www.anotherpatel.com

The world lacks a unified, definitively stated direction. Our policies and goals are fragmented and contradictory. Democrats cannot communicate effectively with Republicans. The Israelis oppose the Arabs. The Irish Catholics clash with Irish Protestants. The Serbs are in constant conflict with Muslims. And worst of all, Paula and Simon are always fighting on American Idol. Everywhere there is interracial and interpersonal disharmony, an inability of parents to communicate with children, labor and management strife, communists differing with capitalists, etc…

Ambiguity may help lawyers, preachers, and politicians, but it doesn’t help with building houses, engineering planes, or performing surgery. For these activities we need the language of science. For communication to improve, we need a language that correlates highly with the environment and human needs. And we have this language in the scientific and technological communities. It is the nearest thing to a universal language that we have. Take this example, if you made a blueprint for a car to several technologically advanced nations in the world, the finished product would be the same in each situation regardless of their political or religious beliefs.

In other words, it is already possible to use a coherent means of communication without ambivalence. If we apply the same methods used in the physical sciences to psychology, sociology, and the humanities, a lot of unnecessary conflict could be resolved. The language of science is relatively free of ambiguities and the conflicts prevalent in our everyday, emotionally-driven language. It is deliberately designed – as opposed to evolving haphazardly through centuries of cultural change – to state problems in terms that are verifiable and readily understood by most.

Without this common descriptive language, we would have been unable to prevent disease, increase crop yields, or create the magical piece of technologically that you are currently using to read this post. Unfortunately the same is not true of conversational language. Attempts to discuss or evaluate newer concepts in social design are greatly limited by our habit of comparing newer concepts to existing systems and beliefs.

In conclusion: I should have listened to my parents when they told me that I must either become an engineer or a doctor. :0)

1. “There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives.” -Audre Lorde

2. “We must not allow ourselves to become like the system we oppose.” -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

3. “When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?” -Eleanor Roosevelt

4. “Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.”- Paulo Freire

5. “People must take a modicum of public responsibility for each other even if they have no ties to each other.” -Jane Jacobs

6. “We have a world to conquer…one person at a time…starting with ourselves.” -Nikki Giovanni

7. “We must use time creatively, and forever realize that the time is always ripe to do right.”- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

8. “It is not enough to be compassionate – you must act.”- His Holiness The Dalai Lama

9. “The people are the only ones capable of transforming society.”- Rigoberta Menchu

10. “Do not wait for extraordinary circumstances to do good; try to use ordinary situations.”- Jean Paul Richter

11. “There will be no Homeland Security until we realize that the entire planet is our homeland. Every sentient being in the world must feel secure.” -John Perkins

12. “Although the world is full of suffering, it is also full of overcoming it.” -Helen Keller

13. “Take your easy tears somewhere else. Tell yourself none of this ever had to happen. And then go make it stop. With whatever breath you have left. Grief is a sword or it is nothing.” -Paul Monette

14. “Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope.” -Reinhold Neibuhr

15. “During times of universal deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” -George Orwell

16. “To be human, at the most profound level, is to encounter honestly the inescapable circumstances that constrain us, yet muster the courage to struggle compassionately for our own unique individualities and for more democratic and free societies.” -Cornel West

Photo: Amor Ministries

17.”If you are trying to transform a brutalized society into one where people can live in dignity and hope, you begin with the empowering of the most powerless. You build from the ground up.” -Adrienne Rich

18. “Wisdom lies neither in fixity nor in change, but in the dialectic between the two.” -Octavio Paz

19. “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.” -Elie Wiesel

20. “The more you move, the stronger you’ll grow….” -Ha Jin

Book smarts. Street smarts. A genius with music. A genius with locating discount grocery store coupons.

Whatever.

There’s a few main areas I’ve personally noticed over the years:

THINKING WHILE OTHER PEOPLE TALK:

Right off the bat, if you’re the kind of person who creates a lot of value by THINKING then it’s probably going to be hard to locate the off-switch.

Learning is an addiction.

Once your brain has been forced into a gear where it’s learning all the time it goes from being tiring and annoying to enlivening and awesome.

You start to see the bigger picture and realize all the potential.

Over the years you become a fiend for more knowledge.

The same goes for analysing information into useable, practical bite-sized chunks.

Analysis is an addiction. So you think and think, and then think and think some more.

