Pause and take a breath...

How many times have you been told to pause and take a deep breath, particularly when you've been visibly upset or stressed out?  I've read a lot about stress reduction techniques over the years, and breathing techniques always seem to rise to the top of the list.  So, I was particularly intrigued about an online article that mentioned how "tactical breathing" is used by individuals in the United States military to relieve stress and stay focused during stressful situations.  The technique is specifically called "box breathing" because there are four parts to the technique:

1. Begin by expelling all the air from your chest and keep your lungs empty for a four-count hold

2. Slowly inhale through your nose for four counts

3. Hold the air in your lungs for four counts

4. Release the air in your chest for four counts

Investigators at the Madigan Army Medical Center in Tacoma, Washington published an abstract in which emergency medicine residents performed the lifesaving procedure of tracheal intubation (inserting a tube into the trachea in order to facilitate respiratory support with a ventilator) while undergoing simulated stressful situations while using the "box breathing" technique.  The overall success rate in the control group (no stress, no "box breathing") was 96%.  The success rate in the simulated stressful situation without "box breathing" was 85%, which increased to 100% with the addition of "box breathing". 

If it works for the military and emergency medicine, maybe there is something to "box breathing" that we can leverage in our own stressful situations.  I plan to try out this technique and will let you know what I think! 

"Vienna waits for you..."

Our youngest daughter and I recently had a discussion on what songs have had the most influence on our lives (at least to date).  I came up with a list, and she did as well.  The top song on her list was "Vienna" by Billy Joel.  She seemed a little surprised when I told her, "Hmm.  I don't know that one."  She next told me, "It's one of his songs on the album The Stranger!"  I confessed, "That's a great album!  But, I still can't hear the song in my head."  She then sang a few bars.  "Nope."

Well, I went back and listened to the song on Spotify.  I remember now!  It is a good song, I just never connected the song with the last verse in the Refrain, "Vienna waits for you."

According to a New York Times article in 2008, Billy Joel claimed that "Vienna" was one of his two favorite songs.  Apparently, the song was inspired by a visit to Vienna to meet with his estranged father when he was in his early 20's.  Joel said that the song is a reminder, "You don’t have to squeeze your whole life into your 20s and 30s trying to make it, trying to achieve that American dream, getting in the rat race and killing yourself. You have a whole life to live."

The song was the B-side single to Joel's hit, "Just the Way You Are", which was his first Top Ten Hit in the U.S. as well as his first Gold song.  Both the song and the album won the Grammy Award for Song of the Year and Record of the Year, respectively, in 1979.  Despite the fact that "Vienna" was the B-side single (for those of you who don't know, the B-side was just an extra song that you got for buying the A-side single that you really wanted in the first place), the song became one of Billy Joel's most popular songs, and in 2024, it was the third-most streamed song in his catalog.  Apparently, the song was featured in the 2004 movie 13 Going on 30 starring Jennifer Garner, which certainly has helped its popularity (here is the scene from the movie that features the song)!

It's not often that I get to compliment one of our children for a great song choice, but I have to confess, "Vienna" is a great song!  Take a listen for yourself - the lyrics have a powerful message!

The Responsibility Poem

I've talked a lot about the importance of accountability in the past (see my posts, "The buck stops here!", "12 O'Clock High", "The Accountability-Authority Matrix", "Honor Code", and "You have to hold people accountable..." for a few of my favorites).  I also want to mention my post, "Who is Will Someone?", because "Will Someone" often gets asked to do a lot of different things on teams and in organizations.  Unfortunately, because "Will Someone" is not a real person, those things just don't get done.  "Will Someone" reminds me a lot of the four individuals, "Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody" and a poem by Charles Osgood known as "The Responsibility Poem".  There are two versions, but I like the shorter version the best, which you can read below (I've also found this version with the title, "What Went Wrong"):

This is the story of four working people:

Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.

There was an important job to be done,

But Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.

Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.

Somebody got angry because it was Everybody's job.

Everybody thought Somebody would do it.

But Nobody asked Anybody.

It ended up that the job wasn't done.

Everybody blamed Somebody;

When Nobody did what Anybody could have.

In other words, when everyone is responsible, nobody is responsible.  Just remember the tragic story of Kitty Genovese, a 28 year-old woman who was attacked, raped, and murdered on March 13, 1964 right outside her apartment building while at least 39 of her neighbors (see my post, "Who is my neighbor?" and the so-called "Bystander Effect") heard her scream yet didn't call for help or come to her aid - because "Everybody thought that Somebody would do it" instead.

"Here am I..."

On this past Memorial Day, I mentioned the book Duty, Honor, Country, & Life: A Tribute to the American Spirit by Admiral William McCraven, who retired from the U.S. Navy in 2014 after a distinguished 37 year career.  His latest book is a collection of his speeches, essays, and poems that honor those who serve, both members of the U.S. military and civilians alike.  Admiral McCraven recites a verse from the Holy Bible (Isaiah 6:8) in his chapter, "Send Me" (based on a toast that he gave to members of the U.S. military at an annual meeting of the Alfalfa Club):

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?"

And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"

There's a powerful scene from the 2014 film Fury, starring Brad Pitt, Shia Leouf, and Logan Lerman, that includes the same verse.  Admiral McCraven says that this same Bible verse is read by a priest, minister, or rabbi during every "Dignified Transfer" ceremony, as a fallen military member's casket is carried by six pallbearers and loaded onto an airplane for the return of his or her remains back home.  

I've been thinking a lot about this Bible verse ever since my post on Memorial Day.  I am not an English major, but it seems to me that the choice of word order in this verse seems different from what I would expect.  It says, "Here am I" versus what I think is the more common word order of "Here I am."  It's a subtle difference, but I think it's a very important one.

As I've learned, there are several stories in the King James Bible of God calling out to a servant for a specific task, to which the servant faithfully replies, "Here am I."  Apparently, the phrase "Here am I" is used sixteen different times in the King James Bible, including the story in the Book of Isaiah mentioned above.  Now granted, the King James Bible was first published in 1611, and there is no question that the English language has changed somewhat over the last four hundred years or so.  It's safe to assume that the phrase "Here I am" has become the more commonly used and preferred way of responding to a call or question.  However, the phrase "Here I am" is used fairly frequently in the King James Bible as well, so it must be more than just changing preferences around word usage or grammar.

According to blogger Daniel Grove, the phrase "Here I am" is used in the Bible whenever God is calling someone to come out and meet him.  Used in this way, the phrase places the emphasis on where that someone is in relation to God.  The emphasis here is on the individual.  Conversely, the phrase "Here am I" is used whenever someone is surrendering him- or herself completely to the task at hand.  They are completely surrendering to God's will - here, the emphasis is on God.

