I was very entertained when I read a recent blog post complaining about the crappy customer service you get from big internet companies. The writer titled it, "Hey internet giants, you're no longer startups, get some customer service."
http://bit.ly/17LtbMC
I was entertained for two reasons. The first is that it's quite possible for a startup to provide great customer service. JP Etcheber, who runs customer support for us at PBworks, manages to support millions of free users and thousands of corporate customers with a team of three (highly dedicated) people. If you build a good product, and commit to supporting it, even startups can provide good support.
But the other thing that entertains me is the fact that the same people who complain about poor support are the same people who won't pay an extra dime for better support.
Let's say you use Gmail for your email. When something goes wrong, you might curse Google's name. But you're not likely to find a commercial email provider. In fact, there are no commercial email providers! Why? Because we're too damn cheap to pay for what is probably the single most critical online service we have.
Enterprise customers have long understood this; they're willing pay enterprise software vendors because they know that there is a throat to choke. In fact, they know that startups might provide better support--at their scale, a single customer is far more important. It's less likely they'll simply tell a customer to pound sand (which seems to be Google's standard practice).
At one point, I was spending $250K/year with Google, but that wasn't enough to get me a telephone support number. You can bet that a smaller startup would be happy to give you their founder's cell phone for that amount of money!
The fact is, consumers don't value support, which means companies don't bother to provide it. If you want that to change, you need to change your buying habits.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Forget long hours, work intense hours (H/T @rahimthedream @awesomeculture)
When I younger, I prided myself on my tireless work ethic.
When I was in high school, I worked like a maniac to set a meaningless record for earning extra credit in my English classes. Trust me, I was already going to get an A+; all that extra credit was purely for ego purposes.
When I was at Stanford, I found a clever loophole in the registration software that let me take classes for fewer credits than they were worth. As a result, I was able to take the equivalent of 30 units of classes per quarter (the official limit was 20, and you were supposedly only allowed to go over if you applied for a special one-time dispensation). I did this my entire junior year (Stanford fixed the loophole my senior year) in addition to doing improv comedy and working as a peer counselor and writing tutor. I gleefully filled out my paper planner with endless boxes to tick off, and was pleased that I was constantly busy.
When I worked at D. E. Shaw & Co., L.P., I worked 70 hour weeks, and would go into the office on weekends regularly (it helped that it was air conditioned, full of snacks, equipped with high-speed Internet access, and 2 blocks from my apartment). I thrived on praise from my managers.
I mention all this to show that a) I'm not opposed to hard work, and b) that it's possible to work insanely hard for long periods of time without negative consequences.
But, and this is a big but, all this happened before I met my wife. And way before I had my kids. 70 hour weeks worked for me because I enjoyed my work, and because I didn't have anything better to do.
Once I did, I came to realize that while long hours can help your productivity, intense hours are a far better approach.
For far too many, long hours are a cargo cult approach to productivity. Just because you're in your seat, doesn't mean you're productive. The constant Facebooking, tweeting, Instagramming, Tumblring, and other -ings are a continual distraction, as is checking your email.
I learned the power of focus when I was taking care of my kids in my office at work (an unusual but highly educational experience). Whenever Jason or Marissa went down for a nap, I went on a binge of productive work--thrilled to be able to type with both hands on the keyboard and both eyes on the screen. I thought I had been productive during my Stanford and D. E. Shaw days; I had no idea what per-minute productivity was until I became a primary childcare provider!
Working long hours makes people feel productive. But do you know what's even better? Being productive.
P.S. For more on how I keep myself productive, check out my post on the Pomodoro technique:
http://bit.ly/113I6sO
P.P.S. This post was inspired by this Michael Simmons article in Forbes, which quotes my friends Rahim Fazal and Dave Kashen:
http://onforb.es/13wCKbD
When I was in high school, I worked like a maniac to set a meaningless record for earning extra credit in my English classes. Trust me, I was already going to get an A+; all that extra credit was purely for ego purposes.
