I recently heard an interview with Shane Battier, a former NBA player who is regarded as the No Stats All-Star. After making a name for himself at Duke, including winning a national championship his senior season, he found himself in the NBA, surrounded by the absolute best basketball players in the world. And what he found was that raw talent alone was not going to be enough.

Scared that he was not going to last very long, he started looking for ways to set himself apart, to make himself more valuable to his team. What he found was that there are a lot of little things, important things, that go into making a winning team. Things that are not glamorous or show up on a stat sheet. He focused on and made himself good at these little things. These little things had a great impact on the success of his teams and made him very valuable to those teams. Doing the little things elevated the game of the people around him.

His career lasted more than a decade and culminated in winning two championships with the Miami Heat. A team that had three high profile all-stars--D. Wade, Lebron, and Bosh--but needed somebody to do the little things. Joining the team and doing those little things gave them the boost needed to win championships.

Battier likes to point out that now when people stop him on the street, they don't ask how many points he scored or shots he blocked. They ask about winning championships.

Most of us will never play in the NBA, or for any professional sports team. But success in any endeavor is built upon doing the little things right. In fact, if you're trying to take on a big challenge or make a significant change in your life, you'll most likely need to do a lot of little things to build up to the big goal.

• Looking to improve physical fitness? Park further away so you have to walk more; take the stairs instead of the elevator; get involved in an activity you enjoy like basketball (something you like enough to keep doing). Outside Magazine has a good article on the small steps to big fitness gains.
• What about finances? There are a lot of little ways to spend less and save more. Typically this starts with actually being aware of where your money is going, then making some adjustments to those little things that are adding up (the little things can go both directions). NerdWallet has some good tips about little things you can do save more.
• Related to Battier's time in the NBA is doing the little things at work to make yourself more valuable. Odds are, there are little tasks that people don't like doing. Come up with a system or procedure to make them less intrusive and less annoying.

These are but a few examples; nearly any major success will be built upon a foundation of little things. Get those right and you'll be well on your way to accomplishing big goals.

When in business meetings, especially with executives and business owners, I prefer to talk less and instead listen to what's going on around me. I also don't want to just repeat something that somebody else has said. So when I do speak up, what I have to say is--hopefully--interesting and insightful.

In other words, if I don't think I have something useful/helpful/witty to contribute, I'd rather just stay quiet.

This generally works well, although sitting there not talking much can put some people off (my wife doesn't care much for it).

What doesn't work for me is saying something just to say something. When there's an opening in the conversation that I think I should fill with an insight or joke. When I talk for the sake of talking, when I think I should have something to say even though I don't, what I do say ends up not being very funny or interesting.

Extending to the online world, this makes me bad at Twitter. One look at my account will make it clear that I don't post a lot or engage in many conversations. This holds for other online discussion forums also. Ironic, given that I'm trying to build a community for online discussion.

In other words, it’s a flood of quick responses that often don't fully understand the story. It's the initial reaction to something before there has been time to digest and understand it or investigate further.

Since I don't like to put something out there that's wrong, which of course does happen, I prefer to take the time to read a little further to get more information. Then take some time to stew on that information to come up with my own opinion about the matter.

And by the time I have formulated an opinion and feel like I have something new and interesting to share, there have been a number of additional stories that have jumped to the top of people's feeds. The original one is old news that's been left behind.

This is part of why the Dialoguing Life community was built: to have conversations that are deeper than a hot take. I'm interested in your opinions and how you reached them. How you're effected by a given issue. And why, hopefully, the topics will have longer relevance than the latest headline.

​My challenge, then, is to keep the topics hot enough to keep you interested in talking about them. 

Yesterday, Google announced the Google News Initiative in an effort to promote legitimate news sources and combat fake news. It includes three specific goals:

• highlight accurate journalism while fighting misinformation, particularly during breaking news events
• help news sites continue to grow from a business perspective
• create new tools to help journalists do their jobs

This is important in the current state of affairs, with fake news propagating much faster than real news, and the term "fake news" being thrown at legitimate news that people just don't like.

It got me thinking about news sources, fact checking, and the current state of things. For years, it has been easy to find a source that will "confirm" nearly any opinion, but things have changed recently. Especially in the confusion during the first hours and days of major news stories. A recent encounter on Facebook highlighted concerns related to combating the misinformation pushed by trolls, bots, and those trying to sow discord.

