The Lazy Way to Success

Science of Problem Solving, Day 4: Example of a Fresh View

(4th post in a series)

Viewing a problem from a new perspective may well reveal the solution. Unfortunately, frequently we get locked into one view because that view has been continually reinforced by various institutions that have a vested interest in that viewpoint.

Let me give you an example.

Two years ago, my son was in eighth grade and required to do an original science fair project. He chose something icky involving growing bacteria in Petrie dishes. My creeped-out wife and I tried to dissuade him, but he was adamant, pointing out that this particular project more than satisfied all previously-declared parental criteria – his mom’s (“Absolutely no mice.”) and mine (“Just do something. Anything!”)

Ever the helpful dad, I brought a newspaper article to my son’s attention concerning bacteria. Apparently, hospitals have inadvertently created a dangerous strain of bacteria. These bacteria have learned to survive in spite of all the attempts to wipe them out. They are now so tough that even the harshest disinfectants and antibiotics can’t kill them. And that has become a huge problem for hospitals. In effect, the hospitals, in trying to be super-clean, have created a new enemy – super-bacteria – and infections caused by them have no known cure.

Something is obviously wrong. Perhaps the flaw resides in the way we look for a solution in the first place. Here we have a problem and our immediate (and perhaps only) instinct is to attack that which is causing the problem. Bacteria cause infections. Therefore the solution is obvious – kill the bacteria. Right?

But if bacteria have proven they can adapt and be able to survive all manners of disinfectants and antibiotics, then we will continually need to come up with stronger and stronger poisons. It won’t end. The trouble with that is, those increasingly strong poisons are certain to have a deleterious effect on the environment. Plus, your poison may kill the bacteria but it may also kill your patient.

After a certain amount of reflection on this dilemma, my then 14-year old son remarked, “Instead of inventing stronger disinfectants and antibiotics, why not focus our efforts on strengthening our immune systems?”

I thought it was a brilliantly insightful comment. Needless to say, the mainstream medical establishment and the pharmaceutical industry are so invested into attacking the problem that they cannot afford for a second to think in a new way. But frankly my son probably has the right approach.

 Stay tuned. Tomorrow I’ll add another point or two.

www.lazyway.net

Science of Problem Solving, Day 3: Principle of the Second Element

(This is Part 3 of a series. Please read the previous two posts.)

When we do not know a solution to a problem, in all likelihood we are viewing the problematic situation incorrectly. A better way is to view problems as side-effects of a lack of something. Darkness is an absence of light. Hunger is an absence of nourishment. Weakness is the absence of strength. Et cetera.

Now this seems patently obvious when we already know the solution to a problem. However, when most people are confronted with a problem that has no readily apparent solution, they do not view a problem in this way. Instead they attempt to solve the problem, as mentioned yesterday, by attacking it or its symptoms.

When a problem is viewed in terms of lack, then the solution becomes evident. The solution is a second element – something that exists outside the problem. If the problem is darkness, attacking the darkness won’t fix anything. And making a thorough study of darkness will never find the solution either. Since darkness is an absence of light, the solution is the second element – light. Bring the second element and the problem disappears. Bring food and hunger disappears. Bring water and thirst disappears.

On this note, I’ve got to stop as I promised the off-spring that I’d do something with him today. I’ll expand on this logic in my next post.

www.lazyway.net

Science of Problem-Solving, Day 2: Where People Go Wrong

(If you have not read it, the previous post is the introduction to this series.)

When someone does not know a solution to a problem, I’ve observed that his first instinct (and usually his only instinct) is to attack the problem. He will either attack the symptoms of a problem or he will attack the problem directly. This is as effective as attacking darkness.

I believe the first thing to understand as we create a new science of problem solving is: you cannot solve a problem by attacking it or by attacking its symptoms. Attacking a problem wastes time, energy and resources and solves nothing.

If we are having a problem where we already know the solution, we may think we are attacking the problem when we apply the solution. However, there is a vital distinction between attacking a problem and applying a solution.

For example, we all know that the solution to hunger is food. When we are hungry, we eat and the problem disappears. But let’s just say that we didn’t know that food was the solution and we felt hungry, the first tendency would be to attack the symptoms of the hunger – the stomach ache, the headache, the low energy, and the grouchy mood. If you mentioned those symptoms to a doctor who also did not know the cure was food, then he may even prescribe a regime of pills aimed at removing the symptoms. The symptoms could be made to go away but the patient would eventually starve to death. Removing symptoms should not be equated with solving a problem.

So once again, attacking a problem and/or attacking the symptoms of a problem are almost always ineffective answers. Yet this is how most problems are dealt with on an individual level, an institutional level, and a governmental level.  (I'll go deeper in future posts. Right now I am just preparing the ground.)

On my next post, I will discuss how and how not to look at a problem to make finding a solution easier.

www.lazyway.net

A New Science of Problem-Solving. Day One.

We as a human race have had to deal with problems since we first slithered out of the primordial slime. After countless millennia of dealing with innumerable problems, I find it curious that there has not been one philosopher or scientist or mathematician or academic who has analyzed the fundamental reasons why solutions succeed and why failed attempts fail. There certainly has not been a shortage of problems that have been solved and many of those solutions were preceded by scores of attempts that failed. Surely there are some fundamental attributes contained within a solution that were glaringly absent in the failed attempts.