When I was at Stanford, I found a clever loophole in the registration software that let me take classes for fewer credits than they were worth. As a result, I was able to take the equivalent of 30 units of classes per quarter (the official limit was 20, and you were supposedly only allowed to go over if you applied for a special one-time dispensation). I did this my entire junior year (Stanford fixed the loophole my senior year) in addition to doing improv comedy and working as a peer counselor and writing tutor. I gleefully filled out my paper planner with endless boxes to tick off, and was pleased that I was constantly busy.
When I worked at D. E. Shaw & Co., L.P., I worked 70 hour weeks, and would go into the office on weekends regularly (it helped that it was air conditioned, full of snacks, equipped with high-speed Internet access, and 2 blocks from my apartment). I thrived on praise from my managers.
I mention all this to show that a) I'm not opposed to hard work, and b) that it's possible to work insanely hard for long periods of time without negative consequences.
But, and this is a big but, all this happened before I met my wife. And way before I had my kids. 70 hour weeks worked for me because I enjoyed my work, and because I didn't have anything better to do.
Once I did, I came to realize that while long hours can help your productivity, intense hours are a far better approach.
For far too many, long hours are a cargo cult approach to productivity. Just because you're in your seat, doesn't mean you're productive. The constant Facebooking, tweeting, Instagramming, Tumblring, and other -ings are a continual distraction, as is checking your email.
I learned the power of focus when I was taking care of my kids in my office at work (an unusual but highly educational experience). Whenever Jason or Marissa went down for a nap, I went on a binge of productive work--thrilled to be able to type with both hands on the keyboard and both eyes on the screen. I thought I had been productive during my Stanford and D. E. Shaw days; I had no idea what per-minute productivity was until I became a primary childcare provider!
Working long hours makes people feel productive. But do you know what's even better? Being productive.
P.S. For more on how I keep myself productive, check out my post on the Pomodoro technique:
http://bit.ly/113I6sO
P.P.S. This post was inspired by this Michael Simmons article in Forbes, which quotes my friends Rahim Fazal and Dave Kashen:
http://onforb.es/13wCKbD
Why I hate acquihires (unless I'm doing the selling)
The always insightful Mark Suster recently tackled the subject of acquihires--the practice of large companies buying small startups simply to acquire their people. Mark lays out an excellent argument for why the acquiring companies are actually losing out when they make acquihires:
http://bit.ly/10Cn0WP
But there's an even worse problem--acquihires contribute to the startup industry's problems with truthiness. Every time I see an acquisition announced on TechCrunch, it's full of compliments and congratulations. Yet the simple fact is that unless a price is announced, the acquisition is just an easy way for investors and entrepreneur to sweep failure under the rug.
Many people would be amazed to learn how many "successful" people are actually failures, at least in terms of the return to their investors. But investors have no incentive to disrupt the game--investing in failures hurts your reputation and your fundraising. Better to keep quiet and play along.
The result is that our entire culture is built on evading the truth. We like to criticize the financial services industry for dishonesty, yet we're guilty of much the same.
That being said, I've signed off on a number of acquihires of my portfolio companies--better to get something back, rather than lose all the money. I guess my honesty has a price too!
http://bit.ly/10Cn0WP
"You have been at Google, Salesforce.com, Yahoo! for years. You have worked faithfully. Evenings. Weekends. Year in, year out. You have shipped to hard deadlines. You’ve done the death-march projects. In the trenches. You got the t-shirt. And maybe got called out for valor at a big company gathering. They gave you an extra 2 days of vacation for your hard work.
And that prick sitting in the desk next to you who joined only last week now has $1 million because he built some fancy newsreader that got a lot of press but is going to be shut down anyways.
What kind of message does that send to the party faithful who slave away loyally to hit targets for BigCo?
I’ll tell you what is says.
It says if you want to make “real” money - quit."I couldn't agree more. Acquihires create incentives for a host of undesirable behavior. It's not just the fact that you're encouraging people to quit--it's also that you're sending the message that the hard work of serving customers in a real business--what creates the actual value in the economy--is a job for unambitious suckers. Far better to focus on building sexy demo products and collecting an acquihire bounty.
