Learning to juggle isn't about catching the balls, it's about throwing them. One reason many people have difficulty learning to juggle is because they can't unlearn the "catching" part.
Letting go of old habits is difficult but if you can master the trick of unlearning you just might be able to better handle the new "balls" life throws your way.
Related Post
What do you see in the image to the right? If you are like most people you see a square made out of alternating rows of squares and circles. It is slightly more difficult to see the square as columns of alternating squares and circles.
It is, of course, just a matter of perspective but one way to unlearn is to begin seeing things from different perspectives.
For an unlearning exercise, here's a "corny" idea. Most of us eat our corn-on-the-cob one of two ways: We either eat it row-by-row as though we were operating an old manual typewriter or, alternatively, we spin the cob and eat it by column-by-column.
Whichever method you normally use, try it the other way.
For some related posts checkout these old posts:
Last year, I posed the question above. The most common answer is the one posted below. But if you really want to unlearn, I encourage you to keep searching for answers. The problem can actually be solved using only three lines. In fact, there is even a way to do it using only one line. (The quiz and the possibility for multiple answers is a wonderful metaphor for the idea that you should never stop searching for better solutions -- i.e. just because you "solved" a problem that doesn't imply you solved it in the best or most effective or efficient manner.)
The bottom-line? Unlearning doesn't just require you to think outside the box, you need to think inside-out the box. Hell, you must even question the idea that there needs to be a box!
The three line solution:
And the one line solutions:
Lately, I have been noticing an interesting trend: More people are paying attention to how physical movement affects learning. For example, the other day, the Wall Street Journal had a fascinating article about how handwriting can help improve idea composition and expression. Clive Thompson at Wired had a great piece on how drawing--and not writing--may be a better way to communicate and understand ideas, and one of my all-time favorite TED videos is this talk (Are Our Schools Killing Creativity?) by Ken Robinson who stresses (among other things) that dance is critical to creativity.
If we can all learn differently by writing, drawing and dancing, it stands to reason that these same acts might also help us unlearn. As someone who typically learns by reading and writes via a keyboard, I intend to experiment with these unlearning tools. I'll keep you posted on my progress.
I have two children -- ages 9 and 11. I love them dearly but they have been known to not play so nicely with one another on occasion. What I find really fascinating is how they can be at each other's throat one minute and then playing peacefully together the next minute.
They have mastered the art of letting go. They don't hold grudges.
As we get older, I think we unlearn this habit and it isn't healthy. As example, I'd like to ask you to grab a pen. Now squeeze it as tightly as you can for a minute. At the end of the minute slowly begin to loosen your grip. It feels wonderful, doesn't it?
The real question, of course, is this: What else in your life are you holding on to? Are you squeezing on to a prized, physical possession (e.g. a car or a house); a personal relationship; or even an idea about yourself?
Now, think about letting that object go. Is it really as important or vital as you think it is? What would happen if you now really let it go?
The answer might surprise you because it could result in greater happiness.
Related Post
Take a look at the familiar tic-tac-toe grid to the right. In how many different ways could you make the journey? It is not common for people to guess 27, 81 or even 243. The answer, however, is 362,800. This is because the number of permutations is 362,800. (The actual number of winning or draw games is 255,168. For a more complete explanation click here.) My point is that either number is significantly larger than most people expect.
The same is true when thinking of the future. It is comforting to believe we can predict future with great certainty but as a professionalist futurist--and you may find this ironic, counter-intuitive, paradoxical or even disturbing--I make no claim to be able to predict the future.
Here’s why.
Consider almost any issue. What factors are involved? In my work as a professional futurist and forecaster, I regularly speak about 1) technology; 2) competitors; 3) customers; 4) employees; 5) money; 6) demographic characteristics; 7) politics; 8) regulatory issues; and 9) human behavior.
In many ways these characteristics are analogous to the X’s and O’s in a tic-tac-toe game and they can play out in hundreds or thousands of ways. In fact, the real number is so astronomical as to be incalcuable because there isn’t just one technology, one competitor or one employee to be concerned with in each circumstance. There are many and each one adds exponentially to the number of new possible outcomes.
All of this is not to say that forecasting isn’t valuable and worthwhile. It is. (I wouldn’t be a professional futurist if I didn’t believe this.) Rather, I merely want you to unlearn the idea that the future can be predicted with great clarity. It can’t.
Counter-intuitively, though, you can gain a better feel for the range of future possibilities but only if you first think and long about all of the variables which can affect your future.
P.S. But, as the post below suggests, don’t forget about Black Swans.
Related Posts
A Future of Black Swans ... or Unlearning the Future
The Practical Futurist vs The Impractical Futurist
Imagine the year is 1980 and this motley crew (see the picture to the right) walks into your office to sell you on some great big scheme that will make everyone a lot of money. Would you listen to them? You might but, even if you did, you probably wouldn't really hear what they said because you would have already discounted them because they looked "different" or "weird."