In the wake of the horrible school shooting in Parkland, FL there were a number of dubious claims making the rounds. And then they disappeared. This was part of Facebook's attempt to combat fake news: remove posts promoting/sharing stories from questionable or verifiably false sources. But some people didn't see it that way, and instead saw it as their coming upon the truth that Facebook (or the Deep State or whomever) doesn't want told, and were then silenced.

This leads to two related and important questions:

1. Is there an effective way to "untell" a lie? Many people probably weren't even aware that a number of posts were pulled by Facebook. Having seen them in their feed, the impression was already made. And for those that think there is more to the story, is there a way to convince them that these are in fact false statements? Is there more done to help the situation than simply pulling the posts?
2. On the flip side of this, how much trust should we put in gatekeepers like Facebook, Twitter, and Google? Can we trust that we're getting the full story? This has been an important question asked of the media for decades; it is interesting now that there is no shortage of news sources and, in fact, it's the deluge of more and more sources--real and fake--that have become so difficult to sift through. Google's News Initiative sounds fantastic, but what happens when integrity becomes unprofitable?

There isn't an easy answer, so it's important to keep a healthy sense of skepticism and try to get information from more than one source. For what it's worth, here are my general tools for staying informed:

1. Google News as a quick overview of what's going on.
   1. It has nice functionality of showing other sources for a story, so you can compare articles or at least headlines.
2. A couple of paid-for newspapers that I trust. Well, the online/app versions of them.
3. Twitter, specifically to expose myself to different viewpoints, to see how other groups view the day's top stories.
   1. I try to keep a healthy mix of reputable journalists, politicians, etc. If interested in who I follow, check out @DialoguingLife
4. I also try to take the time to review news sources that come from a different worldview than my normal sources or self. In particular, I recommend AllSides.com to see how stories are presented from different perspectives.
5. And fact checking is important, though time consuming. Snopes is a decent one. For more serious and detailed checking, I recommend FactCheck.org.

​So what about you? How do you stay informed? Use the poll here and sound off in the comments.

​This is a man revered for his brilliant mind. But without these advances in technology, how much of that brilliance would have remained trapped in his head? The fact that he was able to collaborate on groundbreaking scientific research, give lectures, and write novels is amazing. We are all lucky that he lived at a time that made it possible.
​
Additional information:

• For more details about Professor Hawking's communication tools, including more advances required in the last 5 years of his life, check out this Wired article.
• The voice recognized as Hawking's is the standard voice used in voice synthesis technology and virtually all people that use it sound the same. Recent advances in this technology are enabling people to have their own, unique voices, rather than having to sound like Professor Hawking, as reported by The Guardian.​

​
The other striking element of his remarkable life is his response to the ALS diagnosis. In the early 1960's, Professor Hawking was diagnosed with the disease and given 2 years to live. While I'm sure he went through the normal stages of grief, the end result was motivation. He knew that he had only a short time to live, and there was so much that he wanted to know. The diagnosis drove him accomplish as much as he could with the time he had.

A lot has been said about styles of communication, especially in business. Some people prefer you cut to the chase and get to the point, while others may be offended by that style and would prefer more conversation and small talk as part of a request.

Tied into these communication styles is motivation styles. When discussing an issue, one person may best be motivated by how it affects the rest of the team, while another may be motivated by how much praise or recognition they will receive.

One style isn't necessarily better than the others, they're just different. And when working with other people, especially in a supervisory role, it's important to understand their styles in order to properly communicate with and motivate them. (On a personal note, this was one of the first big lessons I learned as a manger by pissing off one of my team members.)

These topics tend to be covered within the context of business, because different types of people necessarily need to work together. But what about personal relationships?

When discussing an issue with a friend or relative--especially a contentious or politically charged issue--these styles are absolutely still in play. But many of us don't even think about it. The natural, default communication style is based on what would we respond to and are motivated by. The kind of explanation or argument that would go over really well if talking to ourselves. The problem is, that's not who we're talking to and trying to win over. The key is to identify the other person's styles so that the explanation can be framed in a way that resonates with them.

In the wake of yet another American mass shooting, this time at a school in Parkland, FL, I find myself in a painfully familiar place: sad, angry, wanting to do something--anything!--to keep these from happening again. I see all the same talking points regurgitated on social media and the news. And in many ways, I feel helpless. Like many people, I have my own opinions on changes that might mitigate this epidemic in the future.