But there's an even worse problem--acquihires contribute to the startup industry's problems with truthiness. Every time I see an acquisition announced on TechCrunch, it's full of compliments and congratulations. Yet the simple fact is that unless a price is announced, the acquisition is just an easy way for investors and entrepreneur to sweep failure under the rug.
Many people would be amazed to learn how many "successful" people are actually failures, at least in terms of the return to their investors. But investors have no incentive to disrupt the game--investing in failures hurts your reputation and your fundraising. Better to keep quiet and play along.
The result is that our entire culture is built on evading the truth. We like to criticize the financial services industry for dishonesty, yet we're guilty of much the same.
That being said, I've signed off on a number of acquihires of my portfolio companies--better to get something back, rather than lose all the money. I guess my honesty has a price too!
The best way to harvest value is to create it
These days, many people have a negative view of business. Think of Occupy Wall Street, for example. That negative view is even starting to impact the startup world. I'm seeing more stories about how so many startups are creating me-too products that don't solve real problems.
There is a solution to this negative view, and curiously enough, it's also the best road to profits.
I firmly believe that the best way to harvest value is to create it.
And there's even science behind it.
Professor Adam Grant of the Wharton School has a new book out, "Give and Take." Grant's research shows that contrary to our belief that nice guys finish last, the people who focus on giving do better financially than those who focus on taking:
http://bit.ly/10ZjJCs
Economically speaking, it's irrational to reject any offer above $0.00. But subjects consistently reject any offer less than $2.50. We believe in fairness so much, we're willing to hurt ourselves to enforce it.
Occupy Wall Street and startup critics are about fairness. Few begrudged Steve Jobs his wealth because he created even more value for his customers.
Seek first to give (create value) before you take (harvest value).
There is a solution to this negative view, and curiously enough, it's also the best road to profits.
I firmly believe that the best way to harvest value is to create it.
And there's even science behind it.
Professor Adam Grant of the Wharton School has a new book out, "Give and Take." Grant's research shows that contrary to our belief that nice guys finish last, the people who focus on giving do better financially than those who focus on taking:
http://bit.ly/10ZjJCs
The key is that human beings have evolved as social creatures. We aren't purely Homo Economicus, always maximizing for short-term gain. Evolution has shaped us to collaborate with our fellow man--and to punish those who cheat. In lab tests of "The Ultimatum Game," one subject is given $10 and told to offer as much or as little as he wants to the second subject. The second subject then either decides to take the offer or reject it. If he rejects it, both subjects get nothing.
"Grant: In one of my own studies, hundreds of salespeople completed a questionnaire on their commitment to helping coworkers and customers, and I tracked their sales revenue over the course of a year. I found that the most productive salespeople were the “givers”—those who reported the strongest concern for benefiting others from the very beginning of their jobs. They earned the trust of their customers and the support of their coworkers. Similar patterns emerged in a number of other fields, and before long, I had many data points showing that the most successful people in a wide range of jobs are those who focus on contributing to others. The givers often outperform the matchers—those who seek an equal balance of giving and getting—as well as the takers, who aim to get more than they give."
Economically speaking, it's irrational to reject any offer above $0.00. But subjects consistently reject any offer less than $2.50. We believe in fairness so much, we're willing to hurt ourselves to enforce it.
Occupy Wall Street and startup critics are about fairness. Few begrudged Steve Jobs his wealth because he created even more value for his customers.
Seek first to give (create value) before you take (harvest value).
Thursday, May 09, 2013
The Skateboard Test
My friend Jack Herrick told me about an interesting technique he uses to test the character of the people he meets with.
The WikiHow offices are in a nice house just outside downtown Palo Alto. When he meets people in Palo Alto, he skateboards to the meeting and brings the skateboard in with him.
"If they let something as silly as the fact that I ride a skateboard affect how they view me, I don't want to deal with them."
The Skateboard Test is a perfect reflection of the Silicon Valley ethos--we don't care what you look like, or what clothes you wear. If you can build killer product, we want to work with you.
