So Long, Fellow Dish Dwellers October 22, 2007

Today marks the conclusion of the experiment known as The Petri Project. As we said from the get-go, this blog was an investigation—an attempt to throw ourselves into the Petri dish (at times, onto the Bunsen burner) and chart what it looks and feels like to be an individual trying to make a change. We embraced our reptile brains, we determined our guiding words, we tried to clean up our rooms, we laughed, we cried, we got lucky. And now we’re moving onward and upward.

As regular Petri Project readers know, change is good. The the brain thrives on new experiences (not just metaphorically, but literally, since novelty increases neuron production). So while our lab coats are going into storage for now, stay tuned to 43 Things for more experiments, advancements, and editorial adventures.

As for me, I’ll be continuing with my own experiments… concocting future issues of my literary magazine, Swivel, and personally researching how long a human can exist in the environment known as freelance writing. Thanks so much to Petri Project readers and comment-posters—having you in on the dissection made it all the richer.

Have fun out there, and remember to wear your safety goggles!

In Praise of Piles October 18, 2007

“If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, of what, then, is an empty desk?” ~Albert Einstein

I’m gearing up to clear out my home office, and for me a hefty part of that process involves kicking and screaming against the mere prospect of doing it. Hence, today’s post, in which I become defensive about my clutter.

When I chanced upon this picture of Al Gore in his office (at right) and noted the spectacular state of his desk, my first reaction was, “One of my people!” (My second was, “What’s with the giant frog art, Al?”)

I felt instantly supported in my long-held belief that countless smart and successful people manage just fine with clutter. According to Ajilon Office, a professional staffing firm, this belief is not merely wishful thinking. Their research has found that “office messiness tends to increase sharply with increased education, salary, and experience.” (Which I guess accounts for why Mr. Gore’s desk makes mine look neat as a pin.)

Despite the fact that many high achievers do their high achieving amid slippery stacks of paper, there’s a whole lotta shaming going on when it comes to clutter. Naturally, a lot of the tsk-tsking is perpetrated by the booming home-organizing industry, which the New York Times says is projected to reach $7.6 billion by 2009.

Authors Eric Abrahamson and David H. Freedman, in their book A Perfect Mess: The Hidden Benefits of Disorder (due out in paperback on January 1st), attempt to combat the current home-organizing hysteria with reasoned arguments in support of disorder. While Abrahamson and Freedman do not advocate hoarding and concede a space must have enough room for the occupant to actually work, they also contend that people who tend toward a cluttered desk also tend to get loads accomplished (the piles are just a retraceable trail of work flow).

In an interview with the New York Times, the authors purport, “Mess is complete, in that it embraces all sorts of random elements. Mess tells a story: you can learn a lot about people from their detritus, whereas neat—well, neat is a closed book. Neat has no narrative and no personality.”

Even further, they argue, too much organization inhibits creativity. In an article in Inc.com, Freedman says, “When things are carefully arranged and kept in their ‘proper’ time and place and done in precisely the ‘right’ way every time, you lock out some highly useful qualities—such as improvisation, adaptability, and serendipity.” One of many examples cited is that of Alexander Fleming, whose cluttered laboratory desk held a moldy petri dish that led him to discover penicillin.

So here’s to piles of paper and moldy petri dishes! You never know what great discoveries might lie within.

Photo: Al Gore in his office (Steve Pyke for Time).

Time to Punch Out? October 17, 2007

Complaining about your job is a great American pastime. In fact, sometimes co-ruminating (remember that word?) about your workday trials is the most enjoyable part of the day. But how can you tell the difference between run-of-the-mill kvetching and a genuine need to move on? According to a recent article in Psychology Today, when estimating your own job satisfaction you should ask yourself the following questions (and pay close attention to your answers):

• On a scale from dread to joy, how happy am I to get out of bed in the morning and head for the office?
• On a scale from coma to challenging, how much am I learning, stretching, or in some other way developing professionally?
• On a scale from despised to delightful, how inspiring, supportive, or otherwise productive are my relationships with my close colleagues?
• On a scale from pathetic to proud, how does my current salary and/or level of responsibility match my aspirations?
• And on a scale from thrill seeker to security lover, how much professional risk can I tolerate at this moment in my life (since I just got the divorce or since my mate makes a fortune; since the kids are in school or since I don’t have any yet)

While the article doesn’t say how *many* of these must be at the negative end of the scale before you leap, the list does serve as a good gauge and a great starting point. And if it seems clear it’s time to pack up the cube—but you aren’t yet sure what’s next—you can always consider a vocation vacation.

Photo credit: TheGoogly on Flickr.

Getting Lucky: Graduation Day October 12, 2007

[This is the final in a series by guest blogger Ali Davis]

I have now spent a full 30 days getting lucky. And, yes, that sentence is just as much fun to type as you think it is.

