footsteps of others; if you follow other people's best practices, or for that matter: if you copy the acheivements of great people - you will never become the person whose feet leave the footprints, never become the one who sets best practices; or the great person, whose achievements other people dream of copying - you just become someone who follows.
Whereas the one who tries to innovate and solve problems, which were never resolved before, puts oneself in the position, on which Snow says, "it's the way games get changed instead of simply played".
 And that would probably be the position which you would like the most, if you had the choice?
(Translated from Noget om at ændre spillet, originally published March 19, 2016)

Do not copy the achievements of great people

It is my pleasure to pick up a quotation, which I originally thought was by the American writer Ralph Waldo Emerson, but actually seems to originate from the poet Muriel Strode:

I will not follow where the path may lead, but I will go where there is no path, and I will leave a trail.

I am especially happy to use the quotation here because it fits so well with a headline, I collected at a lecture on creativity and innovation a number of years ago: "Do not copy the achievements of great people - become great in your own right".
It is so obviously right, when you look at it: if one has the desire to become great, it will actually not happen by following the path of others, copying their great achievements, but rather by following one's own path and discover new ground - and as a matter of fact it is quite possible that even if one has no ambitions to become great, one will becomes one's best self in the happiest way if not following a great role model's beaten path.
It may well happen that it will not be quite as easy - but it has a certain probability to become a more interesting, funnier and more exciting process.
(Translated from Kopier ikke de store, originally published July 23, 2013)

Pings in Translation

Actually, this post originally had the working title: "A quiet life in the Shadows of the Tower of Babel" - as it is concerned with how one has blissfully little exposure to readers if writing a blog in a language that is not widely known outside one's home country.
But it is equally concerned with how I actually find it a bit unfair to the people whose names are occasionally dropped on the blog; that they should be left at the mercy of Google Translate, if they wish to understand what coverage they've had.

Hence I actually pulled myself together to create a blog, In selected cases, I will try to pull myself even more together - and do my best to translate posts from Ping-pong for et nyt årtusinde into English. Either because I want to give people the opportunity to see how they have been referred to, or because I - eventhough rarely - come up with something I could imagine being of interest to someone outside the limited population who understands my native language. Maybe even translate posts, because people express the wish to be capable of reading them. 

Welcome to Pings in Translation, which for once has become more than just another unfulfilled ambition.
(Translated from Turèll-blogmanifest nummer 18, eller: Pings in Translation)