Sadly, I lack any skateboarding skills, so I'll have to leave this test to Jack. What's your skateboard test?
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
The rise of the bros, and the fall of the geeks
One of my favorite movies when I was growing up was the 1984 classic,
"Revenge of the Nerds." If you haven't watched it yet, take two hours
to do so--yes, it's available on Netflix:
The movie really spoke to me--a guy so nerdy that the kids at my private school for gifted children nicknamed me "Encyclopedia Yeh"...when I was in the 3rd grade.
Yet today's viewer would probably find it hard to believe. The'd marvel at the concept of computer programmers and homosexuals being abused and socially shunned. I'm glad that times have changed in the past 30 years, and that we live in a more enlightened society that tries to fight bullying and respects intellect.
At the end of the movie, the protagonists make a moving speech:
Today, "The Big Bang Theory" is the #1 show on TV, and Chris Hardwick has his own talk show. Yet while I'm glad that nerds have a respected place in society, it saddens me to see what we've done with it.
Maybe it's because more recent generations of nerds haven't felt the same persecution, or that geekdom has become cool. Whatever the reason, nerds now act like the bullies that once terrorized them.
Today's startup culture can still be open and inclusive, but it is often closed and cruel as well. "Brogrammers" act like the jocks of yesteryear, privileged and arrogant. Worse, we're so self-righteous that anyone we disagree with suffers the wrath of the Internet mob, without due process or restraint.
Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the wisest man who ever lived, said, "If you want to test a man's character, give him power." We've been tested, and I'm not sure I like the results.
The movie really spoke to me--a guy so nerdy that the kids at my private school for gifted children nicknamed me "Encyclopedia Yeh"...when I was in the 3rd grade.
Yet today's viewer would probably find it hard to believe. The'd marvel at the concept of computer programmers and homosexuals being abused and socially shunned. I'm glad that times have changed in the past 30 years, and that we live in a more enlightened society that tries to fight bullying and respects intellect.
At the end of the movie, the protagonists make a moving speech:
"Gilbert: I just wanted to say that I'm a nerd, and I'm here tonight to stand up for the rights of other nerds. I mean uh, all our lives we've been laughed at and made to feel inferior. And tonight, those bastards, they trashed our house. Why? Because we're smart? Because we look different? Well, we're not. I'm a nerd, and uh, I'm pretty proud of it.
Lewis: Hi, Gilbert. I'm a nerd too. I just found that out tonight. We have news for the beautiful people. There's a lot more of us then there are of you. I know there's alumni here tonight. When you went to Adams you might've been called a spazz, or a dork, or a geek. Any of you that have ever felt stepped on, left out, picked on, put down, whether you think you're a nerd or not, why don't you just come down here and join us."
Today, "The Big Bang Theory" is the #1 show on TV, and Chris Hardwick has his own talk show. Yet while I'm glad that nerds have a respected place in society, it saddens me to see what we've done with it.
Maybe it's because more recent generations of nerds haven't felt the same persecution, or that geekdom has become cool. Whatever the reason, nerds now act like the bullies that once terrorized them.
Today's startup culture can still be open and inclusive, but it is often closed and cruel as well. "Brogrammers" act like the jocks of yesteryear, privileged and arrogant. Worse, we're so self-righteous that anyone we disagree with suffers the wrath of the Internet mob, without due process or restraint.
Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the wisest man who ever lived, said, "If you want to test a man's character, give him power." We've been tested, and I'm not sure I like the results.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Is Fast Food Any Faster Than Cooking At Home?
I recently read an Atlantic Monthly piece on how healthy, affordable fast food could be a boon to women by freeing them from the drudgery of cooking.
The author's point is that if you could buy a healthy dinner for a family of four for less than $24 ($6/person), fast food would actually represent a savings over home-cooking.
On the one hand, as a fast food aficionado (In-N-Out anyone?), I'm intrigued by the idea of healthy fast food.
On the other hand, I wonder if fast food is any faster or cheaper than cooking at home.