The problem is that it feels like it's all just shouting into the night. I don't want that, and the purpose of this site is to encourage dialog rather than echoes.

So an important question to ask, then, is how do we even begin this conversation? How do we get the advocates for gun rights to come together with gun control advocates to have meaningful dialog that moves the conversation forward, past the same old shouting points?

I think the first thing is to find the common ground. While it may seem obvious, let's lay it out:

We all want to end the murdering of our precious children.

I think another important starting point is to recognize that this is a complex issue, and most of the ideas about how to fix it are not backed up by research--mine included. This is because there hasn't been a lot of research on the topic since the mid 1990's, when the CDC was effectively prevented from funding gun violence research (Note: this has technically been restored, but the agency has not received money to be used in funding new studies).

As a comparison, the CDC funds research on car safety, which has led to amazing improvements the last couple of decades. Because the people building the cars and setting the policy had actual data to inform their ideas.

Having more information about the topic makes for a better conversation and debate.
​
​So what do you think? What can we do to have actual, constructive conversations about this issue?

We learn life through a series of lessons. Some lessons are unpleasant or genuinely unfair. But whatever the situation, there is a lesson to be learned. Obsessing over the pain makes it impossible to learn the lesson, to grow as a person.

The nature of the hurt can vary from simple to profound, from something seemingly innocuous that just rubs you the wrong way to a bitter divorce to being the victim of a crime. But holding onto that pain gives the other person power over your life. A power you don't want them to have, and they may not even realize (or care) that they possess.

I like to think of resentment with a simple analogy: being cut off in traffic.

To learn and grow, we have to be able to move forward rather than focusing on the past. We have to forgive. To be clear, forgiveness does not mean that what happened is okay. But actively forgiving means making a choice. A choice not to continually obsess over it, to hold onto the pain, to live with perpetual resentment. A choice to move on to better things.

Life's lessons can be painful. After suffering the pain, might as well take something good from the situation. So move on and put those hard earned lessons into practice.



*Some of the ideas here were influenced by this PsychCentral blog about Learning to Let Go of Past Hurts by Dr. John M. Gorohol.

Distractions are easy, to mindlessly scroll a news feed or veg out in front of shows/videos from any number of sources. Sometimes the distraction is a nice escape from a stressful day at the office or preparation for a test. But what about moments of consequence?

Taking time to think and reflect on the bigger things going on in our lives is incredibly important to working through problems and maintaining sanity.

Often, the distractions are used to avoid situations that make us feel uncomfortable and unhappy, whether done consciously or without even realizing it. But it's important to take the time to reflect on something that has happened--or is happening--in order to learn from it. And it's important to feel.

Just finish a track that elicits an emotional reaction? Take a minute or two to feel it before listening to the next track.

Just read a heavy book or article? Allow yourself to sit and reflect, before moving on to the next one.

Upset about a recent breakup or job change? Take some time to reflect. What was good about your time with that person/company? What was bad? What lessons did you learn? Thoughts like this will help you better understand yourself, to figure out what's important to you in a partner/career and even life in general. And can keep you from repeating mistakes made previously.

We learn best through our experiences, which requires taking time for reflection rather than distracting ourselves with all the ways we can consume the world rather than processing our own lives. Or as Dr. Ned Hallowell explains in his Distraction podcast, by not reducing life to soundbites.

With the distractions so easy, as covered in great detail in the New York Times article, here are some ideas about carving out the time to reflect:

• Exercise. I'm partial to running, and can use the time to work through things large and small, from big family decisions to short-term projects that are causing stress. Although I must admit that listening to podcasts while doing so can be a bit distracting.
• Commuting, whether by car, bus, or bike. It's often just you, and a good time to let your thoughts wander.
• Turn off the TV one evening--or video game or whatever screen you use. Use that time to reflect on the big things that are happening or coming up in your life. And if you live with other people, turn it into an evening of conversation.
  • Ideally this will be people you're comfortable opening up to, with whom you can talk about uncomfortable things.
• Go for a walk with your significant other. Whether walking to a bar or just around the neighborhood, it's a great way to make the distractions harder to access and the conversations easier.

This is about living in the moment. About experiencing life. About confronting the things in our lives that cause us pain so that we can learn and grow and move on. Because the next step, after taking the time to reflect, is to move on.