Taking theology out of the discussion then, "Here I am" would be the appropriate way to respond to the question, "Where are you?"  Again, the emphasis is on the "I" (the self).  Conversely, "Here am I" would be the appropriate way to answer the question, "Whoever can help me?"  The emphasis is on the other person.  "Here am I" is selfless, while "Here I am" is centered on the self.  

Grammatically, "Here I am" refers to a location or situation.  As mentioned above, it is the typical response to the question, "Where are you?"  We could also answer that very same question by saying "I am here."  Both responses emphasize the words "I" and "here".  Conversely, "Here am I" is how someone would introduce themselves and indicate that he or she is ready to do whatever is required.  By answering with, "Here am I", we are telling someone that not only are we here, but we are also ready and willing.  We are declaring our willingness to pursue some action.

It's a subtle difference for sure.  And I will be honest that when I looked it up, some authorities stated that the phrase "Here am I" is just an old-fashioned way of saying, "Here I am."  But I strongly believe it is much more than that.  "Here am I" is a selfless way of saying that "I am ready and willing" to do whatever it takes.  It's more than just saying that we are "standing by, ready to assist".  It's active rather than passive.  "We are here, we are going to help."  By saying "Here am I", we are saying that we volunteer eagerly, enthusiastically, passionately.  "Tell us what to do and we will do it!"

Garbage in...Garbage out...

Whenever I come across an interesting passage in a book, I frequently will dog-ear the page or take a picture with my smartphone so that I can look up the point being made at a later time.  I was recently reading the 19th century satirical novel Erewhon by Samuel Butler (more on the novel shortly) when I came across the sentence: 

"There are few who are so holy as to feel that 19 and 13 make 32 as certainly as 2 and 2 make 4."  

I thought it was an interesting sentence, so I did what I typically do and dog-eared the page so that I could come back to it later.  Here's where things get interesting, at least in my opinion.  I looked up the passage on Google and Google's artificial intelligence (AI) engine (Gemini) came up with the following   information, which I am copying verbatim:

This famous quote comes from Walter Bagehot, a well-known English writer and economist from the 1800s.

To help me share more details, let me know if you are interested in:

• The book or essay where he wrote this
• More information about Walter Bagehot himself
• Other famous quotes about how humans think about logic

Let me know how you would like to explore this quote further!

I was a little surprised about the result.  Admittedly, Samuel Butler first wrote the book in 1872, and Walter Bagehot was a British economist who lived from 1826-1877, so it seems plausible that Bagehot could have written the sentence first.  Of course, that would mean that Butler committed plagiarism, but I'm not sure a 19th century editor would have noted that an obscure sentence in the 20th chapter (page 175 of the Penguin Classics edition) of a satirical novel was previously used by someone else.  After reading Gemini's explanation, I responded in the affirmative to the prompt about whether I wanted additional information.

To my surprise (again), here is what Gemini responded with:

Actually, my previous mention of Walter Bagehot was incorrect. This quote actually comes from Samuel Butler, another famous English writer from the 1800s.  The line appears in Chapter 20 of his brilliant 1872 satirical novel, Erewhon.

Well, at least Gemini recognized and corrected its mistake!  I was telling my wife and our son (who as a computer science engineer knows a lot more about AI than I do) about my experience, and I decided to try it all again.  The next day, I typed the exact quote into the Google, and Gemini came back with the following:

This beautiful quote comes from C.S. Lewis, a famous author who wrote The Chronicles of Narnia.  He wrote this line in his 1943 book about religion and human nature called The Problem of Pain.

Once again, I was confused by the response.  Given that C.S. Lewis lived from 1898 to 1963, I think it is logical to assume that if he did, in fact, use the quote in his book, The Problem of Pain, which was published in 1940, he borrowed the quote from Samuel Butler!  That's probably okay, but when I prompted Gemini to explain further, here is the response that I received:

I need to correct my previous answer.  That quote actually comes from Samuel Butler's famous 1872 satirical novel, Erewhon.  

Just to give Gemini one final chance ("The third time is a charm" after all), I checked again one day later.  At least it was consistent and claimed that the quote came from C.S. Lewis.  However, this time Gemini stated that the quote came from his book, The Screwtape Letters.  Once again, I can neither confirm nor deny that C.S. Lewis included this particular quote in his book, but the fact that I've received three different citations to the quote (two of which were corrected when I asked for additional information) leads me to be very suspicious about the accuracy of all these responses!

The irony here is that the whole reason that I read Samuel Butler's novel is that he talks about an early form of artificial intelligence (AI) in a famous three-chapter section of the book called "Book of the Machines."  Butler was heavily influenced here by the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection in On the Origin of the Species and technological innovations produced in the Industrial Revolution.  The material he covered in "Book of the Machines" involved concerns that machines would attain artificial consciousness ("intelligence") through a process similar to natural selection.  He first raised these concerns in an excellent article published in 1863, "Darwin among the machines", which I found to be a much easier and enjoyable read than his novel.

There is no question that "artificial intelligence" is going to be a game-changer (maybe it already has been one).  However, we also need to acknowledge that AI obtains its information to "learn" from what is already available in the public sphere.  Sometimes that information is correct, but sometimes that information is wrong.  As the saying goes, "Don't believe everything that you read on the Internet."  If the information used by AI is false, then AI learns incorrectly.  As I discussed in a recent post on Pope Leo XIV's first encyclical, Magnifica humanitas (see my post, "Magnifica humanitas"), AI is not human.  However, as my example above clearly shows, AI is at least human-like in one regard - it's far from perfect!  As the adage goes, "Garbage in...Garbage out!"

"He who knows most knows best how little he knows"

I recently read a book about wine, Reflections of a Vintner: Stories and Seasonal Wisdom from a Lifetime in Napa Valley by Tor Kenward.  Tor Kenward has spent nearly 50 years at the forefront of Napa Valley's wine, food, and tourism industry.  Kenward was drafted and sent to Vietnam during college, and upon returning from his tour of duty, he realized that life was too short and that he only wanted to do things that brought him joy.  That pursuit of joy eventually brought him to Napa Valley, California, where he worked for several years at Beringer Vineyards as their designated "Vice President of all the Fun Stuff" (perhaps his description of what he did, not theirs).  He and his wife Susan launched TOR Wines in the early 2000's, where he continues to make outstanding wines today.  The book is part memoir, part reflection on the wine industry in general, and part words of wisdom for anyone looking for how to live a better life.

