Chris J Wilson

I’m sure the idea existed before but cortex seems to be the chief propagator or the yearly theme idea. The principle: set a word that should direct your year. It can be predictive or aspirational. I’ve done it in the past, but now I feel a bit awkward about the idea. Here’s why.

Many people seem to fail

Perhaps this shouldn’t invalidate the idea but on cortex both Myke and Grey seem to say that they have been unable to meet their themes more than they have achieved them. When two of your key proponents don’t live out the idea, then is it useful?

Too vague

When you set a theme word such as “progress”, then it could mean anything. You’ll start to look at events and force them to fit within your theme. What’s the point in a theme when it could apply to anything?

Too specific

The reverse is setting something so specific it only applies to a few things. In which case, why not set a goal?

Why a yearly theme?

I’ve followed Todd Henry’s practice of setting a word for the week and found that helpful. Yes, it can be guilty of the previous criticisms, but with a week you are reflecting more regularly. An excellent weekly word will be directive or reflective for that week. If you see that a lot is happening this week, you might choose “focus” or “stillness” to either encourage you to get things done or take a much-needed break from the business that is coming. With a years time frame, you can’t possibly know what things will look like in November. Even if you expect the year to be busy, maybe there will be a slow month when your theme is out of place.

But…

At the same time, yearly themes encourage reflection and intention. Neither can be a bad thing. If you find them helpful, then that’s great, but I won’t be spending time thinking of a theme for this year. Perhaps I will next year…we’ll see I guess. (And no, my theme for this year isn’t not having a theme.)

I’ve noticed that a lot of people who are “minimalists” go through a familiar path. They cut back and see significant benefits, then they expand again and need to “rediscover a life of less” or something similar.

I’ve tread this path myself.

Perhaps it’s just part of our natural cycle. When you try to balance on a beam, you have to shift your weight from one side to another as you counteract the forces from yourself and the outside world. Sometimes a sudden rush of wind blows you off-kilter, and you have to make a dramatic readjustment. Sometimes you can’t keep your balance well and then have to readjust. Both happen with minimalism as well.

But I also wonder if there isn’t an issue at the heart of minimalism. Perhaps it is only diagnostic of the symptoms and doesn’t prescribe a cure.

Minimalism is about clearing the way for what really matters, but it’s rare to hear minimalist actually advocate what matters — it’s your objective to identify what matters. Other philosophies, don’t just say what is wrong but also offer a path forward.

Many habit coaches will tell you that it’s much easier to replace a bad habit with a good one (drinking water instead of cola) than just cutting a bad habit. In the bible, Jesus says that if you don’t replace an evil spirit that is expelled with the holy spirit, the evil spirit will come back with 7 friends. I wonder if this adds to why minimalism is so tricky to keep following.

If you only cut out the unnecessary but don’t fill the gap, the stuff you kicked out will eventually come back. Then you have to start culling again.

I’m not saying Minimalism is wrong, but maybe it’s just not enough.

p.s. These thoughts were prompted by Greg Morris but this is not criticism of him. I’ve certainly been on and off the minimalism bandwagon.

Are there any bloggers or content producers who you have followed for more than a couple of years and you still pay attention to all their content with the same enthusiasm? I ask because I can think of many great content producers who I loved and have either gone off, think they’ve changed and don’t care for what they now do/have become, or still think they are good but just don’t focus on everything they put out. I don’t think there’s anyone who I have followed closely since I first came across them.

I’ve been working on some company value statements. They’re great things and I really think the company tries to embody these values…but they’re really secondary considerations. There’s often a couple of primary drivers which we don’t really talk about. It makes me wonder what a company would look like if it really put the values it states above all else.

Today, I was reminded of Adam Sandler’s SNL sketch where he is a travel agent who basically says his trips can’t change the person you are: unhappy at home, unhappy in Rome.

Isn’t that true with everything. So much of marketing is “this will finally make you happy” and it doesn’t. Even courses on how to be happy with less.

You already have everything you Need to be happy (unless you are living in genuine poverty).

As I write this on the train home my wife just sent me a message “We have everything we need :)” yes, we do friends.

Inspired by Patrick Rhône.

I disagree with Derek Sivers. In fact, that sentence is my rebellion. He suggested that quoting is lazy and sounds bad.

I think it enriches communication.

Okay, not always. Derek does give some good examples when it’s bad (constant quoting, to protect yourself from being attacked, constant hedging.) but I don’t believe that’s always the case.

An invitation to go deeper

Quoting, especially with a hyperlink, allows someone to explore and idea further. If you reference someone’s work in a book, I can continue reading it later. If you mention someone’s theory on a podcast, I can look it up along with the critiques of it.

By referencing Derek, you can see what he said exactly and see if you agree with me or him more. You may not have heard of him before and know may become one of his ardent fans.

In fact, even when you do adapt an idea from someone else, I can see value in referencing the source of your inspiration. The reader has the possibility of being inspired in a different way.

Sub blogging

This came up in a discussion on micro blog earlier this week about subtweeting and sub blogging. This is where you respond to someone or something without referencing the original person. Often it’s obvious whom you are writing about. I started off defending occasional subtweeting/blogging as sometimes it’s not an obvious calling out, but inspiration for a discussion about a larger issue or you might suspect that the situation isn’t as clear cut as it appears but you still want to discuss an issues. As I consider it more, however, I realised that even in those situations, it is probably better to refer to the original source and state your exceptions. This actually helps show that you are talking about larger issues and not calling someone out, without having the guts to say their name.

Referencing treats your reader as an curious, equal

General, I think referencing treats your reader as an educated and capable person who is your equal. You are inviting them to go deeper and explore the topic further (and say where they disagree). If you seek to make an idea your own and don’t state your inspiration, it can come across as trying to elevate yourself to an expert.

Make ideas your own.

Although I disagree with parts of what Derek says, I firmly agree that you should make ideas your own. To understand an idea and phrase it in your own way or express your own exceptions.

But I still believe it is worth reference and sometimes quoting.