As 2017 draws to a close, I encourage you to reflect on the year that was. The highs, the lows, and the lessons. And then get ready to make 2018 an even better year.

Something odd has happened in our decaying national dialog. Even when people have reason to break their tribal ranks and agree with the "other" side, the rationale and methodology gets called into question. "Why did it take so long?" "But what about that other thing you said?"

Before diving into this a bit deeper, I'd like to repeat a point I strongly agree with. The appropriate reaction in these cases should be "Welcome".

Recently, this came to light with all of the allegations about Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore making sexual advances at underaged girls. Many people on both sides of the aisle expressed their disgust and opinion that, given the severity of those allegations, he is not fit to be a member of the U.S. Senate. And some people that share his party affiliation were especially concerned given their experiences as the fathers of daughters.

The social media cynics brought out their torches to condemn these proclamations, suggesting they ring hollow if they are "only" because of a personal connection to the issue. This occasionally has merit--a governor who is strongly against a given issue and the people it involves, until it turns out his son or daughter is involved. But in this case, there was no "only"--with Twitter's limited characters, there's not much additional context that can be added at all.

This was a very good and rational time to say "welcome".

As the father of daughters myself, here's my take on that kind of reaction:

1. As a person with a good sense of morals and ethics, I find the allegations disgusting.
2. As the father of daughters, I have a more visceral reaction to the situation, and would wish to inflict great physical harm to the man if I ever met him. NOTE: I would not act on this impulse, save for having to defend my daughters (or self) from him.

Things are already so divided, let's not make it worse by cynically rejecting the agreement of somebody we normally disagree with. If, due to the personal connection to an issue, there is consensus, then respond with "welcome".

Last week was Thanksgiving, and it was great to spend some down time relaxing with family. As with many families, we have people of various opinions and persuasions, and my wife was concerned about things getting political and heated since we have both Trump lovers and Trump haters in our clan.

But that didn't happen. For one, the conversations never really veered toward politics (which was nice), but also because we were together in all our humanness. Seeing something outrageous on social media makes it easy to see people as caricatures, with a limited range of thoughts. And potentially a high supply of rage.

Social media tends to highlight complaints. Or at least, those are the posts that seem to garner a lot of attention--no surprise given how contagious complaining can be. Or worse, a meme disparaging people who think differently. (Worse because memes generally don't encourage conversation, but rather signal "I'm right, you're dumb.")

Something I've noticed lately is that a lot of people on opposing sides of the political divide make similar complaints…about the other side. I'll keep it brief, and hopefully not too inflamed, with a few examples:

1. "They completely disregard the constitution!"
   1. From the conservative side, this tends to be lobbed at liberals in response to 2nd amendment debates.
   2. The liberal side will direct this at conservatives about the 1st amendment's separation of church and state.
2. "They're hypocrites!"
   1. The liberal side declares this about small-government conservatives that seem to want to legislate sexuality.
   2. The conservative side declares this about liberals that boast about their open-mindedness, yet declare people who live and think differently as racists and homophobes.
3. Taking the moral high ground, and sick of losing because of it. I find this one the most fascinating, as I hear both sides complain that they take the high ground but just can't compete with the "other side's" shady practices.
   
4. Both sides get annoyed when they feel like the opposing side minimizes and excuses their own transgressions while making a big issues about the "other side's" problems.

As former president George W. Bush recently pointed out

I've seen a lot of #MeToo on my timelines recently. Most of the women I know have posted it, and I know others who could but chose not to. It makes me very sad and very angry. I want to help remove sexual harassment/assault from our society, yet don't feel like there's a lot I can do. Be better aware of myself and the times I've made women feel uncomfortable as a start. But then what?

I strongly agree with the idea of shifting the focus from the victims to the perpetrators. "What was she wearing?" is an asinine cop-out. "Why did he think that was okay?" and "why did he think he could get away with it?" seem much more pertinent. Teaching our girls how to protect themselves is of course important; teaching our boys not to attack women is more relevant to getting rid of the problem. For example, Kenya has had good success teaching their boys to respect women.

Since I don't have sons, I feel confined to focusing on my girls' side of the issue. But my wife pointed out that there is much that I do, on a daily basis, in the example that I set. By treating my girls and wife with respect, showing that they are valued, I set the tone for how they will expect to be treated. I show them the kind of behavior to look for and encourage them not to settle for less.