There was one theme that Kenward kept repeating throughout the book.  What's amazing is that if you weren't paying attention, you would have easily missed it.  He kept repeating the sentiment that the older he got, the more he became aware of the less that he really knew.  At some point, he finally offered a statement that I think is absolutely one of the most profound statements on wisdom that I have ever heard.  Seriously.  Kenward said, "The wisdom that comes from age is misrepresented. You just forget more of what you already know."

On the surface, Kenward's statement sounds a lot like a self-deprecating statement describing how you forget a lot of what you have learned as you grow older.  And while that is true up to a point, I think Kenward's meaning is much deeper.  The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates described wisdom in a similar way, stating, "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" (incidentally, I used this exact quote in a post several years ago that also discussed something that I call the "Analogy of the Marbles").  True wisdom begins when we recognize the boundaries of our own understanding.  Here, wisdom is finally attained when we recognize what we do not know.  

I am also reminded of a movie quote from the Jedi Master Yoda, from the original Star Wars trilogy.  Yoda said, "You must unlearn what you have learned."  True wisdom is finally achieved when we recognize that the only path to learning is by setting aside our rigid habits, assumptions, notions, and preconceived limits.  Yoda's definition of wisdom is more active than passive here.  We actually need to let go some of the knowledge that we have acquired over time, so that we can move forward to learn and acquire new knowledge.

I enjoyed reading Kenward's book.  Admittedly, as you have no doubt recognized, I enjoy learning (and posting) about wine!  My most important takeaway from the book, however, had absolutely nothing to do with wine, but rather wisdom.  Unlearn what you have learned.  Recognize that you can't know everything.  Thomas Jefferson reportedly said, "The wise know too well their weakness to assume infallibility; and he who knows most knows best how little he knows."

Confucius says...stay humble!

The ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius lived in the fifth-century BCE during a time known as the Spring and Autumn period.  The name "Confucius" is actually the Latinized form of the Mandarin Chinese word for "Great Master Kong" or "Wise Teacher Kong" that was coined by Jesuit priests in the 16th century.  By tradition, Confucius is said to have authored many ancient texts, and many of his aphorisms were collected in a text known as the Analects.

Confucius once said, "The good man does not grieve that other people do not recognize his merits.  His only anxiety is lest he should fail to recognize theirs."

Rather than constantly seeking praise, attention, and recognition, Confucius is telling us that we should instead focus on recognizing the abilities and contributions of others.  We should use the "we" a lot more frequently than the "me."  

Phillip Bourne wrote an article a couple of years ago for the journal PLOS Computational Biology called "Ten simple rules for good leadership".  His second rule was on being humble.  Bourne wrote, "A great organization is facilitated by a good leader, but not solely the result of one.  Recognize that and be humble...Give credit whenever possible and take little for yourself."

Stay humble my friends!

Krakatoa's Child

Every once in a while, I come back to a previous post with an update.  I posted about the famous eruption of the volcano Krakatoa on August 27, 1883 a few years ago (see "Krakatoa").  Krakatoa was actually an archipelago located in the Sunda Strait between the islands of Java and Sumatra in the modern day country of Indonesia.  Krakatoa became increasingly active with a series of small eruptions occurring from May 20-October 21, 1883.  However, the volcano more or less "blew its top off" on August 27, 1883, destroying nearly 70% of the island and surrounding archipelago, which collapsed into a caldera.  The eruption was one of the deadliest and most destructive eruptions in recorded history.

Krakatoa's eruption was heard almost 3,000 miles away by scientists on the island nation of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean.  The accompanying pressure (blast) wave circled the world at least 7 times.  Massive tsunamis that occurred in the aftermath caused most of the 36,000 reported deaths.  There were multiple reports of human skeletons floating across the Indian Ocean on rafts of pumice stone hundreds of miles away from the eruption, some of which washed up on the shores of the east coast of Africa up to a year after the eruption.  

The eruption itself caused a volcanic winter as temperatures dropped by an average of 0.4 °C in the northern hemisphere.  Global weather patterns changed, with some areas reporting record rainfalls and widespread flooding, while other areas experienced severe drought.  The ash darkened the skies and changed the character of the setting sun as far away as the United States.  Krakatoa's eruption served as inspiration, albeit indirectly, for the famous painting The Scream by the artist Edvard Munch and the classic novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley.

Here is the update to this story!  The smaller island (also a volcano) of Anak Krakatoa (which is Indonesian for "Child of Krakatoa") formed after the 1883 eruption.  I mention Anak Krakatoa now, because the volcano began to erupt just this past Friday (September 4, 2026).  More than a quarter million airline passengers have been stranded over the weekend, due to the closure of several airports in the region caused by the ash cloud.  So far, there haven't been any tsunamis, and I haven't seen a reported death toll either.  Regardless, Anak Krakatoa continues Krakatoa's legacy and provides us with yet another reminder of nature's power!

The word of the day is...arbejdsglæde

I mentioned the term "arbejdsglæde"  in a recent post (see "The Trust Hormone").  It's actually a Danish compound word that is made up of the word "arbejde" meaning work and "glæde" meaning happiness.  Together, the two words form the word "arbejdsglæde" which literally means happiness at work.  There is no English word equivalent.  Perhaps that is one simple explanation for why Denmark is consistently ranked amongst the highest countries in the world - they actually have a word to describe happiness at work, where most people spend up to a third of their lives!  For example, in the 2026 "Happiest Countries in the World" survey conducted by the World Population Review, Denmark ranked second (behind Finland and ahead of Iceland and Sweden) as the Happiest Countries in the World survey.  For context, the United States of America ranked 24th (see also "The Nordic Exceptionalism: What explains why the Nordic countries are constantly among the happiest in the world").  

The core pillars of "arbejdsglæde" focus on:

1. Flexible (and reasonable) working hours: According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the average American works 1,790 hours per year, while the average Dane works only 1,540 hours per year.  Danes tend to leave work at a reasonable hour on most days, and they get five to six weeks of vacation per year, several national holidays, and generous maternity and paternity leaves.

2. Low power distance: A high power distance tends to reflect a highly centralized, hierarchical power structure where the manager/boss sits at the top of the pyramidal organization chart.  Here, decision-making occurs at the top levels of the hierarchy.  A low power distance suggests a more flattened organizational structure, where decision-making tends to occur throughout the hierarchy.  According to Dutch sociologist Geert Hofstede, the average power distance in the United States is 40, compared to an average power distance of 18 in Denmark (the lowest in the world).  Apparently, there is a Danish law that states that any workplace with more than 35 employees has to open up seats on the Board of Directors for employee representatives, who are elected by their peers and serve on an equal footing with the same voting rights as the other members of the Board.  

