on being an external thinker/processor

so it turns out that i’m an external thinker. that essentially means that most of my information processing happens when i speak. this doesn’t mean that don’t think (because i think a lot). what it means is the process of me trying to convey a thought to someone else actually shapes the resulting thought. 

for example, say i’m managing a project with a bunch of different deliverables. i might have all of the parts clearly separated in my mind, but upon explaining the work to a friend, i might categorize the parts in a way that helps them understand. the next time i go back to work on the project, i have a new way of organizing the different deliverables.

being an external processor, like everything, has its pros and cons.

one strong pro is that being an external thinker means that i actually do better work in teams. my ideas are actually stronger when i have someone to work with and explain myself to. of course, having different minds working together almost always makes things better, but on a personal level, it means that just the presence of someone else can help make my own ideas better. this effect happens even if they contributed nothing other than their presence. (sidenote: this has some cool implications for partnerships with people and assessing the value someone provides just by being there, but that’s a different topic…)

this means that collaboration is a natural way of working for me. and given the direction of work i want to do in the world, this is a huge asset.

another pro is that because i know external processing makes my ideas stronger, i have a strong affinity for people. in a sense, i understand that i actually need people. this lines up well with my thinking about how the world functions best and how we’ll only be solve our biggest problems by working together… as a planet.

a con that i’ve recognized several times is that being an external processor can sometimes mean that i don’t know what i think about something until i hear myself say it out loud. sometimes i surprise myself with things i say. usually, this is positive, but sometimes it gets me in trouble.

ok, enough rambling. maybe i’ll elaborate on this later. maybe not.

why i go on walks

when a new connection or old friend wants to meet up, getting coffee or grabbing a drink is a common request. i know that speaks a lot to my socioeconomic class, but it is what it is.

about a year ago, however, i started counter-offering with walks instead. in 2015, i had two friends with whom i would go on walks regularly… and it was awesome. one friend and i work in the same neighborhood so we would walk home from work. the other i would meet up with (sometimes with dinner on the front-end) and we’d walk and talk for 2-3 hours. also awesome.

i have a couple of inspirations for these walking sessions.

1. judy layzer. my late academic advisor was known for having walking meetings with her friends and close students. at her memorial service, it was a real bonding experience to share stories of walking with her.
2. they’re cheap. walking is free. i can bring homemade snacks if i want. coffee and alcohol are expensive. i believe in supporting local watering holes, but sometimes i just don’t have the money.
3. i don’t drink coffee past the morning hours because it screws up my sleep. often people want to “get coffee” after work… which doesn’t really work for me. walking can happen any time of day (mostly).
4. they’re transportation. when i need to get from one part of town to another, walking is a great way to do it. especially when i can find someone who is going the same direction, a walk can be there perfect amount of time to catch up while also being pragmatic.
   
5. they help me know my city. there are few ways to get to know your neighborhood and city better than by walking through them.

plus, boston is the original walking city, right?

branding: the aesthetic manifestation of systems thinking

back in the middle of may, i visited one of my favorite places in the world, stitchdown farm. my new friends, andrew and rita plotsky hosted a lamb roast and it was amazing. andrew and rita have a lot of social gravity and when they put their energy into it, they pull lots of super interesting people from all over the country to the space they create. i can always look forward to good conversations there.

this time, andrew and i had a good conversations about how we’re both viewing our branding work. i described my work in a way that i hadn’t before and now i’m just writing it down.

to date, i think the story of my life has been systems thinking. all of my major life phases or decisions are marked by something systems related. first love at work (a christian mission camp i used attend and work at), then the food system, then cities. now branding.

1. the decision to take time off from school was driven by my understanding of ‘love at work’s impact on the city of gretna, florida.
2. my return to college was prompted by my understanding of the potential of the food system to save humanity on the planet.
3. my focus on urban planning was driven by thinking of cities as systems.

and now, i’m incredibly interested in branding. i think branding is the aesthetic manifestation of systems thinking. my other systems loves have not gone away. they’re now being rolled up into this new system.

we also talked about each of our brand holy grail’s. ours were sort of similar: branding a town/downtown. there is something exciting about shaping how current residents experience a town. it’s also exciting to think about how visitors and future residents will experience that same place. the most interesting question of all, though, is how to balance those two experiences.

anyway, branding as the aesthetic manifestation of systems thinking makes a lot of sense to me. i wonder if anyone else feels this way. hrm.

on telling and retelling our own personal stories

the other day i read a quote about telling and retelling our own stories by audre lorde, angela davis, or bell hooks (does that make me sound like an asshole?). it really got me going. the essence of the quote was that it’s important to recognize the power of telling and retelling your story. we can’t always control what happens to us, but we can control how we react to it. and furthermore, the power of narrative gives us the ability to shape how those two things combine and inform those around us about who we are. i mostly think about this on an individual level but it has implications for collectives as well.

in a class i co-taught with my friend, nse umoh, we lead an activity where people paired up and told each other their life story. one thing i always remember from this activity is how the 2nd storyteller chooses relevant details based on the 1st story. some would see this as disengenuine, but i think it lines up with the quote quite well.

another thought on this subject is how our stories change based on our time perspective of it. the older i get and the more i learn about the world and myself, how i describe my history evolves. how i divide my life into time spans changes as well as how i talk about what was important. two great quotes to mind in this regard:

1. something about how we can only see history by looking backwards.
   
2. the road you’ve traveled only seems clear and well-defined in hindsight.

the power to claim and reclaim our story can never be taken away from us and i think this is one of our greatest strengths. i am just beginning to understand this power for myself and i’m starting to see how it applies to others as well.

hm!

harnessing your emotions: stress

i used to want a stress free lifestyle. i used to think that stress was an indicator of something broken in my personal system. over the last year, i’ve changed my mind.

from an evolutionary perspective, our emotional responses (probably) are linked to survival. fear kept us safe. stress keeps us focused. happiness reinforces beneficial behavior. (inspiration: several episodes of design matters and onbeing; can’t totally remember which ones anymore).

and even though the world (well, for some of us) is less imminently dangerous than it used to be, our emotional responses still exist. some would say this an evolutionary lag. our bodies aren’t able to keep up with the rate at which we are changing our surroundings.

either way, these responses aren’t going away. and i’ve been inspired by audre lorde to use these emotional responses as engines for action (“The Uses of Anger: Women Responding to Anger”).

real world application: my friend ross and i were both stressed a few weeks ago so we did a little intellectual digging. why were we stressed? what were the sources of it? 

some of the stress was preventable; it followed from mistakes. ok so given that… how could we use the stress as a motivator for action? the stress response, in relation to a mistake, could be a trigger for learning. in order to not be stressed in the future, i shouldn’t make that mistake again.

other stress is not preventable; a crazy situation at work came up and you have to respond to it. how could stress be an engine for action? unclear, actually…

but either way, acknowledging the stress, dissecting it a little, and using it (when possible) as an advantage seemed helpful. it definitely felt more productive than drowning in it or being paralyzed by it.