The problem is that while other people are talking, what are you doing??

THINKING.

After all, if you’re thinking in terms of big picture concepts then you’re probably holding up all sorts of images in your head and trying to weave them together into something coherent.

Ironically it’s often when you relax for a minute (while listening) that the jumble of information starts to congele into some sort of epiphany.

So you’re listening to somebody and –C-L-I-C-K- you have a realization.

“Wait a sec man…Wait a sec…Did you realize blah blah blah blah blah blah blah…”

The problem here is that it’s always about YOU.

You’re interrupting the other person and they don’t feel like you’re listening to them.

The solution to this one is to make a firm life commitment to “let some of them go” in terms of your ideas.

This was actually a point made to me about five years ago by a buddy of mine.

He told me point blank “Dude you HAVE to decide what’s more important to you. Vocalizing every idea or having people think you’re a cool guy. It’s up to you.”

I said to him “Yeah but my attention span is short. If I don’t get it out I’ll lose it.”

Again he said “It’s up to you man. It’s one or the other. Do what you want but it’s up to you.”

This hit me hard and I never forgot it. From then on whenever anyone spoke I made the choice to listen to them one hundred percent.

The bottom line is that when another person is talking, you have to allow your awareness to be on THEM as opposed to your own train of thought.

If you have a realization while they’re talking you have to accept that you might lose it.

“I might forget this and NEVER get it back. That’s fine. The world will be OK.”

TELLING PEOPLE THAT YOU’VE ALREADY THOUGHT OF THEIR IDEAS:

Next is probably one of the biggest ways that “smart folk” successfully alienate themselves from untold legions of people.

That’s that in all likelihood, you’ve already thought of almost every idea that the majority of people have ever had.

Now of course, that doesn’t mean that you have nothing to learn from people.

It’s just that the average person who is trapped in the day-to-day grind of running the rat race and keeping up with the Jones’ probably hasn’t had a lot of “free time” to consider their ideas under a microscope.

They’re either too busy or too indifferent. They have other priorities.

The result is that when they share with you an idea they’re really proud of, you’ve probably already thought of it, analysed it, and weighed out the pros and cons.

The problem with this is that there’s nothing more obnoxious than when somebody shares an idea and you say “Oh yeah I already thought of that. Have you considered blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah…”

Many years ago I remember there was this guy who worked at the Pita Pit who told me the most genius idea he ever had.

Are you ready for it??

It was to create a website called www.bootycall.com.

He even made me to promise to hold it as a secret so he could make the millions, although I guess I kind of blew that one by posting it here.

Sorry!!

I offered him a litany of good reasons it was a non-practical idea, and as you can expect, he was super appreciate.

Uhhhhhhh, or not.

The issue is that you might think you’re helping the other person but they’ll almost always dislike you for it.

And with good reason.

Most likely they were NOT asking you for your advice. They were just socializing and wanted to get excited about something with you.

Or maybe, just maybe, they want to make their own mistakes?? Ever thought of that one…..SMART GUY??

Instead you’ve got to learn the art of saying “Oh cool man…That sounds awesome.”

This allows people to feel good about themselves, and even cooler, you come across as intelligent automatically because most people care more about being understood than receiving critical feedback.

Obviously there’s cases where people want real feedback, and that’s a matter of common sense.

But you already knew that.

Truth be told you REALLY CAN learn something from everybody. Even people who appear not to be “with it” entirely.

It might not be “analytical” but it can be very practical, and a lot deeper than you would ever expect.

In my opinion it’s the people who realize that they can learn from every single person they meet who are the most intelligent.

GIVING ADVICE TO PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY HAPPY WITH WHERE THEY’RE AT:

Over the years I’d say that the dumbest, most useless thing I’ve ever done is offer advice to people who are perfectly happy with where they’re at.

The key to understand here is that the smarter you are, the more likely you are to be dissatisfied.

Why??

Because you know what your potential is.

You know full well how to make an outstanding life, exactly what it would look like, and the steps involved in building it.

But most people are happy with easier, simpler lives. They appreciate the little things.

It might sound belittling but it’s not.

Having traveled to South America, Asia, and Europe over the past few years, I can say for sure that many people who appreciate the little things have a very DIFFERENT KIND OF INTELLIGENCE than the so called “intelligentsia”.