3. Generous employee benefits: Danish workers enjoy a very generous benefit package compared to American workers.  For example, Danish companies provide unemployment insurance at 90% of original salary for up to two years.  In addition, Danish workers receive constant education and training to upskill jobs.  The so-called "Nordic model" provides free healthcare and subsidized education, which do not exist to nearly the same degree in the United States.  Notably, these benefits do come at a cost - the Danes are taxed at a much higher rate than Americans, though they happily pay these higher taxes.

4. A focus on happiness: The Danes focus on happiness - they literally have a word for "happiness at work", whereas the United States does not.  At least the United States doesn't have a word like "karoshi", which in Japanese means "death from overwork".  Denmark, similar to the other Scandinavian countries, focus on work-life balance and psychological safety in the workplace.

I am not saying that the Danes have figured everything out.  However, perhaps there is something that we can learn from Scandinavian countries, such as Denmark.  We hear a lot about "happiness" in the United States these days, mostly because people seem less happy.  Perhaps at least part of the answer is right their in front of our eyes - in Denmark...

Magnifica Humanitas

I don't think a day has gone by for at least the past year that I haven't read or heard something mentioned about artificial intelligence (AI) in the media or during conversations at work.  I recently attended the Epic UGM conference in Verona, Wisconsin (Epic Systems Corporation is a privately held healthcare software company and currently the largest electronic health record vendors by market share in the world), and just about every session mentioned AI.  There's no question that AI is transforming the world literally in front of our eyes!

It's not often that some form of technological innovation changes society to the degree that we are experiencing with AI.  There was of course the invention of the wheel, the printing press, the steam engine, electricity, the microchip, and most recently, the Internet.  AI is the latest in a long line of technological innovations that have changed the world as we know it.  Even if AI is not a disruptive innovation in the truest sense (and I mean, according to Clayton Christensen's definition of disruptive innovation), there's no question that AI is going to - for better or for worse - "disrupt" our lives.  Scott D. Anthony, Professor of Business Administration at Dartmouth College's Tuck School of Business wrote a book last year, Epic Disruptions and listed generative AI as one of eleven major innovations that shaped our modern world (some of Anthony's innovations make sense, others, including Julia Childs' The Art of French Cooking and disposable diapers were surprising to me).

I continue to be fascinated by the back-and-forth discussion on the impact of AI on productivity and employment (see two recent posts on this topic, "Will we get replaced by AI?" and "Fewer jobs, more machines").  I am by no means an expert on this topic (not even close), but I hope to re-visit this topic in a future post soon.  Today, I want to talk about Pope Leo XIV's first encyclical, Magnifica humanitas.  The encyclical was published on May 25, 2026, and given the topic ("Safeguarding the human person in the age of artificial intelligence"), I read it shortly after its release.  Notably, the date of the encyclical's publication was selected to fall on the 135th anniversary of the publication of Rerum novarum, the landmark encyclical regarding industrialization and its impact on humanity, written by Pope Leo XIII.  "Rerum novarum" is Latin for "revolutionary change", so the juxtaposition of these two encyclicals is as intentional as it is appropriate.

Pope Leo XIV starts off his encyclical by stating, "Each generation inherits the task of shaping its own era, of guiding history to become a place where the dignity of every person is safeguarded, justice is promoted and fraternity is made possible.  Yet every era also runs the risk of creating an inhumane and more unjust world."  He argues that society today faces a monumental choice between constructing a "new Tower of Babel" or building "the city in which God and humanity dwell together."  Recall that the Tower of Babel is a biblical story in chapter 11 of the Book of Genesis, in which a united human race all speaking the same language decide to build a tower that was tall enough to reach heaven.  The God of the Old Testament watches them closely and, remarking on humanity's power in unity, suddenly makes them all speak different languages so that they can no longer understand each other.  He then scatters them around the world, and the tower goes unfinished.  Pope Leo writes, "When a city is built on pride and the claim to self-sufficiency, communication breaks down, languages are confused and people no longer understand each other.  The result is not unity, but dispersion.  Babel thus reveals the limits of any effort that, however grandiose, arises from self-affirmation, sacrifices human dignity for efficiency and aspires to reach heaven without God's blessing."

Pope Leo goes on to contrast the Tower of Babel story with another story from the Old Testament - the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, which appears in the Book of Nehemiah.  The walls of Jerusalem were destroyed by the Babylonians and had lay in ruins for over 150 years.  The Israelites return to Jerusalem to rebuild the ancient city.  They are led by the prophet Nehemiah, but Nehemiah does not lead by authority (as Pope Leo states, "He did not impose solutions from above").  Here we have yet another great example of the HRO principle of "Deference to Expertise", but I digress.  Instead, he charges all the families to each work to rebuild a different section of the wall.  Nehemiah coordinates their efforts, so that everyone, together, rebuilds the wall.  Pope Leo writes, "The narrative shows how the city is reborn, not through the initiative of one man, but through the shared responsibility of all."

It's an apt metaphor.  With AI, we have the power to collectively transform all of society.  It's not a choice between "yes" and "no" to AI, but instead, whether we use AI to construct a metaphorical Babel or the metaphorical walls of Jerusalem.  Pope Leo writes that the choice is one "between a power that claims to dominate the heavens" versus one in which we all work together "to rebuild the walls of fraternal coexistence."  AI has the power to unite us or separate us.  AI has the power to build or destroy.  We should avoid at all costs what Pope Leo calls the "Babel syndrome", which he describes as "the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that neutralizes differences, and the pretense that a single language - even a digital one - can translate everything, including the mystery of the person, into data and performance."

 

Pope Leo has two major concerns with AI.  First and foremost, he is worried about AI replacing human persons, and I don't mean from a labor standpoint.  He writes, "The use of AI is never a purely technical matter: when it enters processes that affect people's lives, it touches on rights, opportunities, status and freedom.  Important and sensitive decisions - concerning employment, credit, access to public services or even a person's reputation - risk being fully delegated to automated systems that do not know 'compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people are able to change,' and can therefore give rise to new forms of exclusion."  He expands on this point, "If a system is designed or used in a way that treats some lives as less worthy, or excludes them without the possibility of appeal, then it is not merely a tool 'to be used well,' since it has already introduced criteria that contradict the inalienable dignity of the human person.  For this reason, ethical discernment cannot be limited to asking whether we are using a system for good or bad purposes; it must also examine how that system is designed and what vision of the human person and society is embedded in the data and models that guide it."  