I think this daily example extends beyond my girls. Kids of family and close friends will see my behavior. So will strangers in a grocery store. Not to mention how I treat the people I encounter in that store, a restaurant, etc. And as any kindergarten teacher can tell you, young kids are always watching and soak up a lot more than you realize. So men, we need to set the tone, showing our boys how to treat women.

And when young men (or not so young men) do despicable things, we need to hold them accountable. Make examples of them to show that we as a society we will not tolerate this behavior. We must also create a supportive environment where victims feel safe coming forward, rather than fearing for their safety and loss of reputation.

This is a problem that permeates our society; we as a society have the ability and obligation to stamp it out.

(Side note: this is a bit of an oversimplification of things. Men are not the only predators and girls not the only victims. And in many abusive situations--especially those allowed to fester--there is a power dynamic in play that makes speaking out very difficult.)

As a moderate that leans left of center, I am only broadly aware of what conservatism really is, as it seems to apply to various aspects of life. I do know it can have different meanings based on context. For example, in Orange County, CA, the emphasis is fiscal conservatism. Within my family it tends to be more religious conservatism.

I had a classmate from Micronesia that told me the conservatives he grew up with were those that wanted to cling to the old ways of bare chests and chilling on the beach. The fully clothed Westerners were the progressives pushing for changes to clothing and work culture.

Across the various types of conservatism, I tend to jokingly think of it as "resistance to change." A recent article by Jonah Goldberg helped put it in perspective for me.

Lost in a lot of the rhetoric and bickering is the fact that much of what we are trying to achieve is quite similar on both sides of the political divide. Where the disagreements lie are in execution: finding the most effective method to reach the goal, or the method that has the least cost (financial or otherwise).

Instead of focusing on and arguing about small details, let's take a step back and speak about the goals that we are trying to reach. This type of communication is important in many aspects of life. For example, as a manager it did not work particularly well for me to speak about a project in terms of how I would complete it. I had talented people on my team who had their own thoughts and methodologies; I needed only to point them toward the proper goal and let them use their ingenuity to get there.

This same approach can be applied to the current list of priorities facing our country and, by extension, our leaders. Let's find the common ground in our goals and then work together to achieve them. There are often multiple paths forward, and getting more people together on the same page means there will be more ideas and more options to reach the end point.

For example: immigration, a topic that has been in the news a lot lately. I think the basic goals would be the similar across the political divide

• We'd like the people who come here to contribute to our economy and pay taxes.
• We want assurances that the people joining us are safe to have around. That is, not violent, or criminals, or bringing in drugs. Spoiler alert: immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans, as explained by the Cato Institute.
• We would like them to "integrate" into our society. What that means will vary, but generally it means something similar to what we want of our own families: to contribute to society and be good members of the community.

With these goals laid out, productive conversations can be held about how to achieve them.  Compromise will be easier when we realize that yes, we are working toward the same objective. There will of course be disagreements about the particulars, but those shouldn't derail the progress we can make toward a common goal.

This is the start of a new online community, Dialoguing Life. The goal of this community is to facilitate dialogue on contentious topics. Topics for which dialoguing--actually exchanging ideas--can be difficult.

It began as a response to the current state of dialogue, which is lacking. Especially on topics that get people riled up. Most of what you'll see on the news or Facebook is people shouting at each other. Trying to win. And not listening.

But dialogue is an exchange of ideas. Sharing your perspective and then listening to the other person's perspective. Dialoguing Life tries to facilitate that kind of back-and-forth. Not to make people agree; there's plenty to disagree about. But to share different perspectives in a way that's respectful even when things get heated.

The podcast will be a way to bring up ideas and share expert perspectives. A way to shed some insight. It will be interviews with people who have some expertise on a topic, like religious leaders discussing their beliefs, feminists sharing their stories, pacifists and gun dealers. Generally these will be one-on-one interviews. Importantly, we'll keep them interesting and engaging. Think Humans of New York meets The Nerdist podcast.

Ideally, even when you disagree with an opinion, you can at least begin to understand the person's perspective, that there is something you can relate to driving it even if you don't end up at the same conclusion.

Disagree with something you hear on the podcast? Come talk about it. Have something to say? Jump in and make your voice heard.
​
This site is about you, members of the Dialoguing Life community. You who share ideas and introduce new topics of conversation. And I'm excited to see what you have to say.