1976: Born in Newport Beach, California
1986: Turned 10
1992: Briefly owned a Ford Mustang convertible, before totaling it
1993: My father passed away
1994: Graduated high school
1994: One year at UC Berkeley
1995: Moved to Seattle, Washington
1998: Graduated from UW
1998: Hired at Amazon.com to answer phones at night
2000: Transferred to Amazon web developer position
2000: Got married
2000: Launched Seattle Stories (now gone)
2001: Launched Nervousness (sold in 2002 for $400)
2002: Launched All Consuming (sold in 2005 for $5,000)
2002: Wrote Man Versus Himself
2003: Transferred to Amazon product manager position
2003: Wrote Disaster
2003: Web developer again
2004: Got divorced
2004: Quit Amazon
2004: Co-founded The Robot Co-op
2004: Bought a loft
2005: Launched 43 Things
2006: Co-founded McLeod Residence (closed in 2008)
2008: Married Kellianne
2009: Started Enjoymentland
2009: Launched Locavore
2009: Quit the Robot Co-op
2009: Kellianne gets pregnant
2010: Launched 750 Words

Coming soon:
2010: Son is born

Would be interesting to dig deeper into these 30ish events to see how they relate to one another:

• Which ones were intentional, versus accidental?
• Which ones had high immediate impact, which had high long-term impact?
• Which one had intended consequences versus unintended consequences?
• Which things am I proud of, which am I ashamed of?

Another thing to consider, as I am currently 33 years old, how many more things will be on this list?  I started this list in 2005 (it was the bio on an old Typepad account), and only just now updated it to include the last 7 things.  Will the list continue to include about 1 item per year?  Will I add things to the past that I don’t currently know are high-impact events?  Will I remove things?

Does it do any good to reduce life life this?

More and more, execution is also easy.

What’s difficult is taking a good idea and a good execution, and running with it.

In this way, someone with two all consuming passions is less fortunate than someone with one all consuming passion.

It’s easier to run with something when you’re only trying to get to one place.

Generally speaking, if you wake up one day and aren’t sure what to do with your time, do something small that helps someone else. As a nice side benefit, you’ll probably feel better as well.

via The Art of Non-Conformity » Annual Review: 2009 Life Lessons.

I think this is true. When at a loss for something to do, think about the people in your life and try to think of something nice that you can do for one of them. And then don’t mention anything about doing it.

It’ll all backfire if you expect credit or congratulations or even attention for the favor. For favors to work as self-medication, they have to be rewards in themselves, private to yourself, and with no residual expectation of pay-back.

Is that possible?

1. An action that one person does for another
2. The action isn’t done out of obligation
3. The action is determined by the recipient
4. No reciprocal favor or action is necessarily implied

We should all ask our friends and family if there are any favors we can do for them. It’s a win-win.

By “social specialization” I am referring to how, in groups, certain people specialize to take on certain roles, strengths, weaknesses, etc.  How, sometimes, in a group one person might be the one that helps pay for drinks at the end of the night, or the person who’s able to give you a ride home, or the person who acts the silliest, or the person that cries the most, etc.

The same person might have different specializations in different social circles. In one group, a person might be the comforting one while in other they might be the distressed one.

I’m interested in this for a weird reason. I’m particularly interested in how some people specialize as being good or strong or stable. They are the ones that people can expect to more often than not keep it together during a problem, be fair during disputes, take care of others when they’re in distress, etc.

The side effect of social specialization is that when one person specializes in the direction of a strength, it sometimes becomes a cue that others can be less strong, more dependent, etc. And this is a disincentive for the strong person to continue playing that role, as it in some ways makes the other characters less strong. Are they being taken for granted? And then who will be strong for them when they need it? Parents, I’m guessing, might run into this conflict when trying to decide how protective they want to be of their children… does one shield them from all turmoil at the risk of sheltering them too much and leaving them unprepared for the eventual arrival of “real life”?

Does the person who always picks up the tab disincentivize the others to make more money? Does the person who is patient disincentivize the others from having better behavior? Does the person who always cleans disincentivize the others from picking up after themselves?

In a way, social specialization seems inevitable, and in many ways productive to a social group.  We would never have evolved into multicellular creatures unless some cells decided to specialize and take over functions from other cells.  Similarly, society has to specialize in order to grow and evolve.  We can’t all grow our own food and improve technology and raise children and build roads and govern the states and transport mail in equal amounts.

Of course, the rational answer is that we should balance specialization with giving others an opportunity to grow in their own ways. Balance strength with encouragement to grow. But at the core of the question is an anticipation of what society might be able to evolve into if it were to go whole hog into the idea of social specialization.  How many cells got left out of the first multi-cellular animals?  How many species didn’t provide something of value to the whole and therefore disappeared into the world of independent single cell outcasts?

This train of thought is creeping me out.