Pope Leo is increasingly concerned that the design (and governance) of AI is increasingly being placed in the hands of just a few.  He writes, "When such power [referring here to the power to design AI, including what data and models are used in that design] is concentrated in the hands of a few, it tends to become opaque and evade public oversight, increasing the risk of distorted forms of development that give rise to new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities."  Margherita Stancati and Sam Schechner from The Wall Street Journal reported that Pope Leo said, "Artificial intelligence needs to be disarmed, freed from the logic that turned it into an instrument of domination, exclusion and death...It must be at the service of all, and of the common good."  His solution is to place the design and governance of AI in the hands of the public (by which he means the government).  While I share his concerns, I do not believe that government-run technology is the answer.  

John Thornhill from The Financial Times agrees to some extent with the Pope and writes, "AI systems may present themselves as objective but they reflect and reinforce ideological bias and power structures.  Given the concentration of corporate power and the possibilities of exploiting personal data to create a new form of digital colonialism, the pope rightly fears that innovation can become an accelerator of injustice."  The editorial board at The Wall Street Journal wrote a review and opinion piece entitled "Pope Leo's AI Manifesto" shortly after the encyclical became public.  They emphasize that the pope's concerns are real and perhaps legitimate, but his faith in the state to regulate AI and technology is misplaced.  

Pope Leo's second major concern involves what he calls the "dignity of work" - here is where he argues against AI replacing human workers.  He writes, "Work is not simply an instrument; it expresses and enhances the dignity of our lives.  It is a requirement of the human condition, a normal path toward maturity, development and personal fulfillment...While AI promises to boost productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines, rather than machines being designed to support those who work."  His concerns are legitimate, and as I have shared in previous posts, I have these same concerns.  However, I do not think that the question of whether automation technology and specifically AI will result in loss of employment has been fully or adequately answered.  Pope Leo further writes, "The pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs, because the human person is an end, not a means, and the economic order must remain subordinate to human dignity and the common good."

I will end today's post by suggesting that Pope Leo's first encyclical makes for an interesting and compelling read.  I don't think we can know for sure what lies ahead, but it is good that these concerns are voiced and further studied.  We owe it to ourselves, and ultimately, to society at large, to make sure that AI is leveraged for the common good.

The Odyssey

Several people who know me really well have been telling me that I need to go see the Christopher Nolan movie, The Odyssey, starring Matt Damon as the main character, Odysseus, along with an incredible all-star cast!  About a week or so ago, I was attending the Epic UGM conference in Verona, Wisconsin, and I took the opportunity to finally see the movie with our son (who lives in Verona) on the night before the conference started.  It was well worth it - the movie truly lived up to all of the hype!

While Nolan took some poetic license in his version of the story (much to the chagrin of Emily Wilson, among others, who published a highly praised translation of Homer's epic poem in 2017), I do think that he stayed true to some of the major themes in the original work (at least in my humble and admittedly non-expert opinion).  At its most basic, The Odyssey is a story of a man who has lost his way and who eventually finds his way back home.  In Nolan's version of the story, Odysseus is lost almost by choice.  He feels guilty about the fact that he was the one that came up with the idea of the Trojan Horse to "trick" the people of Troy to let the Greeks in through the gates of their city and eventually destroy it.  

Eliana Dockterman writes in her Time magazine review, "Odysseus, much like the father of the atomic bomb millennia later [is] wracked with guilt for conjuring something that destroyed not just one city but, in his mind, an entire civilization: the Trojan Horse. In creating the vessel in which the Greeks hid to penetrate the walls of Troy and massacre its citizens to ultimately win the war, Odysseus believes he violated what characters throughout the movie refer to as Zeus’ Law. In doing so, he then gave tacit permission for others throughout the Mediterranean to break the rules that long held this ancient civilization together."

It is this violation of the ancient Greek law known as xenia that is the source of Odysseus' guilt.  Xenia means hospitality, and refers to the moral obligation to treat even complete strangers as guests in your home.  Xenia was known as Zeus' law, because Zeus was the patron god of strangers.  His law dictated that strangers must be welcomed with food, shelter, and respect.  If you consider that ancient Greece was really comprised of several islands and city-states, a law like xenia makes perfect sense.  If you ever found yourself stranded on one of those islands, you would want to be treated with kindness and offered food and shelter.  Bear in mind that the ancient Greeks believed too that the gods often mingled among the people, even showing up as strangers at the door to someone's home.  Treating a stranger kindly (unkindly) could earn a divine reward (punishment).  

The Golden Rule from the Christian tradition sounds very similar to xenia and states, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  The ancient Greek law of hospitality took things even one step further.  Guests were expected to reciprocate that kindness, trust, and respect that was showed to them.  Guests were also prohibited from taking advantage of the hosts' kindness.  Those who violated Zeus' law received divine punishment.  Odysseus felt his punishment for violating xenia was to wander for 10 years in search for home.  It is only after he forgives himself and then asks for forgiveness from the goddess Athena, that Odysseus finds his way back home.  

One additional theme that recurs throughout the movie is that of loyalty.  Odysseus wife and son, Penelope (played by Anne Hathaway) and Telemachus (played by Tom Holland) stay true to Odysseus, hoping and expecting that he will return, even after 10 years without hearing anything about him.  Both fight off Penelope's treacherous suitors, who constantly plot against them in an attempt to usurp Odysseus' throne.  Odysseus swineherd, Eumaeus (played by John Leguizamo) helps them both and remains loyal to Odysseus until the very end, as does Odysseus beloved and faithful dog, Argos, who dies after seeing his master one last time.

Leadership is a lot about trustworthiness, loyalty, perseverance, resilience, and ultimately, xenia.

"Live a Little"

Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence starred in the 2016 movie "Passengers" as two passengers on an interstellar spacecraft carrying thousands of people to a colony on 120-year journey from Earth.  Everyone on board is suspended in hibernation for the duration of the voyage, and the spacecraft runs more or less on auto-pilot.  Unfortunately, due to a malfunction, Pratt's character, Jim wakes up from suspended hibernation about 90 years too early.  He is all alone on the spacecraft.  

Jim eventually wakes up Jennifer Lawrence's character, Aurora, because he is lonely.  They fall in love, get in a fight, rescue all of the passengers, and eventually, by the end of the movie...I won't spoil it.

There's a scene in the movie where Pratt's character is talking to an android bartender, named Arthur.  He's feeling sorry for himself, and Arthur gives him some really good advice.  It's advice that we all should take to heart (check out the video clip here).  Here's the transcript (and I am paraphrasing slightly to shorten it up):

JIM: I'm your only customer, but you're always polishing a glass.

