turns out, you can't be good friends with everyone (aka the hardest lesson i've learned this year)

i’m sure this lesson is a composite of many different things i’ve read and heard and learned from people wiser than me. but over the course of the last two years (and really mostly this year), it’s become very clear to me that it’s actually a terrible idea to try and operate at the same level of friendship with everyone.

there was an episode of some podcast (i’m thinking it was a ted radio hour) where they were discussing the failure of community in retirement homes. the operators of the facility tried everything to get people to make new friends. when they finally figured out why people weren’t interested in the community-building activities, it boiled down to one simply quote:

“realistically, there isn’t enough time to make another life-long friend and i’d rather spend time with the few i have left than try and make new ones.”

that lesson has really stuck with me.

additionally, as i continue to build out my personal system, it’s clearer and clearer to me that “the trouble is you think you have time” (jack kornfield’s fake buddha quote). so, i’m still looking for the balance, but i’ve just come to settle in the reality that i can’t be close with everyone. and there are actually some really good benefits to knowing that and acting on that knowledge.

the upsides of this lesson:

• i am now several years into relationships that (i hope) will be with me for the rest of my life. in pragmatic terms (which isn’t actually how i evaluate relationships), the value of a conversation with someone who has known me for years, is WAY more meaningful than a million conversations with people who barely know me. of course, that doesn’t mean i avoid new people and it doesn’t at all mean i don’t love new people in my life less, but i don’t give them the same priority. it might sound harsh, but if you think about it, it’s actually pretty straightforward and logical.
• going deep with a few friends means i actually have people i can count on. when i come to town, or need a hug, or need a couch to sleep on, i know who’s in my corner. always. i heard about a study the other day that discussed how many americans didn’t feel like they had one real friend they could count on in an emergency. of course, that’s a very particular stat, but still, the point is that putting a conscious effort into your friendships is beneficial. 
• i have learned to feel 100% fine saying no to random hangout meetings. i feel fantastic about saying no most of the time because i know that i’m making sure that, by conserving my energy, i can show up fully for my close friends.

the downsides of learning this lesson:

• often i have to say no to people i love.
• sometimes people get upset when i don’t want to hang out with them.
• i generally have a weaker sense of everything that’s going on around me.

but still, all that said, i’m pretty confident in my belief that friend time (and all energy) is limited. i’m committed to not wasting it on vague social networking. of course, i still meet new people and stuff, but my priority is my close friends. after i’ve made time for those folks will i fit in random stuff.

being conscious (and explicit, at least with yourself) about who your inner circle might sound mean, but it’s actually sane. i often think social networks (facebook, twitter) have made us forget that we actually need close friends and friendships.

it’s really sad that even though many of us are more “connected” than we’ve ever been, we feel more alone than ever before.

the fix is easy: pick your friends and commit. it’s not pretty (based on our current societal norms), but it’s healthy. and good.

academia is a crock: part 2

on sunday i explained my evolving theory about why so many crazy people end up in academia. this is all grounded on a piece i heard by alain de botton (which i wrote about here) and my ongoing conversations with jason spicer.

when spencer and i talked, i broke the reality up into phases 1-5.

1. academic jobs are attractive because you get to read, write, and do awesome research all while having absolute job security.
2. the attractiveness created a massive demand problem. too many people wanted too few jobs.
3. as a result, academic institutions have, over time, instituted a crazy gauntlet (the phd process) that is predicated on weeding people out. as phds have become more and more rigorous, fewer people make it through. in some ways, this balances the supply and demand.
4. however, what the phd process has now become is insane. for years, you are continually training to critique everyone’s ideas (including your own) ruthlessly and without shame. then, after reading and critiquing everyone else in your field, you are left essentially on your own to come up with your own ideas.
5. by the time you’re ready to apply for one of the few jobs in your field, you have been pruned and preened to destroy everyone and everything around you (via critique and your well-refined ability to go it alone) to achieve your goal.

and yet we wonder why so many professors and academic departments are fucking insane…

can love be violent? can love be angry?

a few days ago, my friend ambroise and i were talking about things we’d learned about love this year. one of the things he mentioned was learning about different types of love. i, too, have been reading, experiencing, and learning about different kinds of love.

one interesting point was that as he has been exploring, his new experiences are having the effect of expanding and/or destroying his previous ideas about love. there are some types of love that, once experienced, make you realize that something you previous thought was love actually was not. sometimes this is a difficult experience (because learning is), but in the end the lessons are always valuable.

we also discussed whether or not love could be violent.

i learned a lot from reading bell hooks’ all about love earlier this year so a couple points on that question.