Like Dr. Wiseman’s test cases in The Luck Factor, I filled out the life satisfaction and luck profile questionnaires again, with interesting results: I had improved in almost every area. I managed to chin myself up from low life satisfaction to medium, and made satisfying gains in my scores in three of Wiseman’s four main principles: maximizing chance opportunities, listening to my hunches, and turning bad luck into good.

But what was even more interesting was that I was surprised that I hadn’t improved more. When I thought about it, I realized I had been cocksure about zooming ahead because I was having a good time. Wiseman gives you plenty of tasks, but they’re hardly chores. Even the one that was initially the hardest for me, striking up conversations with strangers, has gotten easier and even—dare I say it?—sometimes enjoyable.

I was surprised at how quickly I internalized some of the principles. I now get restless if I go several days without deliberately breaking up my routine, and as I went through my luck journal I realized that I wasn’t thinking of successes and defeats, but of successes and initial defeats. And that seems to be the main habit of the truly lucky: they don’t see bad events as endings, but as bumps along the way to eventual success. Just changing your narrative is surprisingly useful in keeping you going.

In the end, I’m glad that there’s room for improvement in my luck profile. A lot of the process of improving my scores even this far has involved approaching life in a positive and playful way, which turns out to be fun. If there are more jollies to be had while boosting my numbers even further, hell, sign me up for the extra credit work.

And if I happen to stumble into wealth, true love, and happiness along the way?

Well, that’d be just my luck.

Photo credit: fujin on Flickr.

Addressing Success October 11, 2007

What is your definition of lasting success—freedom from financial worries? A fancy title? Widespread acclaim? The fact that a whimsical blanket is not your closest friend?

According to management experts Jerry Porras, Stewart Emery and Mark Thompson (writing recently in the University of Toronto’s Rotman business school magazine), “lasting success” can only be achieved “when three essential elements come into alignment” in life and work. As co-authors of the book Success Built to Last: Creating a Life that Matters (now out in paperback), the three men interviewed 200 people widely acknowledged to have “made a difference in their field,” including Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, Jimmy Carter, and Maya Angelou.

After asking these high achievers (or “builders,” as they call them) for their definitions of success, the authors learned that “when success just means wealth, fame and power it doesn’t last and it isn’t satisfying.” They concluded that “success in the long run has less to do with finding the best idea or business model than it does with discovering what matters to us as individuals.”

So what are the “three essential elements” required for lasting success? Drumroll, please…

1. “Meaning,” as in, “What you do must matter deeply to you.”

2. A “highly developed sense of accountability, audacity, passion and responsible optimism.”

3. A knack for finding “effective ways to take action.”

It’s a pretty impressive list (I sure like that first one), especially if you believe all three need to be in the mix in order to achieve true success. Try holding it up next to your current life/work situation. How many check marks have you earned?

Wet Blanket October 10, 2007

Does anyone else find this home accessory as depressing as I do? It’s called the Buddy Blanket and sells for $169. The New York Times says it offers “the illusion of companionship,” while the retailer contends it’s the “ultimate solitude counter-measure.” I realize it’s supposed to be whimsical, but personally I find it more harrowing than hilarious. (Could there be a meaner gift for an always-single friend?)

Granted, everybody feels lonely at times, but I think you’re likely to feel ten times *more* lonely with one of these draped across the sofa (silently commanding, “Hey, Buddy! Come sit next to my inanimate, woolen arm!”). As if it weren’t already enough of a bummer, the blanket is also available in a white design that looks like a police chalk outline, giving the impression that your only friend was recently murdered on your couch.

Please folks, no matter how much you may yearn for companionship (illusory or otherwise), do not try this at home!

One Day at a Time October 9, 2007

What with the overflowing landfills, the mercury-laden seafood supply, and those poor polar bears drowning for lack of ice shelves, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed by the prospect of going green. You may find yourself a-swirl in a whirlpool of questions: Which environmental cause is most crucial? How much do I really have to change my lifestyle? Will any of it really make a difference? (And of course, the ever-harrowing, Paper or plastic?)

Grist.org, an environmental clearinghouse based in Seattle, does an excellent job of answering all manner of eco questions—and as an added bonus, they do so without being alarmist.

Grist just released their first book, called Wake Up and Smell the Planet: The Non-Pompous, Non-Preachy Grist Guide to Greening Your Day. (Full disclosure: I edited the book, but I earn no money from sales, so perhaps you’ll forgive the blatant plug!) Wake Up takes you through the course of a single day and offers suggestions for small, feasible ways you can make greener choices (while at breakfast; getting your kids ready for school; during your commute; at the office; at your backyard BBQ, etc.). The best part is, much like the Grist website, the book has a healthy dose of humor, which means you won’t walk away feeling despairing or ashamed. Or at least, no more despairing and ashamed than usual.