ARTHUR: Trick of the trade.  Makes people nervous when a bartender just stands there.

JIM: Okay.  Lay some bartender wisdom on me.  I'm lost in space here.  

ARTHUR (as he is polishing a glass): You're not where you want to be.  You feel like you're supposed to be somewhere else.  Right?

JIM: You said it.

ARTHUR: Well, here's the thing.  Say you could snap your fingers and be wherever you wanted to be.  Back on Earth, or on Homestead II.

JIM: Okay.

ARTHUR: I'll bet even if you got your wish, you'd still feel this way.  Not in the right place.  Supposed to be somewhere else.  The point is, you can't get so wrapped up in where you'd rather be that you forget to make the most of where you are.

JIM: What are you telling me?

ARTHUR: Take a break from what you can't control.  Live a little.

Jim starts to learn the lesson.  Of interest, at least in the original script for the movie, it took Arthur a couple of times to teach Jim the lesson that he needed to hear.  When Jim first encounters Arthur in the bar, shortly after figuring out that he woke up far too early, he says, "I am in trouble. I'm screwed.  I am completely, ridiculously screwed."

Arthur responds by telling Jim, "That's a lot of self-pity."  

Of course, Jim replies, "Self-pity?  I'm going to die of old age on this ship!"  He will never see Homestead II.

To which, Arthur replies, "Jim, we all die. Even androids end up on the scrap heap. It's not dying that matters, it's living. This is your life. Are you going to live it or lie down and die?"

It's an important message for all of us, and one that I need to be reminded of every once in a while.  Nothing is perfect.  Even if things were perfect, we would likely be wanting more out of life.  The key point is to be happy and content with the life that you have.  As Arthur says, "You can't get so wrapped up in where you'd rather be that you forget to make the most of where you are."  Once again, here's another great example of learning an important lesson from the movies.  Great advice for leaders, and really, for all of us...

"The Case of the Cashiered Lieutenant"

I recently finished reading the science fiction novel Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein for the second time.  It's a great book (much better than the 1997 movie of the same name, even though I liked the movie too).  I was reminded of a story that I had apparently forgotten, "The Case of the Cashiered Lieutenant" (the title of an article appearing in the Minnesota Historical Society's journal, Minnesota History, almost sixty years ago).  When used in this context, "cashiered" refers to the ritual dismissal of an officer from military service as punishment for a breach of duty.  The specific case refers to an incident that happened on June 6, 1813, during the War of 1812 (which despite its name, lasted from 1812-1815), when the USS Chesapeake lost a battle with the HMS Shannon off the coast of Boston.

Notably, the Chesapeake was one of the original six frigates built in the early days of the United States Navy, as brilliantly told in the book Six Frigates by the historian Ian W. Toll.  The battle was brief, lasting between 10 and 15 minutes, ending when sailors from the Shannon boarded the disabled Chesapeake and captured her.  The Chesapeake's commanding officer, James Lawrence, was killed during the battle, uttering his now famous words shortly before succumbing to his wounds, "Don't give up the ship!"

William Sitgreaves Cox was serving as  "third lieutenant" in charge of gun crews during the battle.  When Captain Lawrence was mortally wounded, Cox took him below deck.  Unbeknownst to Cox, all of the other officers had been seriously wounded, incapacitated, or killed, which technically made him the ship's acting commanding officer by default, though it's not known whether Lieutenant Cox was aware of this fact.  Technically, then, as the acting commanding officer, even if by default, Cox should have remained on deck to lead the battle.  

During the time that Cox was below deck, British sailors boarded the Chesapeake.  Cox returned to the deck and fired the last cannon round at the Shannon.  There were just too many wounded and not enough men left to fight off the British boarders.  The Chesapeake was taken and Cox became a prisoner.  After a prisoner exchange, Cox was promoted to third lieutenant permanently.  

Everyone in America at the time felt that the defeat of the Chesapeake was a major catastrophe.  Something must have happened, as the public believed that Captain Lawrence ("Don't give upt the ship!") could never have been defeated in a fair fight.  Commodore William Bainbridge of the Navy Department perhaps said it best when he wrote, "The well proved courage and skill of Captain Lawrence, and the bravery of the officers and crew, justify a full belief that the loss of the Chesapeake has been entirely owing to some fortuitous event happening on board of her, and not to any superiority of skill and bravery in the enemy."  In other words, there had to be somebody to blame.

The public demanded an explanation, and the Navy Department convened a Court of Inquiry in February 1814 to further investigate the defeat of the Chesapeake.  Lieutenant William Sitgreaves Cox would be the scapegoat that everyone was looking to blame.  Lieutenant Cox was brought before the court on April 15, 1814 and formally charged with cowardice, disobedience of orders, desertion from quarters, neglect of duty, and unofficer-like conduct.  He was convicted on the charges of dereliction of duty and unofficer-like conduct for abandoning his watch station while under fire from the enemy.  He was cashiered from service and left the Navy in disgrace.

Of course, there was another side to the story.  Second Lieutenant George Budd survived his wounds and testified that he and Cox had a conversation while they were being held prisoner by the British in Halifax.  Budd reported that Cox told him that Captain Lawrence had not asked for assistance to be carried below deck and had been angry that Cox had left his post in order to help him.  That apparently was sufficient to find him guilty.  Cox would try in vain to be cleared of both charges, though the guilty verdict was upheld by then President James Madison.  He entered a business career and died in 1874.

Apparently, Theodore Roosevelt wrote in his book, The Naval War of 1812 that Lieutenant Cox had acted "basely" during the Chesapeake-Shannon battle.  One of Cox's descendants protested so vigorously that Roosevelt later apologized and removed the word from subsequent editions. For a period of 138 years, Cox's descendants fought to clear his name.  They argued vehemently that Cox was simply helping a wounded leader and that he had no idea that he was the acting commanding officer.  In 1952, Congress passed a resolution to clear his name, and President Harry Truman officially restored Cox's honor and rank posthumously.  Cox's story was told in an issue of Time magazine (see "The Case of Lieut. Cox" from the April 6, 1952 issue), the New Yorker magazine (see "Scapegoat" from the May 3, 1952 issue), and the Proceedings of the Naval Institute (see "Scapegoat of the Chesapeake-Shannon Battle" from the May 1953 issue).