They’ve learned to love life passionately and gain happiness from the fun they share with people around them. Or maybe from playing soccer or a musical instrument. It doesn’t matter.

That doesn’t mean that you can’t have both an outstanding life and an appreciation for the little things, but many people simply do not need that.

(And trying to convince otherwise them is no different than an advertiser who tries to make you feel incomplete for not owning their product).

Up until about two years ago I would give advice to anyone who I thought could benefit.

Then I started restricting who I would offer advice to, and even actively changing the topic when people asked for it.

From there I picked up the extra slack by “brain-dumping” the people who I care about the most — because I always wanted them up to speed with all the cool stuff I’d figured out.

However I’ve since realized, funny enough as recently as this week, that that is not a good way of relating to them, and in fact it’s even MORE important not to bombard people who are close to me with advice.

It might come from a super positive intention, but it’s not serving the greater good of the relationship.

Here is the rule I’ve since devised.

If you’re talking to somebody in casual conversation, the only time you offer advice is when you say “I could offer some advice if you want.”

That means it’s very specific that you are now “offering advice” and it does three things.

First it’s just a lot more polite in case the person wants to say “Ahhhh actually screw it, I really don’t care that much.”

Second, it confirms that you’re doing the other person a favour, as opposed to being an annoying dude who bombards people with your opinions.

And third, which I think is most important, is that it forces you to be aware of how often you’re giving advice. You can’t very easily say “I can offer you some advice” more than once or at most twice in a conversation, so it pretty much autocorrects the whole tendency.

In fact this rabbit hole also goes deeper than you might have realized.

When you offer too much advice to people you’re close with they may stop taking care of themselves.

They’ll begrudgingly accept your role as the “dad” while simultaneously being somewhat annoyed in circumstances where you haven’t taken care of everything.

You have to let people make their own mistakes.

Chances are that YOU gained your best knowledge through various screw-ups, and you have to give people the gift of making these screw-ups for themselves.

This week I’ve made a firm resolution to offer advice to people only within two contexts.

First is if they make an appointment to ask for it, and second if I’m being paid within a professional context.

Make sense??

Good. I hope you appreciate this advice.

JUDGING PEOPLE BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS INSTEAD OF LETTING THEM LIVE THEIR LIVES:

Hands down, I’d say one of the biggest problems that smart people have with meeting women is that they harbour an arrogance that most girls are simply not on their “level”.

“She’s not smart enough for me…She’s LUCKY I would even talk to her.”

This is 180 degrees different from the playful cockiness that a lot of cool, attractive guys have.

The issue here is a deep seated incongruence between your belief about a woman’s so-called “worth” and the fact that you STILL want to sleep with her.

On one level you’re trying to imagine yourself as being superior. But on another level you feel the desire to be with her.

Maybe she works at a make-up counter and likes to read “US Magazine”. Maybe she actually cares about being trendy and listens to Brittany Spears. But you still want her and it bothers you because on some level a rejection would make you feel de-valued.

The issue here is that there is a difference between an intellectual connection and an emotional/physical connection.

You want a physical connection with her, not an intellectual one. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. They are both absolutely valid.

Your desire for her is because she’s developed a side of her femininity that you find exotic and engaging. As a man, to attract a girl like that, you have to develop your masculinity on a similar level.

The “worth” of a person is not defined by their level of actualization, because that is every person’s personal preference. You might judge a girl negatively for it, but really you are just judging yourself.

And you don’t have to.

Just because you don’t judge somebody else doesn’t mean you give up your own personal standards.

It actually means that you’re smart enough to distinguish the needs of other people from your own.

FAILING TO SEPARATE WORK FROM PLAY:

And the mind goes “Whiiiiiiiirlllllll and whirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrllllll!!”

Vroom, vroom, and more vroom. It just doesn’t want to stop.

And that’s a good thing because it gets you success, while other poor saps languish in a purgatory of mediocrity.

But to have a satisfying and happy life, you have to have firm distinctions between your time for work and your time for play.

Otherwise you wind up like Howard Hughes. Who appears pretty cool in “The Aviator” but is not actually how you want to wind up.

Morning = 20 minutes meditation.

That gets your day off on the right foot.

From there you need firm resolutions that you will NOT violate as to when you’ll let your mind run off in all its crazy, albeit highly productive directions.

If you do your best thinking at night then allocate 8 hours at night to do so. Whatever. All that matters is that work is work, time off is time off.