The way our family works, I do most of the cooking for the week on Sunday afternoon. I cook or prepare the various dishes so that we can apply the final heating or reheating during the week.
Both Alisha and I work, so on weekdays, I don't start our dinner cooking until after 6 PM, yet we still generally start dinner before 7. And it's not like I'm cooking the entire time; usually, I'm just turning on the oven or taking food I've previously prepared and making it ready for microwaving.
In contrast, getting fast food takes time and gas, which is why we generally do it as a treat for the family, rather than as a necessity.
The best fast food deals we generally go for are Costco's combo pizza ($9.95 before tax, feeds us for two meals) and In-N-Out (about $12 for dinner). When I need to go to places like KFC as a treat, I rarely get out of there for less than $20.
In contrast, all the ingredients we buy each week probably account for less than $200 for the entire family. And the time that I spend cooking on Sundays is probably offset by not having to drive to get fast food.
I'm curious--are we remarkably frugal and unusual? Or is it just that journalists aren't experts on home economics.
The author's point is that if you could buy a healthy dinner for a family of four for less than $24 ($6/person), fast food would actually represent a savings over home-cooking.
On the one hand, as a fast food aficionado (In-N-Out anyone?), I'm intrigued by the idea of healthy fast food.
On the other hand, I wonder if fast food is any faster or cheaper than cooking at home.
The way our family works, I do most of the cooking for the week on Sunday afternoon. I cook or prepare the various dishes so that we can apply the final heating or reheating during the week.
Both Alisha and I work, so on weekdays, I don't start our dinner cooking until after 6 PM, yet we still generally start dinner before 7. And it's not like I'm cooking the entire time; usually, I'm just turning on the oven or taking food I've previously prepared and making it ready for microwaving.
In contrast, getting fast food takes time and gas, which is why we generally do it as a treat for the family, rather than as a necessity.
The best fast food deals we generally go for are Costco's combo pizza ($9.95 before tax, feeds us for two meals) and In-N-Out (about $12 for dinner). When I need to go to places like KFC as a treat, I rarely get out of there for less than $20.
In contrast, all the ingredients we buy each week probably account for less than $200 for the entire family. And the time that I spend cooking on Sundays is probably offset by not having to drive to get fast food.
I'm curious--are we remarkably frugal and unusual? Or is it just that journalists aren't experts on home economics.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Thoughts on the Boston Marathon Bombing
Like most of you, I was shocked by the news of the Boston Marathon bombing. I was glued to Twitter and Google News, checking every five minutes, waiting for each additional bit of news.
Now that nearly 24 hours has passed, I have some thoughts I'd like to share. Unlike most of my writing, this isn't organized around a single theme; rather, it's a series of thoughts that I felt compelled to share. As a writer, my first instinct when dealing with any impactful event is to write; putting words on (virtual) paper helps me channel my energies, even when I feel sad or helpless.
1. The attack was particularly heinous because it targeted families.
I lived in Boston for five years, and the Boston Marathon is an integral part of the city's culture. The Marathon takes place on Patriots' Day, which is one of the seemingly endless array of holidays that are celebrated in Boston and nowhere else. This means that it's a family day--kids aren't in school, and many families throng the marathon course to cheer the runners on. Because of the wretched Boston weather, Patriots' Day also serves as the unofficial start of Spring (and the official start of Spring Break).
Any attack on a civilian population is heinous, but the timing of these attacks were particularly bad; almost like conducting an attack on July 4. At this time, it's not known who is responsible for the bombing or what his/her/their motivations might be, but whoever planned it deliberately set out to harm the innocent and ruin what is one of the happiest days of the year in Boston.
2. Social Media has become an integral part of how I and many other process important events.
I remember hearing about the 9/11 attacks. I was at home, and my mom called and told me to turn on the television. As the events unfolded, my wife and I watched the television with shock and horror. Right after that, the emails and phone calls started coming in.
Without social networks or Twitter, word spread via email. Business school classmates used the class mailing list to report who had and hadn't checked in. My 1st grade teacher actually called my mother to check on me; she was worried I might have been in New York (now that's a caring teacher!).
