These are a super useful trick to increase the chances of action, be it your own others. Essentially, a vague intention of “I plan to do that,” is much less likely to be followed-through on than if you get specific. It takes out the ambiguity of when and where you’ll do something because that’s already decided. For example, asking voters simple questions like how they’ll get to the polling station has been shown to increase turnout on the day. You can use this to your own advantage too — get specific with yourself to help you get things done, be it how and when you’ll workout, or when you’ll study or whatever. Here’s a simple template for implementation intentions you could try: I will [do X] at [time] in [location]. I learned this, and many more tips, from James Clear’s book Atomic Habits, all about how to create good habits and break ones.…These are a super useful trick to increase the chances of action, be it your own others. Essentially, a vague intention of “I plan to do that,” is much less likely to be followed-through on than if you get specific. It takes out the ambiguity of when and where you’ll do something because that’s already decided. For example, asking voters simple questions like how they’ll get to the polling station has been shown to increase turnout on the day. You can use this to your own advantage too — get specific with yourself to help you get things done, be it how and when you’ll workout, or when you’ll study or whatever. Here’s a simple template for implementation intentions you could try: I will [do X] at [time] in [location]. I learned this, and many more tips, from James Clear’s book Atomic Habits, all about how to create good habits and break ones.WWW…
The Doorstep Mile is a brilliant Norwegian concept for how the hardest part of a journey can be just getting out of the door. So, sometimes, as Seth Godin would say, the most important thing is just to start — start small, start now, step by step, day by day, and you can give yourself the chance to make something amazing. Got something you’ve been meaning to start? Maybe today’s the day? When I created this sketch, it was my 104th in consecutive weeks — 2 years of weekly sketches without missing (the power of streaks) — and sketchplanation number 583 in total. And I can tell you that it didn’t start glamorously, and they weren’t high quality or even interesting, but I did start. Sketch by sketch. Week by week. More sketches about starting and getting started.…The Doorstep Mile is a brilliant Norwegian concept for how the hardest part of a journey can be just getting out of the door. So, sometimes, as Seth Godin would say, the most important thing is just to start — start small, start now, step by step, day by day, and you can give yourself the chance to make something amazing. Got something you’ve been meaning to start? Maybe today’s the day? When I created this sketch, it was my 104th in consecutive weeks — 2 years of weekly sketches without missing (the power of streaks) — and sketchplanation number 583 in total. And I can tell you that it didn’t start glamorously, and they weren’t high quality or even interesting, but I did start. Sketch by sketch. Week by week. More sketches about starting and getting started.WWW…
The Fun Scale consists of three types of fun: Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 fun. It shows that not all fun is created equal. Before I heard of the Fun Scale—from my brother, who learned it from a mountain guide—I assumed that fun was all the same. Fun is fun, right? But then, when I first heard about Type I, Type II and Type III fun, I had to admit there was some validity in different types of fun. So, what are the three types of fun in the Fun Scale? The three types of fun Type 1 fun is like eating ice cream or skiing with ski lifts to whisk you back up to the top — you love it while you’re doing it, and when you think back on it, you remember how good it was. Straightforward— sounds like fun. Type 2 fun, on the other hand, is the sort of enjoyment you get from something like running a marathon or climbing a mountain. You often have to admit that it wasn’t necessarily all fun at the time. In fact, it could have been quite hard and might have hurt a bit. But when you look back on it, you often think of it as more fun and fulfilling than the Type I fun. Type 3 fun is usually type 1 or 2 fun that went wrong. Though it was supposed to be fun, things actually got a little hairy – like you got lost, or it got dark, and it got cold, or you had to be rescued — but…it sure makes a great story when you make it back. Summarising the Fun Scale In summary: Type 1 fun is fun when you do it and fun to remember. Type 2 fun is not so fun when you do it, but it is fun in retrospect and is the most fulfilling. And Type 3 fun is not fun in the moment or when you remember it—but it makes the best stories! The Fun Scale is probably my favourite sketch that didn't make it into my new book. If you like this one, you'll love the book Big Ideas Little Pictures. I updated this sketch from the original…The Fun Scale consists of three types of fun: Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 fun. It shows that not all fun is created equal. Before I heard of the Fun Scale—from my brother, who learned it from a mountain guide—I assumed that fun was all the same. Fun is fun, right? But then, when I first heard about Type I, Type II and Type III fun, I had to admit there was some validity in different types of fun. So, what are the three types of fun in the Fun Scale? The three types of fun Type 1 fun is like eating ice cream or skiing with ski lifts to whisk you back up to the top — you love it while you’re doing it, and when you think back on it, you remember how good it was. Straightforward— sounds like fun. Type 2 fun, on the other hand, is the sort of enjoyment you get from something like running a marathon or climbing a mountain. You often have to admit that it wasn’t necessarily all fun at the time. In fact, it could have been quite hard and might have hurt a bit. But when you look back on it, you often think of it as more fun and fulfilling than the Type I fun. Type 3 fun is usually type 1 or 2 fun that went wrong. Though it was supposed to be fun, things actually got a little hairy – like you got lost, or it got dark, and it got cold, or you had to be rescued — but…it sure makes a great story when you make it back. Summarising the Fun Scale In summary: Type 1 fun is fun when you do it and fun to remember. Type 2 fun is not so fun when you do it, but it is fun in retrospect and is the most fulfilling. And Type 3 fun is not fun in the moment or when you remember it—but it makes the best stories! The Fun Scale is probably my favourite sketch that didn't make it into my new book. If you like this one, you'll love the book Big Ideas Little Pictures. I updated this sketch from the originalWWW…