Force yourself to stick to this.

Punish yourself by NOT writing down your best ideas that you have outside of the work period, otherwise it will never stop.

You’ll work, work, work, and then DIE having done nothing but work.

Not very cool. Or sustainable. Or attractive to girls. AT ALL.

The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but shorter tempers, wider Freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less, we buy more, but enjoy less. We have bigger houses and smaller families, more conveniences, but less time. We have more degrees but less sense, more knowledge, but less judgment, more experts, yet more problems, more medicine, but less wellness.

We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom.

We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.

We’ve learned how to make a living, but not a life. We’ve added years to life not life to years. We’ve been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbor. We conquered outer space but not inner space. We’ve done larger things, but not better things.

We’ve cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We’ve conquered the atom, but not our prejudice. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We’ve learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less.

These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion, big men and small character, steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the days of two incomes but more divorce, fancier houses, but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throwaway morality, one night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer, to quiet, to kill. It is a time when there is much in the showroom window and nothing in the stockroom. A time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just hit delete…

Remember; spend some time with your loved ones, because they are not going to be around forever.

Remember, say a kind word to someone who looks up to you in awe, because that little person soon will grow up and leave your side.

Remember, to give a warm hug to the one next to you, because that is the only treasure you can give with your heart and it doesn’t cost a cent.

Remember, to say, ‘I love you’ to your partner and your loved ones, but most of all mean it. A kiss and an embrace will mend hurt when it comes from deep inside of you.

Remember to hold hands and cherish the moment for someday that person will not be there again.

Give time to love, give time to speak! And give time to share the precious thoughts in your mind.

AND ALWAYS REMEMBER:

Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.

George Carlin

In this collective movement of becoming greener and more environmentally conscious, there has been a great deal of issues. I think one of the biggest issues of this current shift in thinking is misguided direction. I mean, don’t get me wrong, thinking about the environment when making decisions is a great thing. But we must remember that the point is to change the way we interact with the environment, not just to reduce our “footprints.” William McDonough, author of Cradle to Cradle, does a great job of explaining this in his book. He feels that being “less bad” is simply not good enough. And I completely agree with him.

The normal response to industrial destruction has always been to find a “less bad” approach. Here are some words that encompass that strategy: reduce, avoid, minimize, sustain, limit, and halt. These are the terms that have become central to most environmental agendas taken up by industry today. A reduction in our environmental impact is definitely necessary, but it must be clear that this is just a part of a much bigger solution. Mcdonough hits it right on the head when he writes, “recycling is an aspirin, alleviating a rather large collective hangover…overconsumption. Or again when he writes, “The best way to reduce any environmental impact is not to recycle more, but to produce and dispose of less.”

Whether it is a matter of cutting the amount of toxic waste created or the quantity of raw materials used, or the product size itself, reduction itself will never completely halt destruction and depletion. It only serves to slow them down, allowing them to take place in smaller increments over a larger period of time. Recycling is another concept that’s widely misunderstood. Most recycling is actually, in effect, “downcycling”. This means that it reduces the quality of the material over time. A perfect example of this is the high quality steel used in cars. It is “recycled” by melting it down with the other parts, including copper from the cables in the cars and the paint and plastic coatings. These materials lower the steels quality so it will never have the material properties to make new cars again. Besides losing value and materials, downcycling can actually increase harmful contamination of the biosphere as well. The main takeaway here is that just because a product is recycled does not automatically make it good for the environment, especially if these products aren’t being designed for recycling. Taking a blind approach to environmental measures without fully understanding their effect can be no better – and perhaps even worse – than doing nothing.

I am by no means trying to take credit from the “be less bad” movement as it has been vital to sending the message of environmental concern to the public. But there needs to be distinctions and clarifications made. Instead of trying to create a paradigm shift in the way we interact with nature, conventional environmental approaches focus on what not to do. These seem more like tools of guilt management rather than actually change. Humans are the only species that have abused the earth’s resources beyond its means, and so it makes sense that our response is to reduce our footprints: systems, activities, population, etc. This would also be an acceptance that humans are “bad” and that poorly, designed, dishonorable, destructive systems are the best we can do. And this, as Mcdonough states perfectly, is “the ultimate failure of the ‘be less bad’ approach: a failure of imagination. What about an entirely different model? What would it mean to be 100% good?