Why Must My Interests Define Me?

Image via Wikipedia

I suppose it's the nature of my brain. When some new curiosity pops up, I exert much effort towards thinking it through, finding out more about it. I dive in head-first, and I don't like to be bothered to come back up for air. When, inevitably, something else pops up, my interest drags me away. I'm the guy who's dog is really walking him, instead of the other way around. As the metaphor implies, it feels like I don't really have control.

What's really strange is that, today, it is expected that we form our identity around our interests. I, for one, have a hard time doing this. I change my interests too much.

It bugs me beyond belief when someone I haven't talked to in awhile asks me how x is going, even though x hasn't crossed my mind in two years. How strange that someone's entire mental image of me centers around something that was only a passing curiosity. I can't help but feel that they have no idea who I am.

We're confronted with the challenge of defining ourselves in terms of our curiosities at all turns in life. People ask us: "what do you do?" (or if you're in college: "what's your major?") before they ask anything else. They check out our books, magazines, blogs, facebook "info" pages, groups we're involved with, etc. They attach eternal significance to chance topics of conversation we initiate. They judge us accordingly. Their opinion of our interests becomes their opinion of us.

In truth, I suspect that we are in far less control of our interests than we may believe. I might even say that there are no true interests - only curiosities that have overstayed their natural course, due to convenience or other personal attachments.

In my own life I have noticed that I can be interested in anything, if I find the correct point of entry. Most of the time, we only see the external appearance of a subject, and it doesn't make sense to us, so we dismiss it. There are things that I am not gripped by (chemistry, for instance), but that doesn't mean that I couldn't be gripped by it. All I need is the time and a proper introduction. I think that's all anyone needs.

To be clear, a proper introduction does not mean "Chemistry 101". A proper introduction is more like having a real sense of the unknown, the itch that the subject tries to scratch. Some people are so infectious with their itch, that they give their itch to us. These are what we call good communicators.

People who get you itchy are, and always will be, rare.

The prevailing wisdom of today is that the internet will enable a cornucopia of long-tail tribes to flourish. I doubt the niches will be as charismatic as some would describe. Maybe your business benefits from the capitalist principle of specialization, and you are a peddler of highly-specific-use wares. Maybe there are about 50 others like you, now able to connect for the first time due to the internet.

I don't think a tribe will form around it. Capitalism's long tail of trade vastly outstretches the human talent to get others itchy.

I'm Not As Good As I Used To Be (At Taking Pictures)

I haven't uploaded any pictures to Flickr in a long time. Looking at these old gems makes me jealous of my former self. I cannot produce what I used to.



I recently went on a vacation with family to Colorado, and took a lot of pictures there, so I'm kind of getting back into it. Hopefully there will be more updates here soon on my picture-taking progress.

Desiging A Budget

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I've been thinking about budgeting lately, because the Michigan legislature can't seem to figure out a good way to do it. Every year, they think they have to argue about what to cut, but I think there's a better way.

People and dollars are leaving Michigan, so obviously revenue is shrinking as well. This means that we have to spend less money. It's not partisanship, it's not politics - it's math. I won't even factor in the growing structural deficit that haunts Michigan (it's going to come back to bite us soon).

Yet there seems to be no political will to cut anything. You hear the same line, over and over again: "we've already made sacrifices." Even so, you can't really blame them for being upset. Everyone has their own corner of the universe, and they are more concerned about that than the bigger picture. It's hard to trust someone who is taking away resources from you that "it's really in your best interest." If you add legislators and politicians who have little courage into the mix, you have a recipe for gridlock.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think we're going to have to reinvent the way Michigan budgets. There are other states who have solutions that we should at least be discussing and experimenting with.

One good example is Washington. They have an initiative called "priorities of government" that I think is a pretty innovative way to move towards a more common-sense budgeting process. Instead of taking years past and specific departments of the bureaucracy as a given, they simply start with the priority outcomes that the government is expected to produce.

The process goes something like this:

• Determine what the priorities are
• Figure out how much money you have to work with
• Assemble a team of experts, citizens, and government staff for each priority area
• Give each team a certain amount of money to spend to achieve their priority
• Have an open market of people who make offers to solve part of each priority area
• The teams choose the most effective way to spend money

I should point out that this isn't how Washington makes the real budget. They just use this exercise as a way to give out recommendations that eventually make their way into the real budget.

I would be interested to see what a state could achieve if it actually switched to pure outcomes based budgeting.

Design is the Future of Conservatism

Here's a scenario we can all relate to:

You're trying to learn how to use a new computer program. The box seemed cool, and promised all sorts of awesome features that you knew you couldn't live without. You install the thing, boot it up, and all of a sudden it dawns on you:

The program sucks. Nothing works like it is supposed to, it has buttons and levers all over the place, and you have no clue what any of them do. The whole thing is a big overwhelming mess. To make matters worse, you can't just walk away and use something else, you have no choice in the matter, you have to use this terrible program (for your job or something, I don't know, just go with it for the sake of the metaphor).

If you're like me (or any other human being) this provokes rage and frustration. The thing is just supposed to work. You want it to work and get out of the way.

Funnily enough, I have the same feelings about the DMV. But I don't think it's just a coincidence. I think it's a fundamental truth that we've lost touch with.

No, I don't think Windows Vista and the DMV both sucking are fundamental truths - I think the principles of good design are fundamental truths, and I think good design can make government better just like it could have made Windows Vista better.

I won't explain why this is conservative yet. I think you'll see what I'm talking about as I flesh this idea out. Just remember - less is more.

• Unity refers to a sense that everything in the artwork belongs there, and makes a whole piece. In the context of a nation, this means so many different things at once. Examples include: some common political culture and beliefs, common units of currency, common structural elements of programs (you want it to be flexible and the different parts of government to be able to work with each other, if everyone is using different standards then a lot gets lost in translation), and much more.

• Variety refers to the use of dissimilar elements, which creates interest. Think capitalist division of labor. Think democratic separation of powers. Think diversity - multiple perspectives that help us figure out what ultimately works for everyone.

• Balance refers to a sense that dominant focal points are balanced and don't give a feeling of being pulled too much to any part of the artwork. If you've read the Federalist papers, you already understand what this means for government. Wisdom means finding balance.

• Harmony is achieved through the sensitive balance of variety and unity. Harmony is what emerges from the system when it works right. Harmony is interesting because it's not a concrete thing. Think about it in terms of music - you have multiple notes that are different but are similar enough to work together to make something beautiful. The harmony is somewhere in between. Harmony is the real goal of society.

Those are the crucial principles of design - the absolute basics. Here's the wikipedia page that lists those, and many others that you might enjoy pondering over.

Admittedly, liberalism also takes much inspiration from the principles of design. But I believe in fundamentally sticking to the principles, which is a conservative attitude to have. If you want more examples of conservative design principles, consider these concepts, and reflect on how they apply to government: worse is better, feature creep, mission creep, second-system effect, code bloat, over-engineering, KISS principle, accidental complexity, Pareto principle, Occam's razor, etc

Notice how all those things kind of said the same thing? I think they're all getting at something important. It's better to just keep it simple. But we also should remember Thoreau's advice:

It is not enough to be industrious; so are the ants. What are you industrious about?

Best. Commercial. Ever.

Three reasons this commercial is amazing:

1. It is the best use of kinetic text I've ever seen
2. It doesn't sell a product, it sells a movement
3. It's just true.

Watch it, and let me know if you agree.