In my everyday life I’d have been hard pushed to put my finger on the difference between accuracy and precision but, in engineering at least, you learn that there is a clear difference between the two. Precision describes how variable an outcome is, or how close repeated measurements or actions are to each other. In contrast, something may be very precise but not be accurate to your intent or to the true value of a thing. That’s accuracy — how close you are to the true or intended value. If you’re hitting near your intended target then you’re accurate. Hmm…one of those things where a sketchplanation works a whole lot better than words. Also see: For the more spiritually inclined: Everything is aiming Or for the more statistically inclined: Measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode), and Common distributions (normal, skewed, pareto) Reliability and validity That accuracy is true to intention and precision true to itself, I learned from Simon Winchester in Exactly: How precision engineers created the Modern World.…In my everyday life I’d have been hard pushed to put my finger on the difference between accuracy and precision but, in engineering at least, you learn that there is a clear difference between the two. Precision describes how variable an outcome is, or how close repeated measurements or actions are to each other. In contrast, something may be very precise but not be accurate to your intent or to the true value of a thing. That’s accuracy — how close you are to the true or intended value. If you’re hitting near your intended target then you’re accurate. Hmm…one of those things where a sketchplanation works a whole lot better than words. Also see: For the more spiritually inclined: Everything is aiming Or for the more statistically inclined: Measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode), and Common distributions (normal, skewed, pareto) Reliability and validity That accuracy is true to intention and precision true to itself, I learned from Simon Winchester in Exactly: How precision engineers created the Modern World.WWW…
The evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar identified that an average person’s social network appeared to follow simple scaling laws from the closest friends — who you would seek personal advice or help from in times of severe emotional and financial distress — through your superfamily (or close friends), to your acquaintances (or clan), whom you might invite to a party, to your most casual friends (or tribe). At each level, the number of people typically increases by about a factor of 3. So you might have 5 close friends, 15 in your super family, about 50 in your clan and about 150 in your tribe. The 150, with some variance, seems to be around the limit for the number of people we can keep track of and reasonably call part of our social network and maintain as a cohesive group. Partly perhaps due to limits of our memories and also to the effort it takes to maintain the relationships. There are many instances of the ~150 in action, for example, in challenges of transitioning companies as you exceed 150 employees while maintaining cohesiveness, the size of Neolithic farming communities and the basic unit size of Roman armies. The number is actually 148, but 150 is catchier and seems fine between friends.…The evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar identified that an average person’s social network appeared to follow simple scaling laws from the closest friends — who you would seek personal advice or help from in times of severe emotional and financial distress — through your superfamily (or close friends), to your acquaintances (or clan), whom you might invite to a party, to your most casual friends (or tribe). At each level, the number of people typically increases by about a factor of 3. So you might have 5 close friends, 15 in your super family, about 50 in your clan and about 150 in your tribe. The 150, with some variance, seems to be around the limit for the number of people we can keep track of and reasonably call part of our social network and maintain as a cohesive group. Partly perhaps due to limits of our memories and also to the effort it takes to maintain the relationships. There are many instances of the ~150 in action, for example, in challenges of transitioning companies as you exceed 150 employees while maintaining cohesiveness, the size of Neolithic farming communities and the basic unit size of Roman armies. The number is actually 148, but 150 is catchier and seems fine between friends.WWW…
Since I learned this remarkable trick I actually find I quite like getting a wobbly table for the chance to retest this simple, and still kind of remarkable, fix. A number of smart people have spent probably more time than justified demonstrating that, for a four-legged table with even length legs on uneven ground, as long as the ground is not excessively bumpy you’ll be able to fix your wobble by rotating the table up to ¼ turn. Now, it’s definitely true, that if you have a square table, not a round one, or, say, two square tables next to each other, it’s not always possible to start rearranging the café, but…when you can it’s really neat to see it work. Give it a try. HT: Iqbal Gandham…Since I learned this remarkable trick I actually find I quite like getting a wobbly table for the chance to retest this simple, and still kind of remarkable, fix. A number of smart people have spent probably more time than justified demonstrating that, for a four-legged table with even length legs on uneven ground, as long as the ground is not excessively bumpy you’ll be able to fix your wobble by rotating the table up to ¼ turn. Now, it’s definitely true, that if you have a square table, not a round one, or, say, two square tables next to each other, it’s not always possible to start rearranging the café, but…when you can it’s really neat to see it work. Give it a try. HT: Iqbal GandhamWWW…