This time, word spread on Twitter and Facebook. Friends who lived in Boston quickly checked in and wrote that they were safe, reassuring anyone who was concerned. Bits of information were quickly shared on Twitter, as people tried to figure out what was going on.
The entire experience was completely different because information diffusion had become so much faster and more efficient.
One the day after the bombing, I suspect the importance of social media will shift from informational to emotional as we try to process and make sense of the attack. My friend and classmate Lindsey, who lives in Boston with her family, wrote about what it feels like for Bostonians. Her daughter, Grace, ran her first road race on Sunday, on the marathon course.
3. A free society is always vulnerable to acts of evil (and so is an unfree one).
The bombs that killed and injured so many were simple IEDs made out of gunpowder and ball-bearings. They took no particular expertise or resources to assemble.
The Boston Marathon takes place on an open course right in the middle of the city. There's no way to cordon it off, and that's precisely its charm.
Openness and freedom are based on trust, which means that evil men (and women) can abuse that trust.
That being said, even the most autocratic police state would have a hard time preventing someone from making gunpowder. You can't ever be completely safe, no matter how much freedom you're willing to give up.
4. Evil ultimately loses because evil is outnumbered.
Given all the advantages that evil holds, why doesn't it win? Evil loses because evil is outnumbered.
The one good thing about tragedy is that it provides the chance to good to shine. As Mr. Rogers actually did say (Snopes-verified):
Perhaps no one serves as a greater example than Alexander Brian Arredondo. Arredondo, who used to be named Carlos Arredondo, is a quintessential American. He immigrated to the United States from Costa Rica and became an American citizen in 2006.
He's now known as the "cowboy hat guy" who rushed to the scene to help the wounded.
His son, a U.S. Marine, was killed in action in 2004. His other son, devastated by his brother's death, committed suicide in 2011. Arredondo himself tried to kill himself when he learned of his son's death in 2004, but survived and dedicated his life to being a peace activist. He changed his legal name to Alexander Brian in honor of his two sons. He was at the finish line of the Marathon with his wife to wait for the runners from the Run for the Fallen Marine, an organization who runs in honor of those Marines killed in action since the 9/11 attacks.
Here is a man who has already lost a son in the service of his adopted country, and who has sacrificed so much, rushing in, heedless of his own safety, to help injured strangers.
It may be that yesterday's tragedy was the work of a single evil man (or woman). There were hundreds of good men and women who gave freely of themselves to help others. When evil gets you down, remember that we have evil outnumbered, and we will win.
5. Am I helping? Am I hurting? Would I say this if I were in the same room as those affected by the events?
I saw plenty of reflexive comments after the bombing that cynically asked what additional restrictions on freedom might be imposed as a result.
I also saw rancorous debate breaking out on Twitter over whether or not to tweet and retweet reports that hadn't yet been confirmed.
This kind of behavior, while distasteful to me, must be tolerated in a free society. It's not freedom if you're only free to do what others approve.
But before you jump into the fray, I'd just recommend asking yourself, "Am I helping? Am I hurting?" Will your words make something better or bring about a desired action? Whatever you want to say, would you say it to someone who had a loved one injured or killed by the blast?
Plenty of people are willing to use events to grind their favorite axes or advance their pre-existing agenda. Yet I'll bet that few of those people would have the nerve to do so if they were in the same room as those affected by the events.
Here's a tip--if what you're saying would get you beaten to a pulp by the innocent victims involved, it's probably not worth saying (though I will still defend your free speech right to say it).
UPDATE: Great minds think alike. Here's Patton Oswalt's Facebook post, which concludes, "The good outnumber you, and we always will."
Now that nearly 24 hours has passed, I have some thoughts I'd like to share. Unlike most of my writing, this isn't organized around a single theme; rather, it's a series of thoughts that I felt compelled to share. As a writer, my first instinct when dealing with any impactful event is to write; putting words on (virtual) paper helps me channel my energies, even when I feel sad or helpless.