Of course, the fellow in the lower left-hand corner is Bill Gates and, today, he is the second or third richest person in the world.
If today, a group of young people came into your office with tattoos and pierced noses would you listen to them? To prove that you might not "hear" them, I invited you to watch this 30-second video on the "Mosquito Buzz Tone" -- it is a sound that most people over the age of 50 literally can't hear. (If you're over that age you won't be able to hear the sound so invite a younger colleague or a child to watch with you and ask them if they can hear the sound.)
If nothing else this "audio metaphor" should give you pause to consider what else you're not hearing.
Related Posts
Question: If you flip a coin 14 times which is more likely to occur: 1) The coin land on "heads" 14 straight times (HHHHHHHHHHHHHH); or 2) this random outcome: TTHTHHHTTHTHTT?
The answer is that the odds of each occurring are precisely same -- 1 in 16,384. And, yet, to most people the first outcome is viewed far differently and is, often, seen as a matter of extraordinary skill.
To demonstrate the point, consider one of the more statistically improbable outcomes of the last 14 Super Bowl's -- the team from the National Football Conference (NFC) has won the coin toss 14 straight times.
Now, the NFC team has not always called "Heads." In fact, the NFC team only gets to call the coin toss every other year. Therefore, the NFC has only had direct control of its destiny 7 times. And when it does call the flip, the NFC has been just as likely to call "heads" as "tails."
And, yet, the NFC has defied the odds by being on the winning side of the coin toss 14 consecutive times with this random outcome: HTHHTTTHHTHHTT.
My point is that this outcome is no more likely than 14 straight "heads," 14 straight "tails;" or 16,381 other permutations. The NFC's streak is, to be sure, a matter of extraordinary good fortune but it is important to remember that the odds of the NFC team winning the coin toss for a fifteenth straight time next year is only -- 50%.
“It’s not what you don’t know that hurts you; it’s what you know that just ain’t so.”--Satchel Paige
Question #86: In both 1995 and 1996, David Justice of the Atlanta Braves had a higher batting average than the New York Yankees Derek Jeter. Who had the higher two-year average over the same two-year period?
The answer is Derek Jeter. The anomaly, known as Simpson Paradox, occurred because in the first year Jeter had only 48 at-bats and 12 hits for average of .250, while Justice batted 411 times with an average of .253. The following year Jeter batted 582 times and hit for a .314 average, while Justice hit .321 but had only 140 at bats.
In other words, when you combined the players totals for both years Jeter comes out on up as the table below demonstrates.
|
1995 |
1996 |
Combined | ||||
|
Derek Jeter |
12/48 |
.250 |
183/582 |
.314 |
195/630 |
.310 |
|
David Justice |
104/411 |
.253 |
45/140 |
.321 |
149/551 |
.270 |
The sporting world is ripe with unlearning examples. One of my favorites occurred on December 30, 1936 when over 17,000 fans packed into the old Madison Square Garden to watch Long Island University, the country’s top-ranked basketball team, take on Stanford University. It was slated to be a great game. Long Island was putting up its 43-game winning streak up against the reigning Pacific Coast Conference champions.
More than that, though, people were eager to watch Hank Luisetti, Stanford’s star sophomore. He was the only player known for shooting the ball with one hand while jumping up in the air. At the time, every other basketball player in the country shot with two-hands or took hook shots.
Luisetti’s “jump-shot” was so radical, in fact, that it caused Nat Holman, the legendary coach of City College of New York—and a man known as “Mr. Basketball”—to remark, “That’s not basketball! If my boys ever shot one-handed, I’d quit coaching.”
Luisetti and Stanford went on to crush Long Island University and, two years, later, Luisetti became the first college player ever to score 50 points in a game.
Today, it is impossible to find a single player at either the collegiate or professional level who shoots two-handed.
It took a long time for basketball players (and their coaches) to unlearn the two-handed shot but the story and Jeter/Justice anomaly remind us that unlearning can be both counter-intuitive and paradoxical.
To this end, while it is true that a return to two-handed shooting is unlikely, it might make sense on one area of the basketball court: the free-throw line. Consider the case of Rick Barry. Although he used an unorthodox under-handed “granny-style” style to shoot free-throws, Barry is the National Basketball Association’s second most accurate free-throw shooter of all-time with an average of .900. Today, not a single player shoots free-throws under-handed. This is in spite of the fact that the average accuracy rate in the NBA is roughly 75% and many games are determined by just a few points.
For those players and coaches with the courage to unlearn their current free-throw shooting style, it could lead to an “above average” outcome because even a modestly higher free-throw average could result in a handful more victories each season.
Homework Assignment: Explain why you think no one in the NBA shoots under-handed free-throws. For extra credit: Name at least two NBA players who might want to unlearn their current form and consider shooting “Granny-style”? (Hint: At 52.4%, Shaquille O’Neal is only the second worst free-throw shooter.)
