Static Friction And Me

It’s easier to keep going than it is to start moving.

There’s an analogy here from my day job that's relevant. In physics, friction is a force that opposes motion. Physicists like to ignore it, but as someone who deals with the mechanics of real, physical systems, I can't. When you design a motion control system, you have to provide a way to compensate for the loss of energy that comes from surfaces rubbing against each other. It turns out, though, that this force comes in several varieties, two of which I have to deal with: static friction and kinetic friction. Kinetic friction is what we're used to dealing with; it’s the thing that slows down our cars and keeps us from getting amazing gas mileage.1 Kinetic friction acts on bodies in motion. Static friction, on the other hand, is a force that has to be overcome in order to put something into motion. Curiously enough, these two forces work differently, and for most objects and surfaces, static friction is greater than dynamic friction. So in order to get started, you need to apply more force than you do once you've gotten going.2

One thing you've probably noticed about the last several months' worth of posts here is that they're almost exclusively about my thought process and how I deal with things. I haven’t made much of an attempt to generalize my experiences to other people. That's because talking about myself is my way of overcoming this blog's static friction. I want to blog more (as I've talked about), and I've found that focusing on the process of writing without worrying too much about what I'm writing is the key to getting up to speed. I've made time to write, I've figured out what I need to have with me to write when have that time, and I've developed the habit to a point where I can start to refine it.

"Write what you know" can be taken too far; the result is self-indulgent navel-gazing. On the other hand, Have Games, Will Travel taught me that trying to focus exclusively on the material and leaving myself out of the equation doesn't work either. What I need to do is write about my deeply subjective experiences in a way that makes them interesting and accessible to others. One reason I blog is to be part of a conversation, rather than to be a voice shouting down a well, and this is where you can help me.

I'm not posting every day, but I am working on posts almost every day, so I'm starting to emerge from the static friction portion of this project. Now I've got two questions. First, how can I frame the things that I talk about to make them more accessible and useful to you as a reader? I’ve experimented a bit with style and format, and I’m curious to know what works (for people who aren’t me). The other question is, now that I’m moving, which direction should I point? I'm obviously going to continue writing about things I'm doing, but I do enough stuff that I can't write about it all. What parts are you interested in reading about? Here are some topics (among others) I could be writing about:

• Productivity and effectiveness
• Scrum
• Improv
• The Origins Awards
• Creativity and making things
• Living in Santa Barbara
• Career development
• Communication
• Working with teams
• The minutiae of day-to-day life
• Things I’ve read (regardless of topic)

So, what am I doing that’s working and what should I think about changing? I suppose that now that the car is rolling, it's time to start playing with the steering wheel.

1 That, and air resistance. But let’s be like physicists and ignore that.

2 And yes, I realize that from a physics perspective, there’s a difference between maintaining velocity and accelerating. Bear with me, so I don’t have to make this analogy too overwrought.

Comments

[jessecoombs]

I'm always interested in productivity and effectiveness.

[Paul]

What in particular are you interested in? What do you think I can add to the conversation?

[Peter Kelley]

Productivity and Effectiveness, Improv, Career Development, all of these are interesting but one thing I have learned from listening to Have Games Will Travel is that you are an interesting person. If you find something interesting then chances are we will too.

I recommend looking at the stuff that Hugh Macleod is doing on social objects. If you develop a set of social objects that are characteristically yours then you will engage with your audience more completely and enhance your "global microbrand" to increase your audience.

[Fred Hicks]

I... uh. I can't think of a reason to remove anything from that list of possibilities. :)

[Paul Gibson]

I've enjoyed listening to you talk most when you are deconstructing something; describing if something works well and what specifically it is about that thing that you think works well. That tight focus on quality is a Tevis trademark. Whatever areas you choose to cover (and I think Fred is right, don't limit yourself too much), give yourself room to do the analysis.

[Rob Donoghue]

Yeah, sorry man, it's all good by me.

[Christina]

I'm a fan of the posts about productivity, creativity, and thinking about thought processes. I rarely have anything to say about them, given how different my day to day circumstances are from yours, but I'm a geek for figuring out how to solve problems by self-tweaking.

I also liked the material on Paul Unscripted, and IIRC the one about Disney's Fantasia is the sort of thing that could work in a blog format. The combination of talking about personal history in conjunction with things you're currently reading and thinking about is cool.

"Write what you know" can be taken too far; the result is self-indulgent navel-gazing... What I need to do is write about my deeply subjective experiences in a way that makes them interesting and accessible to others.

Is self-indulgent navel-gazing really a threat? My experience reading other blogs makes me think that S.I.N.G. doesn't shut down conversations the way you imply, at least in women's blogging communities. I don't think there's much territory inside us that's by nature too esoteric for other people to connect to, and writing rambly emotional things about one's life usually garners supportive replies. That's not what I do--I write more literary essays about my inner life, and their literary nature does tend to cut off conversation, I think. But it's easy to see why SING is good for generating comments: it typically indicates need from the writer, while its unrigorous style promises that there's a low bar to entering the conversation. You won't look stupid by saying "me too." It might not be the conversation that you or I want on our blogs, but that's no reason to knock it. (also, what is the type of conversation you want on your blog?)

"Self-indulgent navel-gazing," as a phrase, is a lot like gut-punching emo porn. GPEP is catchy language partly because it's disparaging: it acknowledges our cultural sense that there's something salacious about taking pleasure in strong emotions instead of keeping them close to your chest where they belong, like good civilized Protestant men. Or if they're positive emotions you're indulging in, you totally shouldn't enjoy thinking those nice things about your sinful self. It's a position that I agree with less and less as time goes by.

But now I'm wondering whether we even mean the same thing by SING. Maybe I should've started there: Is self-indulgent navel-gazing a phrase with an actual referrent?

(okay, this sounds way snarkier than I feel. I got excited and my argue-y side kicked in, but I'm not sure it's worth editing or deleting unposted. this happens to me not uncommonly.)

[Rebecca R]

I'm with those who say anything you write about is interesting. It happens that creativity and productivity and meetings and corporate stuff relate directly to my work. But you talking about any topic tends to give me an extra viewpoint on how to break things down and think about that topic. I love that. Any time you say something that's just a little catalyst for my brain, I'm thrilled. And that pretty much happens every time you post. :)

Cheers!