1. a good working definition of love is this one from m. scott peck: “the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing one’s own or another’s spiritual growth.” - the road less traveled: a new psychology of love, traditional values, and spiritual growth 
2. based on that definition, love cannot be violent.
3. anyone who is saying or framing violence as love is either being oppressive or being oppressed. by calling something bad (violence) as good (love), power can be held over someone by claiming that they aren’t being good (loving) and that is oppressive. this oppression can (and is) happen on levels from the individual up to the societal.

now, can love be angry? absolutely. i was just listening to the recent ruby sales on being interview on the radio at stitchdown and a few points either came to me or were given by ruby.

1. anger and love are not opposed; in fact, they often go together (point from ruby). 
2. anger and violence are different things.
3. ruby believes there are two different types of anger: redemptive anger and non-redemptive anger. non-redemptive anger is destructive and unproductive. redemptive anger moves you to productive action, based on love. for example, non-redemptive anger is what white supremacy is based on. redemptive anger, driven by love of a fellow human, can cause you to take action (creating an intervention, protesting, using resources) on their behalf.
4. anger, anchored in love, is a powerful force that, if channeled properly, brings justice to life. this idea is from an audre lorde essay on the uses of anger. (see the book “love that does justice" by thomas schubeck).

on matching skills, needs, and passions

this weekend i’m in vermont visiting my friends andrew and rita on their farm (which is dope: @stitchdownfarm!). i had a few conversations last night with folks and in explaining what jungle is and does, i had a tiny little breakthrough. this may not be new info, but i think i understand a piece of the jungle system in a new way.

as i explained to people the vision (which is fulfilled people doing and building world-changing things), someone compared jungle to a recruiting firm. and in some ways, that is a piece of what we do. actually, i’m not totally sure what a recruiting firm does, but i think that comparison is apt.

what i realized, though, was that by adding in the passion to the matching of skills with needs (which is what conventional firms do), we’re bringing in new value. on one hand, we help people with a passion for something connect to work relevant to that passion. on another, we help people looking for team members find skilled workers who are motivated by that passion and interested in non-economic forms of compensation (network, prestige, creative outlet, etc.).

i’ve written about this before [link coming someday when i have time to find that other post], but someone asked how to differentiate between all the different people with the same skillset. like, there are already TONS of photographers, graphic designers, djs, etc. i think adding the passions to the calculation will help differentiate different skill/service providers from each other. darius foroux, one of my favorite coaches and researchers, believes something similar…

and on top of that, different people have different levels of profiency within their skillsets. that will provide another way with which to facilitate matches. for example, if you are looking for a basic or beginning level of photography, it’ll be important to match your “budget” and needs with the skill level of someone in your range.

so, in short, in a world where people do work that they’re passionate about (which should not be a luxury), people doing the same types of work get sorted out based on differential skill levels, styles, and complementary sets. in addition to matching the budget of resources offered to the particular person offering the skills.

ok that was messier than i had hoped. oh, well.

standing on the shoulders of the digital nomad innovators

sometime last week my friend, jason, sent me this article: Ditching the office to work in paradise as a “digital nomad” has a hidden dark side.

it seems like the overall thrust of the article is this: the digital nomad lifestyle is actually not that great.

ross, my jungle partner, and i think about digital nomad lifestyle (it fits into what ross calls the #5to9) a lot. we’re both actually really excited to try it out/we’re already doing it. 

i think maybe the above article is an example of first wave digital nomadism and what we’re doing/thinking about is part of the second wave. i think the following factors/thoughts are some of the distinctions:

• endless vacation is not the goal (it’s also a myth and actually a terrible thing); seeing the world and making your work better is A goal.
• travel in itself is not valuable. it’s all about what you learn and then do with the lessons that is valuable.
• community and relationships matter. travel is not a replacement for meaningful, long-term relationships (family, friends, lovers) and the benefits (and downsides) of community.
  
• traveling the world may feel urgent and important in one phase of life and totally uninteresting in another. one might want it in varying degrees at different points in time. i have many management consulting friends who would do anything for three months at home. i also have other friends would do anything to quit their jobs and travel for a year. as with most things, there is a balance, the balance changes over time, and the real highest value happens when people have the flexibility and ability to live life how they want at any given time.

so basically, the first wave of digital nomads did a lot of testing. maybe we’re a part of round two.

ps - there’s a particular phrase that floats around the queer world that seems apt here. “partnered/married but with a long chain…” do with that what you will. ;)