1. The attack was particularly heinous because it targeted families.
I lived in Boston for five years, and the Boston Marathon is an integral part of the city's culture. The Marathon takes place on Patriots' Day, which is one of the seemingly endless array of holidays that are celebrated in Boston and nowhere else. This means that it's a family day--kids aren't in school, and many families throng the marathon course to cheer the runners on. Because of the wretched Boston weather, Patriots' Day also serves as the unofficial start of Spring (and the official start of Spring Break).
Any attack on a civilian population is heinous, but the timing of these attacks were particularly bad; almost like conducting an attack on July 4. At this time, it's not known who is responsible for the bombing or what his/her/their motivations might be, but whoever planned it deliberately set out to harm the innocent and ruin what is one of the happiest days of the year in Boston.
2. Social Media has become an integral part of how I and many other process important events.
I remember hearing about the 9/11 attacks. I was at home, and my mom called and told me to turn on the television. As the events unfolded, my wife and I watched the television with shock and horror. Right after that, the emails and phone calls started coming in.
Without social networks or Twitter, word spread via email. Business school classmates used the class mailing list to report who had and hadn't checked in. My 1st grade teacher actually called my mother to check on me; she was worried I might have been in New York (now that's a caring teacher!).
This time, word spread on Twitter and Facebook. Friends who lived in Boston quickly checked in and wrote that they were safe, reassuring anyone who was concerned. Bits of information were quickly shared on Twitter, as people tried to figure out what was going on.
The entire experience was completely different because information diffusion had become so much faster and more efficient.
One the day after the bombing, I suspect the importance of social media will shift from informational to emotional as we try to process and make sense of the attack. My friend and classmate Lindsey, who lives in Boston with her family, wrote about what it feels like for Bostonians. Her daughter, Grace, ran her first road race on Sunday, on the marathon course.
3. A free society is always vulnerable to acts of evil (and so is an unfree one).
The bombs that killed and injured so many were simple IEDs made out of gunpowder and ball-bearings. They took no particular expertise or resources to assemble.
The Boston Marathon takes place on an open course right in the middle of the city. There's no way to cordon it off, and that's precisely its charm.
Openness and freedom are based on trust, which means that evil men (and women) can abuse that trust.
That being said, even the most autocratic police state would have a hard time preventing someone from making gunpowder. You can't ever be completely safe, no matter how much freedom you're willing to give up.
4. Evil ultimately loses because evil is outnumbered.
Given all the advantages that evil holds, why doesn't it win? Evil loses because evil is outnumbered.
The one good thing about tragedy is that it provides the chance to good to shine. As Mr. Rogers actually did say (Snopes-verified):
There was something else my mother did that I've always remembered: "Always look for the helpers," she'd tell me. "There's always someone who is trying to help." I did, and I came to see that the world is full of doctors and nurses, police and firemen, volunteers, neighbors and friends who are ready to jump in to help when things go wrong.As many noted, as soon as the bombs exploded, there were people running towards the scene to render aid. Soldiers who ran the marathon in full uniform reached the finish line and went to help the wounded. Former New England Patriot player Joe Andruzzi (whose three brothers were firemen who responded to the 9/11 attacks) was photographed carrying victims to safety. Local blood banks had to turn people away because so many (including runners who had just finished the race) wanted to donate blood to help the victims.
Perhaps no one serves as a greater example than Alexander Brian Arredondo. Arredondo, who used to be named Carlos Arredondo, is a quintessential American. He immigrated to the United States from Costa Rica and became an American citizen in 2006.
He's now known as the "cowboy hat guy" who rushed to the scene to help the wounded.
His son, a U.S. Marine, was killed in action in 2004. His other son, devastated by his brother's death, committed suicide in 2011. Arredondo himself tried to kill himself when he learned of his son's death in 2004, but survived and dedicated his life to being a peace activist. He changed his legal name to Alexander Brian in honor of his two sons. He was at the finish line of the Marathon with his wife to wait for the runners from the Run for the Fallen Marine, an organization who runs in honor of those Marines killed in action since the 9/11 attacks.