If we had such a fundamental understanding -- an understanding of what makes a solution effective and a failure ineffective, then it stands to reason that when we are confronted with a problem, we would be able to easily determine if a potential solution has a chance of succeeding. Or better yet, we would be able to know where a solution may be found in the first place.

But from what I can see, no one has bothered to identify the fundamental attributes of a solution and the lack of those attributes in a failure. As a result, nobody knows how to solve a problem. In other words, if a solution is not readily known, there is no systematic, scientific, logical approach to solving a problem. Instead, everyone takes a completely random, hit-or-miss (and mostly miss) approach.

Given this enormous void in mankind’s collective knowledge, I thought I’d get the ball rolling, right here, right now, on this humble blog. Over the next several days I will outline what I think are some fundamental elements of a solution versus what is missing in a failed attempt. I will also try to show how these principles are being violated by individuals and/or institutions in their efforts to solve problems thereby creating a bigger mess. My hope is that this modest beginning will turn into a Science or Philosophy of Problem-Solving. If ever our human race needed a new science, this is it.

I also look forward to your feedback.

On my next post, I will discuss people’s first instinct in approaching a problem and how this is almost always ineffective.

www.lazyway.net

Semantics of Hell Describes Heaven

It has been suggested during the Productivity Blog Showdown that the discussion is really a matter of semantic differences. The assertion being that hard work can also be enjoyable.

Here is my response: If you use the phrase “hard work” to cover the waterfront of all possible meanings then the word gets so inflated it becomes meaningless. Nothing of value gets communicated.

We have all heard people say that they are working hard on their golf swing or some other delightful activity. I suppose you could lump coal mining with practicing golf. But, what then is the difference between this hard work and that hard work?

The difference to me is as extreme as black from white. You can point to Heaven and say that it is Hell but that does not make Hell heavenly. You can point to a spiritually uplifting, delightful flight of creative fancy and call it hard work, but that does not make a high stress, tedious, miserable, uncreative, sinew-straining, brain-decaying task blissful.

It is time to refine our vocabularies and use nuance and subtlety to express ourselves, especially if we want to communicate what it actually takes to be successful. Otherwise we can just say, “Work work work work work!” and hope that people understand what you are talking about.

The phrase "hard work" doesn't cut it; it comes with too much other ugly baggage. Let's keep "hard work" in Hell where it belongs. If yo want to be successful you need to engage in heavenly "play."

www.lazyway.net

The Productivity Blog Showdown

Batten the hatches, all you denizens of Blogville. A productivity showdown of Biblical proportions is about to take place between our dashing hero, Captain Lazy, and that scourge of humanity, otherwise known as Hard Work. The fireworks will start on Monday, March 21, 2005 at the well-read blog – Slacker Manager.

Needless to say, I will be the one representing all the pure, holy,and powerful virtues of Laziness. On the other side, defending the indefensible will be Steve Pavlina, renowned success coach who unfortunately goes through life with the tragic flaw of thinking hard work has value.

If you have questions you would like addressed at this cosmic duel, you may post them at Slacker Manager by clicking here. In the meantime, I’m going into intense training to prepare for this event. In other words, I’m retiring to my hammock to watch some of the NCAA basketball tournament.

www.lazyway.net

Newtonian Workaholics versus Quantum Laziness

When most people do less, they accomplish less. When most people do nothing, they accomplish nothing. So from this experience, most people have concluded that to accomplish more they have to do more.

Obviously, this is how workaholics think.

Lazy-aholics, on the other hand, see the world differently. They wisely know there is always an easier way where doing less accomplishes more. Lazy-aholics know the power (and glory) of Quantum Laziness.

From the point of view of Quantum Laziness, success is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to work. That means the less work you do, the greater success you will have. If you want your success to trend toward infinity, then your effort must trend toward zero. The catch is – you have to know how to do less properly. You have to know Quantum Laziness.

I fully realize most people will dismiss this as preposterous. I can only say to these people that if all you’ve ever known is simple counting, then it is difficult to convey to you the awesome power of multiplication.   

(Cue The Lovin’ Spoonful, “I’ll tell you ‘bout the magic and it’ll free your soul, but it’s like tryin’ to tell a stranger about rock ‘n roll.”)

For example, you could spend all day trying to lift a heavy rock. Afterwards, you could justify your existence by feeling proud that you worked long and hard.

If, however, you used a lever, one little flick and the boulder would jump out of the way. In fact, the longer the lever, the less effort you would need to exert. If the lever were long enough, you’d not have to expend any energy at all.

We all frequently hear of using leverage in finance where a little bit of money controls a lot. That same principle of less controlling more can be applied to any human endeavor. If you think like a Quantum Lazyist, you know there is always an easier, faster, cheaper, better, lazier, more powerful way to accomplish a task.

Once again, if you know how to do less properly, success is inversely proportional to work.

Fred Gratzon
www.lazyway.net

Definition of Work

Nothing is really work unless you would rather do something else.
Sir James M. Barrie (author of Peter Pan)

www.lazyway.net

The Value of Laziness

Industrious people create industry.
Lazy people create civilization.
Hideo Nakamura

www.lazyway.net

Carl Sandburg on Child Labor

Of my city the worst that men will ever say is this:
You took little children away from the sun and the dew,
And the glimmers that played in the grass under the great sky,
And the reckless rain; you put them between walls
To work, broken and smothered, for bread and wages,
To eat dust in their throats and die empty-hearted
For a little handful of pay on a few Saturday nights.
Carl Sandburg

Are we not all little children in God's eyes?

www.lazyway.net