I think this particular story is a great example - and I believe this is why Robert Heinlein used the story in his novel, Starship Troopers - of what happens when you hold leaders accountable for something that they have no authority to control (see in particular my posts "The accountability-authority matrix", "Sell ice cream!", "You have to hold people accountable...", and "Necessary companions, but often strangers").  I don't think it was justified to blame Lieutenant Cox for deserting his post as acting commanding officer, particularly when his actions during the actual battle suggest that he acted courageously.  Accountability is important - leaders should be held accountable for their decisions ("The buck stops here"), but only when they have the necessary authority to actually make those decisions.  

Now, Heinlein argues in Starship Troopers that, fair or unfair, Lieutenant Cox was, in fact, the acting commanding officer and should have been held accountable for the defeat of the Chesapeake.  I do not agree, and I believe history has appropriately vindicated Cox.  But I think the lesson here is an important one for all leaders, not just those in the military.  As the unnamed "Museum Sage" of the Hampton Roads Naval Museum wrote in The Daybook publication, "Just when does blame begin when something goes wrong?"  We are often too quick to ask the question, "Who is to blame when something goes wrong?"  I would argue that we would be better off investing time in trying to answer the question "Why did something go wrong?" or "How did something go wrong?" as opposed to answering "Who is to blame?"

Are tropical birds returning back to Guam?

I've posted a lot about our family's experience living on the Pacific island of Guam in the past (see in particular, my posts "Abandon all hope ye who enter here...", "Summer break is over!", and "It's an island thing!").  It was a memorable experience and one that I think we all cherish.  I've also posted about the Brown Tree Snake, an invasive species that was accidentally introduced to the island during World War II and which unfortunately wiped out most of the native species of exotic birds on the island (see "Is this another April Fool's joke?" and "The law of unintended consequences").

I was excited to see the newest development on this particular story.  No, there has not been any more attempts at parachuting dead, acetaminophen-stuffed mice into the jungle canopy in an attempt to control the Brown Tree Snake population!  Apparently, there has been an active captive-breeding project involving a few of the Guam indigenous bird species at several zoos around the U.S. in the past couple of years.  The latest involved the Cincinnati Zoo (and about four others) and the Guam Kingfisher, also known as the Sihek.

The Cincinnati Enquirer reported earlier in July that the Cincinnati Zoo currently has 17 Kingfishers, including two on exhibit and six in the nursery.  The Guam Kingfisher is being reintroduced into the wild on the Pacific atoll of Palmyra, which is located just south of Hawaii.  The program reintroduced nine Kingfishers to Palmyra in 2024, and so far everything is going great!  The birds have started breeding, and the first egg was spotted in April 2025 - the first Guam Kingfisher egg laid in the wild in over 40 years!  It's an exciting development for sure!  The project will re-introduce nine new birds to the island each year for the next several years.  The plan is to eventually return these beautiful birds back to their home island of Guam, if protected areas can be established and the threat of the Brown Tree Snake is eliminated or better controlled.  Let's keep our collective fingers crossed!

If you want to keep up-to-date on the Guam Kingfisher project, check out the website for the Sihek Conservation Program here.  And if you want to see a cute video of a newly hatched Guam Kingfisher chick, check out the Facebook page for the Cincinnati Zoo!

As an aside, I realize that this post doesn't have much, if anything, to do with leadership.  However, anytime I can provide an update from older posts, I try to do so, especially when it involves two places where I've spent a lot of time during my life, Guam and Cincinnati, Ohio!

"Are we there yet?"

Last time (see "How to achieve your goals in life...") I posted about Nine Things Successful People Do Differently by Heidi Grant.  I mentioned that people monitor and track their progress towards a goal by considering what they have accomplished (a "To Date" framing) or what remains for them to do (a "To Go" framing).  As it turns out, this is an important decision because our level of motivation to continue to push towards the end of our goal depends upon whether we use a "To Go" versus a "To Date" framing.

Minjung Koo and Ayelet Fischbach published a famous study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2008 ("Dynamics on self-regulation: How (un)accomplished goal actions affect motivation").  They proposed that there are two factors that influence our motivation to continue to work towards a goal - our level of commitment to pursuing that goal and our progress (or lack thereof) towards reaching that goal.  They conducted a series of experiments to further test these assumptions and found that (1) when we are definitely committed to a particular goal (e.g., studying for an important exam in school), emphasizing what we have yet to accomplish (i.e. a "To Go" framing) increases our motivation to continue working towards that goal and (2) when we are uncertain about our level of commitment (e.g., studying for an unimportant exam in school, finishing a book that we don't really care about reading, etc), emphasizing what we have accomplished so far (i.e. a "To Date" framing) increases our motivation to keep working towards that goal.

Just imagine when you are reading a book for fun.  Which motivates you to continue to read that book - how much you have left to go to finish (a "To Go" framing) or how much you have read so far (a "To Date" framing).  If you are really enjoying the book or have to read the book for work or school (i.e., your level of commitment is certain), then you are likely to be motivated more by how many pages you have left to finish the book.  Conversely, if you are not really enjoying the book and you are supposedly reading the book for fun (i.e., your level of commitment is uncertain), then you are likely to be motivated more by how many pages you have read so far.  If you are only 50 or 100 pages in, chances are that you may just give up and set the book aside!  I usually give every book for fun that I read at least the first 100 pages before I decide whether it's worth it to keep going or not.

As it turns out, there's more to this story!  Andrea Bonezzi and colleagues published an interesting paper in the journal Psychological Science ("Stuck in the middle: The psychophysics of goal pursuit") that provides some additional context.  They specifically looked at what happens when you are exactly half way towards reaching your goal (let's say you've read 100 pages of a book that is 200 pages long).  The classic goal-gradient hypothesis suggests that our motivation to reach a goal increases as we progress towards the desired end-state.  In other words, the closer we are to reaching the goal, the more motivated we are to doing so.  Bonezzi and colleagues suggested that motivation to work towards a goal can decrease about halfway to the desired end state, causing people and teams to get "stuck in the middle" on the way to their goals.  Again though, everything depends on whether we are looking at how much we have left to go at the half-way point (i.e. a "To Go" framing) or how much we have accomplished at the half-way point (i.e. a "To Date" framing).

Bonezzi and colleagues further suggested that where we started (the initial state) is more relevant to us at the beginning of our goal pursuit, while where we are going (the end state) is more relevant towards the end.  In other words, we may shift from a "To Date" framing to a "To Go" framing at the half-way point, which causes us to get "stuck in the middle" (see Figure below).  Indeed, their experiments confirmed this hypothesis.