Here is a man who has already lost a son in the service of his adopted country, and who has sacrificed so much, rushing in, heedless of his own safety, to help injured strangers.
It may be that yesterday's tragedy was the work of a single evil man (or woman). There were hundreds of good men and women who gave freely of themselves to help others. When evil gets you down, remember that we have evil outnumbered, and we will win.
5. Am I helping? Am I hurting? Would I say this if I were in the same room as those affected by the events?
I saw plenty of reflexive comments after the bombing that cynically asked what additional restrictions on freedom might be imposed as a result.
I also saw rancorous debate breaking out on Twitter over whether or not to tweet and retweet reports that hadn't yet been confirmed.
This kind of behavior, while distasteful to me, must be tolerated in a free society. It's not freedom if you're only free to do what others approve.
But before you jump into the fray, I'd just recommend asking yourself, "Am I helping? Am I hurting?" Will your words make something better or bring about a desired action? Whatever you want to say, would you say it to someone who had a loved one injured or killed by the blast?
Plenty of people are willing to use events to grind their favorite axes or advance their pre-existing agenda. Yet I'll bet that few of those people would have the nerve to do so if they were in the same room as those affected by the events.
Here's a tip--if what you're saying would get you beaten to a pulp by the innocent victims involved, it's probably not worth saying (though I will still defend your free speech right to say it).
UPDATE: Great minds think alike. Here's Patton Oswalt's Facebook post, which concludes, "The good outnumber you, and we always will."
Tuesday, April 09, 2013
Faith = Acceptance
I've long been fascinated by religion. The research is clear that religion can have a major impact on happiness and community--one of the reasons that Ben Casnocha and I have always talked about the need for a secular church that can fill that role for secular humanists.
Yet in some ways, belief and atheism aren't that far apart. One of the key benefits of religion is the power of faith to help come to terms with tragic events. Believers often draw comfort from the fact that a loving divinity is guiding events with a larger plan in mind.
Is that so different than a secular acceptance of reality? You don't have to believe in the divine to realize that you can't change the past, and that you have to accept that bad things happen to you and the people you love.
It may be comforting to believe in a loving and all-powerful being that will even up the cosmic balance sheet in the afterlife, but it is also comforting to simply accept what has happened as fact, and stop trying to deny it.
In my own life, I find great comfort in figuring out how to maximize my chances of achieving my objectives, but then letting go of the outcome. Is that faith? Or acceptance?
Yet in some ways, belief and atheism aren't that far apart. One of the key benefits of religion is the power of faith to help come to terms with tragic events. Believers often draw comfort from the fact that a loving divinity is guiding events with a larger plan in mind.
Is that so different than a secular acceptance of reality? You don't have to believe in the divine to realize that you can't change the past, and that you have to accept that bad things happen to you and the people you love.
It may be comforting to believe in a loving and all-powerful being that will even up the cosmic balance sheet in the afterlife, but it is also comforting to simply accept what has happened as fact, and stop trying to deny it.
In my own life, I find great comfort in figuring out how to maximize my chances of achieving my objectives, but then letting go of the outcome. Is that faith? Or acceptance?
Monday, March 25, 2013
Why I Write Essays On Controversial Topics
"While nonviolence only sometimes works in the immediate moment, it always works."
(Michael Nagler)
One of the reasons I wrote my essay on PyCon is because of a young hacker I've worked with. He's a smart, funny, thoughtful person, and he was quite worked up about the PyCon incident. He was convinced that Adria Richards was at fault, and that the community reaction was at least somewhat justified.
That's who I have in mind when I write about controversial topics--someone who is smart and kind, but just happens to hold a different point of view. That's why I take the time to write thorough and nuanced essays, and that's why I do my best to avoid inflammatory language and self-righteous outrage.
After I finished my essay, I emailed him the link.
I saw him today, and the first thing he said was, "I read your essay. I wanted to stay angry, but you were too darn reasonable and logical. Now it's almost like I'm angry because I don't have a good reason to be angry."
That's why I write.
Because I believe that people are capable of deeper understanding and greater compassion, with just a little help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)