Perhaps one of the most insightful questions that can be made. This simple question tells what a person’s ambitions are, how much self-confidence they possess, what they believe is important in life, and what they think they can achieve. Its open-ended nature evokes a litany of possible responses. From someone who believes they will be a great mother, to someone else who believes they are the next Steve Jobs.

The interesting thing to look at is how the response is worded. When a person crosses over from what they “will” do to what they “want” to do, that is a good indication at the line in which a person really believes they will achieve in their life. As one of my esteemed colleagues pointed out, the delta between the “will” and the “want” is your potential.

So, if I were asked if I’d be great, I’d respond: I believe I will be a great innovator and pioneer of technology. I will start a number of successful businesses, and at least one will be a fortune 500 company. I want to be considered a peer of Steve Jobs, Larry Page, and possibly even Bill Gates.

I finished my week of “business immersion” for Business school, and I must admit, I was blown away at the caliber of the professors we have and the material covered.

One of my favorites sessions was on effective communication by John Daly. What the professor does, is to go around and talk to very successful business people and find out what some of the small things that they do to be successful. There were some simple things, like never take a new position where the previous person did an outstanding job, or leaders identify problems, not solutions. However, the best tip he gave us was from a story that happened to him.

John was talking with an executive one afternoon over coffee. They talked for a few hours, and on a tangent, the exective mentioned that he thought his niece had one of John’s classes, and she really enjoyed it. He said he’d double check for him. They continued to talk for a few more hours before they parted ways.

The next day the professor got a handwritten letter from the executive saying how much he enjoyed their chat and in the p.s., he said that his niece did have his class, and that she really enjoyed it. John looked at the p.s., and had no idea what he was referring to. He brushed it off and went about his day. A few hours later, it occurred to him that the p.s. was in reference to something they talked about in the middle of their long conversation. He picked up the phone, and called the executive. John thanked the executive for the letter, and asked him how he remembered that small 2-second aside about his niece in their 5 hour conversation. The executive replied, “John, you remember when you asked me what helps lead to success. Well, it’s not keeping the big commitments that build people’s trust in you, because they have to keep them regardless. It’s the little commitments, the ones that the other person may not even remember making that truly build trust in a relationship.”

The big takeaway from this class is, it’s not just the big things that make someone successful, it’s all the little things that really count.

I just got back from vacation in Cozumel. The vacation was much needed and I feel 100x better. A full tank is going to be needed as this is going to be a very hectic month.

One of the things I noticed is how slow life moves there. With the exception of the taxi cab drivers, people were content in just hanging out staring at the ocean.

An interesting fact I learned was that up to a few years ago, the Mayan people were isolated and had no concept of money. They just had to worry about finding their next meal. They also had the lowest rate of heart disease in the country. Now, they are starting to be concerned with things such as buying cars and luxury items. They have already started seeing a rise in heart disease.

Steve Jobs gave an excellent commencement speech where he said something that made an impression on me:

I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: “If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?” And whenever the answer has been “No” for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.

Is there any better barometer of when it’s time to change?

Even though when I look in the mirror, I do not say “No” too often, I know that I will not be a programmer all of my life. One reason is due to the commoditization of developers, the other is the desire to have more than IBM (or any company) can offer even the best of developers.

I am not sure if the reason why I do not say “No” more often is due to knowing that I am working towards my long-term goals via MBA school, or if I know that I need to enjoy this stage of my life as a programmer since it will not last forever.

As I walk down the streets of Barcelona, I see another poster of Vin Diesel, a Starbucks on every corner, and that Britney Spears has a new perfume. With so much of the United States culture being adapted in the world, I was left pondering what was the cause of this effect? Was it companies wanting to globalize and increase their market size, or is it the cultural elitist who believe that the western culture is to be desired?

I believe it is the synergy between the two. Because many foreigners looked to the United States as a land of opportunity, the western life and culture is appealing. Companies recognize that appeal, and market towards it.

There is one major industry that contributes more towards the Americanization than any other, named Hollywood. They sensationalizes western culture through their barrage of films. With the constant exposure of the west, there is no wonder what kind of affect there is on international culture. The cultural elite iconify this glorified view of the United States (Note: most Americans iconify hollywood as well, but that’s another blog)

As much as I agree with capitalism, I believe its affect on culture is a detriment to the world. One of the great things about diverse cultures is all of the different viewpoints. If the whole world had the same view, creativity would be stifled and new solutions to problems would never be created.

How can one person see only the good in an individual, and then someone else can look at that same individual and see only the bad? I would argue that the person seeing the good is looking for everything good in their life, while the person who sees the bad is looking for everything that can harm them in their life. A person finds what they’re looking for. All the subtle aspects of a person are amplified when they are being looked for.