  

Wiebinga and Fennis (see "The road traveled, the road ahead, or simply on the road? When progress framing affects motivation in goal pursuit") provided additional evidence that a focus on the road traveled (i.e. a "To Date" framing) was more motivating at the beginning of goal pursuit, while a focus on the road ahead (i.e. a "To Go" framing) was more motivating towards the end of goal pursuit.  

Miki Toyama (see "Which motivates an individual more: The to-date frame or the to-go frame? A regulatory focus perspective") assessed which framing was more motivating when individuals have what is called a "prevention focus" versus a "promotion focus".  Individuals with a "promotion focus" generally "play to win" (they see goal pursuit as an opportunity to learn, grow, and advance), while individuals with a "prevention focus" generally "play to not lose" (they see goal pursuit as an opportunity to meet their responsibility and stay safe).  Toyama's study showed that prevention-focused individuals are motivated more by how much they have accomplished (i.e. "To Date" framing), while promotion-focused individuals are motivated more by how much they have left to reach their goal (i.e. "To Go" framing).

In summary then, what motivates us to keep working towards our personal and professional goals?  

1. If we are highly committed to achieving a goal, if we are promotion-focused, or if we are close to reaching our goal, we should emphasize the work that we have left to achieve our goal ("To Go" framing.

2. If we our level of commitment to achieving a goal is uncertain, if we are prevention-focused, or if we have just started the pursuit of our goal, we should emphasize the work that we have accomplished up to that point ("To Date" framing). 

How to achieve your goals in life...

I recently mentioned a book by Heidi Grant called Nine Things Successful People Do Differently (see my post, "Be an optimist without being a fool").  Dr. Grant also wrote an article for Harvard Business Review with the same title which summarizes the book.  The book version is relatively short at just 112 pages, so I'd recommend taking a little extra time to read the book instead of the article.  I promised then that I would get back to her "nine things" in a future post, so that is just what I am going to do in today's post.  

While there are a number of definitions for the word goal, the best that I've heard is one from Ayelet Fischbach, who defined goals as mental representations of desired states.  Goals describe our idea of how we would like things to be in our personal and/or professional lives.  Dr. Grant's HBR article (and book) focus specifically on the nine things that successful people do in order to achieve their personal and professional goals.

1. Get specific  

I've mentioned the SMART goal framework in the past (see, for example, my post from 2016, "Goooooaaallll!").  Recall that "SMART" is an acronym, with the S standing for Specific.  When you set a goal, it's better to be as specific as possible.  For example, rather than setting a goal to "lose weight", be more specific and set a goal to "lose 10 pounds."  Leave no question or ambiguity about what it is that you are trying to achieve.

2. Seize the moment to act on your goals

As I mentioned in a recent post ("Only the disciplined ones are free in life..."), achieving our personal and professional goals in life requires discipline.  We have to take advantage of every opportunity to act on our goals.  Dr. Grant again recommends being as specific as possible.  We should decide what action we will take to achieve our goals, as well as when and where we will take each action.  She suggests using "If...then" statements.  For example (and I will continue to use the example goal, "Lose 10 pounds in 3 months"), "If it's Monday, Wednesday, or Friday, I will work out for 30 minutes every morning before going to work."

3. Know exactly how far you have left to go

Assuming we have adopted the SMART goal framework, we can monitor the progress to achieving our goal (remember that the M stands for Measurable).  Dr. Grant says, "If you don't know how well you are doing, you can't adjust your behavior or strategies accordingly."  In her book, she discusses the difference between using a "To Go" versus a "To Date" framing.  I plan to discuss this topic in an upcoming post soon, but simply stated with a "To Go" framing, you count how much work, time, or distance remains until you reach the end (goal achievement).  Conversely, with a "To Date" framing you count how much work, time, or distance you have already completed up to a specific point in time.  As it turns out, our level of motivation to continue to push towards the end of our goal depends upon whether we use a "To Go" versus a "To Date" framing.  Whether we use either framing, Dr. Grant's point here is that we should know exactly how far we've come and how far we've left to go to reach our goal.

4. Be a realistic optimist

I recently posted about a concept known as realistic optimism (see again, "Be an optimist without being a fool").  Particularly when we set so-called "stretch goals", it's important that we have the confidence in our ability to achieve the goals that we set for ourselves.  However, it's equally important that we are realistic about those same abilities.  Studies consistently show that if we think that it will be easy and effortless to achieve our goals, not only will be less prepared when the "going gets tough", we will significantly increase the odds of failure.  It's better to believe in ourselves AND know that it will require a lot of effort, commitment, and dedication.

5. Focus on getting better, rather than being good

We should have what Carol Dweck calls a "growth mindset" (as opposed to a "fixed mindset"), which she defines as a belief that intelligence, abilities, and talents are not fixed traits but can be developed through dedication, effort, and a willingness to learn. We should focus on continuously improving ourselves by adopting a growth-mindset as opposed to a fixed mindset.

6. Have grit

I've posted a lot about Angela Duckworth and her TED talk that was based upon a research study that she published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ("Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals").  She later wrote a book (Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance) that quickly made it to the New York Times bestseller list.   The book was interesting, but if I were to be completely honest, the research study and TED talk were just as impactful (and shorter).  We often, for good reason, use the words resilience, perseverance, and grit interchangeably.  Dr. Grant says that grit is a willingness to commit to long-term goals and to persist, even in the face of adversity.  Importantly, grit is something that we can develop over time.    

7. Build your willpower muscle

I've posted about the famous "Stanford marshmallow experiment" in the past (see "Life is a marshmallow - easy to chew but hard to swallow"), as well as a similar study involving marshmallows, radishes, and will power by Roy Baumeister (see "What do I know of man's destiny? I could tell you more about radishes").  Basically, these studies tell us that will power and self-control are a lot like our muscles in that we have to exercise them in order to keep them strong.  In order to build self-control and will power, start out with small, challenging tasks that build over time to bigger and even more challenging tasks.

8. Don't tempt fate

If our will power and self-control are like muscles, we need to recognize that muscles can become fatigued with overuse.  We shouldn't try to take on two challenging tasks at the same time (for example, quitting smoking and losing weight at the same time).

9. Focus on what you will do, not what you won't do

Replace bad habits with good habits.  If your goal is to lose 10 pounds, frame what you will do in the positive as opposed to the negative.  For example, "I will walk 30 minutes every morning" as opposed to "I will sitting on the couch and watching TV."

Dr. Grant makes a number of great points here.  Collectively, these "nine points" will help you to set not only the right kinds of goals for yourself, but also they will help you successfully achieve them.  As mentioned above, next time I will talk a little more about the research on using a "To Do" versus a "To Date" framing when measuring progress towards goal achievement.