caveat: zap-o-matic number 23

sometimes i regret having stumbled upon the heading "zap-o-matic" for my radiotherapy session postings. it implies a certain joking trivialization of the process that lacks gravity. on the other hand, the whole situation sometimes strikes me as so absurdly flash gordoneaque that i wanted to capture that, and the moniker seems apt.

i thought of this, this morning, awaking from a dream in which i had been abducted by aliens, who had decided they could "help" me by rearranging my body into a more "optimal" configuration. transparently symbolic, eh?

the thing was, it wasnt at all nightmarish. my dream-self was remarkably blase about the prospect. "have at it," i seemed to be saying. "good luck with that. ive been trying for years. . ." which makes me think of an old talking heads song, "seen and not seen." maybe i will add the link to that when i get home.

[update]

What I'm listening to right now.

Talking Heads, "Seen Or Not Seen."

Lyrics:

He would see faces in movies, on T.V., in magazines, and in books….
He thought that some of these faces might be right for him….
And through the years, by keeping an ideal facial structure fixed in his mind….
Or somewhere in the back of his mind….
That he might, by force of will,
cause his face to approach those of his ideal….
The change would be very subtle….It might take ten years or so….
Gradually his face would change its shape….A more hooked nose…
Wider, thinner lips….Beady eyes….A larger forehead.

He imagined that this was an ability he shared with most other people….
They had also molded their faces according to some ideal….
Maybe they imagined that their new face would better suit their personality….
Or maybe they imagined that their
personality would be forced to change to fit the new appearance….
This is why first impressions are often correct…
Although some people might have made mistakes….
They may have arrived at an appearance that bears no relationship to them….
They may have picked an ideal appearance based on some childish whim,
or momentary impulse….
Some may have gotten halfway there, and then changed their minds.
He wonders if he too might have made a similar mistake

Caveat: Ability without concomitant ambition

So, it’s been a long time since I thought much in this mode, but I ran across something on the Marginal Revolution economics blog that was interesting to me.

There was a time, between about 2004 and 2007, when I was very close to going to business school and getting an MBA. Some people don’t know that about me. I took the GMAT, got a pretty good score (good enough to get unsolicited, pre-filled-out admissions documents from some first rate schools), and I even started the application process.

I was fascinated by the field of project management, and the idea of building teams to solve “business systems problems” such as I’d been involved in with ARAMARK and the IBM and Oracle consulting teams that were working on the comprehensive IT overhaul there (projects that ultimately failed, to the best of my knowledge, and about which I have no small number of strong opinions as to why). Then there was my work later at HealthSmart Pacific and their pharmacy division. I genuinely thought I had the ability – but I had doubts about whether I really had the drive.

“Ability without concomitant ambition” has been my curse (and motto?) since grade school. I wrote exactly that phrase on the cover of a journal I kept in high school – really.

The conclusion, obviously, was that I didn’t go to b-school. I made the decision that what I wanted instead was to follow my heart’s ambition and return to my previous career track, into teaching. Nevertheless, I sometimes think of these “paths not taken.”

This blogpost I ran across referenced, in turn,  a short post at kottke.org which in turn pointed to a powerpoint (posted as PDF) by someone at Stanford. The topic is “getting things done” – but within the Silicon Valley Biz-School “Creative Destruction” discourse paradigm. The Coveyesque title is: “The Five Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done.” As a person who eternally struggles with getting things done, this was immediately interesting me. What do the b-school gurus have to say about it?

Here they are:

1. Personal exceptionalism
2. Dichotomous thinking
3. Correct overgeneralization
4. Blank canvas thinking
5. Schumpeterianism


pictureSchumpeter was (I think – not going to check) the originator of the “creative destruction” idea in economics, as an engine of progress and growth.

Which of those “cognitive distortions” do I have? Should I try to score myself? How do I rate, 0~10, on each of these axes?

1. Personal exceptionalism – only on good days: 4/10
2. Dichotomous thinking – terribly: 10/10
3. Correct overgeneralization – hard to judge, but I’ll say: 7/10
4. Blank canvas thinking: I’m an artist at heart: 8/10
5. Schumpeterianism: this is where I fall down: 1/10? I’m too chicken to “creatively destroy” things. I instinctively lean toward consensus-driven models of work, which, as anyone who’s tried to be a Quaker knows, is nigh impossible. I’m not clear on the theoretical relationship between a consensus model of organizational change and Schumpeter’s concepts (they’re slightly different semantic domains, clearly), but my intuition is that they’re in conflict.

So under this discourse frame, do I have a chance of getting stuff done? I’d say not excellent, but something, anyway.

Something to think about. (Picture at right: Schumpeter.)


What I’m listening to right now.

Fitz and The Tantrums, “Out of My League.”

[daily log: walking, 6 km.]

CaveatDumpTruck Logo

Back to Top