I believe this applies to all facets of life, from family, to work, to society. For example, in a good marriage gone bad, I believe that the couples will slowly transition from seeing all the good in their spouse, to only seeing the aspects that bother them. They will no longer see the attempts to appease the other, or if they do, they no longer put stock in those actions. Impromptu flowers from a husband make one wife suspicious of some wrong-doing, while another wife sees them as a thoughtful gesture.

So am I saying that all a person has to do is look for happiness in their life and they will find it? I would say “yes”! However, it may not be that simple. There is usually a deep-rooted reasoning behind what an individual looks for. If a person has been hurt or abused in the past, they will be looking for indicators of the hurt in their life, so they know what to avoid. However by doing so, they will miss all of the happiness in their life.

“Never be content.” It’s simple, but has a deep meaning for myself. Many of us get in a comfort zone that we do not want to leave. Just look around your office, your home, or society, and you’ll see that many people are content with where they are, or what they have achieved. So many are happy to rest on their laurels. Once a person is content, they cease to grow as a person.

I think there are a number of reasons a persons becomes content. The biggest reason is a fear of taking that next step in reaching the next level. They are scared to take a leap and the possibility of failing that comes with it. One of my favorite quotes is from Micheal Jordan:

I’ve failed over and over and over again in my life and that is why I succeed.

A person learns the most from failures. All great success have failed in their life. For example, Donald Trump’s brush with bankruptcy, or Richard Branson’s attempts at launching Virgin Cola. If you never fail, you will never succeed.

I feel that deciding to not to be content is the biggest step an individual can make towards success. Dan Kennedy wrote:

Every successful achievement begins with a decision. Most unsuccessful lives are conspicuously absent of decision.

Never being content reminds me everyday that I need to make decision and is what keeps pushing me just beyond what I think I can handle.

Just returning from Mardi Gras on Bourbon Street I found myself wondering if the girls flashing is a zero-sum game?

Does the amount of respect the girl loses for herself outweigh the enjoyment of the crowd? I would say that the amount of respect loss is proportional to the number of people watching. I know that it was not as exciting to see a girl flash if you knew that she was doing it all the time, or that it meant nothing to her (eg Her flashing was not causing her to lose respect for herself anymore).

Don’t get me wrong, I still enjoyed watching girls flash. :) But then again I still felt proud of a girl when she did not succumb to the pressure, nor used plastic beads to rationalize it because she truly did not want to.

From my personal observations, it seems there are at least two factors that will determine a person’s humility. I believe the two factors both play against a person’s ego to bring that person’s ego to a stable level. The stable ego level is what I call the point where a person feels good about themselves.

1. Relative social ranking

The first one is the perceived social ranking of a person to the public around them. For example, if a person might be more modest about their academic achievements around someone they know to be in Mensa for fear that what they prided themself on will be unsubstantial in the eyes of a Mensa scholar. Thus causing a blow to that person’s ego.

However, on the flipside, if a person feels that their work is highly regarded in the eyes of the party that surrounds them, then they will be accustomed to talking more about it to strengthen their ego.

2. Current Ego level

The second factor that determines someones humility is their current ego level. Someone who is self-confident and ego is above the “stable ego level” does not need to brag to make themselves feel better and thus the person will be more humble about their achievements. They will strengthen their ego even more by _not_ bragging. By playing back into the first factor of humility, a person will not brag because they feel like they’re the “Mensa person”. By not bragging they feel like the highest member in the social group.

If a person’s ego is below the “stable ego level”, then they will be more likely to not be humble to bring their ego up.

At first these two factors may seem contradictory. However, I feel that they are dependent on a person’s current ego level. I think the first factor is for people’s ego levels that are below what I call the “stable ego level”. The second factor is dependent on where their ego level is.

Disclaimer: These theories are based on my own personal observations of how I think, and what I see from the people in my life. I do not have any scientific data.

I just finished reading Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. Crichton talks about the “politico-legal-media complex” or “P.L.M.” The idea is that politicians, lawyers and the media work in conjunction to create a “state of fear” that feeds their business. As explained in the book:

“Politicians need fears to control the population. Lawyers need dangers to litigate, and make money. The media need scare stories to capture an audience. Together, these three estates are so compelling that they can go about their business even if the scare is totally groundless. If it has basis in fact at all.”

He also relates how Universities are the “factories of fear”.

“They invent all the new terrors and all the new social anxieties. … They produce a steady stream of new anxieties, dangers and terrors to be used by politicians, lawyers and reporters.”

While the whole book covers how global warming is one of these fears. He also gives an example of the killer bees from Africa. Today the bees appear to be living just fine in the US.

Crichton gives references about how “crisis” appears in the media far more frequently after the Berlin Wall came down and the official end of the Cold War. He later explains that the PLM uses environmental fears to take the place of the constant fear of nuclear fallout from the Cold War.

While the novel was not my favorite Crichton work, I thought the ideas were fascinating and made me question much of what I see on the media.