On Pins and Needles October 8, 2007

Here’s a suggestion for anyone seeking a cure for back pain: get stuck. According to a new study, acupuncture not only relieves back pain, it works better than traditional Western treatments. The research, which took place over six months in Germany, involved randomly assigning 1100 back pain patients to three groups. One group received real acupuncture, another received standard Western remedies (pain killers, heat therapy, and massage), and the other received “sham” acupuncture (meaning the needles weren’t stuck in traditional acupuncture points).

As reported by the Associated Press, 47% of people in the real acupuncture group reported an improvement in their health. That’s compared to a mere 27% of people who experienced relief in the “Western treatment” group. But perhaps most intriguingly, the study also found that 44% of people in the *sham* acupuncture group said their back pain had diminished.

Researchers say the high relief score for fake acupuncture could mean any type of pin pricking improves health, or it could be the result of our old friend the placebo effect.

But it seems that whether you’re seeing a certified acupuncturist or a quack who’s sticking needles in willy-nilly, you still have nearly a fifty-fifty chance of feeling better. And either way, it’s a better bet than popping a pill.

Photo credit: Joe Wu on Flickr.

Knick-Knack Backlash October 5, 2007

Is your cube festooned with photos of your dog, sports paraphernalia, and/or Star Wars action figures? If the answer is yes, be warned: your manager may be thinking of you as less than professional. New research from the University of Michigan reveals that people who over-personalize their workspace are often considered less serious about their jobs than employees who toil in a more sterile environment.

The study found that for the 95 managers surveyed, “the image of someone who is professional versus unprofessional reflects the proportion of objects that reference their personal, nonwork life.”

So how many trinkets are too many? Researchers say the professional vs. unprofessional line is drawn at one in five, meaning, if *more* than one in five of the items in your office is “personal in nature” your commitment to the job may be in question.

Interestingly, the research asserts that this anti-tchotchke bias is largely an American phenomenon. From the report:

A general aversion for blurring the work/personal boundary in the context of work is more reflective of American business practices than of those found in many other industrialized societies…. Americans are expected to put aside personal matters and focus almost exclusively on work-specific concerns upon entering the office.

I guess you can read this as either a mandate to pare down your personality… or a call to seek employment overseas.

Photo credit: FredoAlvarez on Flickr.

Getting Lucky: Field Report #4

[This post is part of a series by guest blogger Ali Davis.]

As a part of my all-out luck blitz, I’ve been listening to Wendi Friesen’s Lucky You CD. In theory, it seems to be very much in line with the advice Richard Wiseman gives in The Luck Factor—he recommends repeating daily affirmations to get your brain used to the idea that you’re a lucky person, and the hypnosis session is sort of a big, deep super-affirmation.

Except for the part where it makes me sort of anxious and crabby.

Don’t get me wrong: I like hypnosis. It’s interesting, and I’ve found that the relaxation of it can kill a migraine. And I do like Wendi Friesen—I’ve listened to a couple of her other discs and been perfectly satisfied. She’s a fine companion to have chatting along in your head.

But Lucky You doesn’t just tell you that you’re lucky; it leads you through a lucky day. You buy a raffle ticket, you find a lucky something on the street, and you meet a stranger in a restaurant who has a trip that he can’t use, and he offers to let you take his vacation. And that’s one of the places in the CD where even my completely reeeelaaaxed brain rears up and goes, “Wait a minute. What? I’m supposed to accept a weekend getaway from a stranger? Just show up at some remote cabin or motel because he said so? What am I, the second lead in a slasher flick?”

As if that weren’t enough, the lucky objects you encounter “glow,” which also snaps me out of the mood. I mean, are they supposed to be glowing literally or figuratively or what? Is she really suggesting that I’ll recognize lucky opportunities in life because if I’m doing this right they’ll start glowing? I can’t figure out what I’m supposed to be doing or how my brain is supposed to be treating that information, and that both irks the skeptical part of me and sets off waves of never-gonna-happen performance anxiety. Again, not relaxing.

And, yes, you are meant to know that the stranger you meet is going to be lucky for you because his eyes are glowing, which I’m reasonably sure is solid proof that Ms. Friesen and I have been watching very different movies. CD or no CD, I am never, ever going to accept travel documents from a stranger with glowing eyes. I may be lucky, but I ain’t stupid.

Photo credit: Gary* on Flickr.

Pencil Me In October 4, 2007

During the five years that I’ve been a freelance writer I’ve operated under a dilemma. I chose the freelance writing route so as to have enough time to do “my own” writing. But it turns out I rarely allow time for “my writing” because I feel like I should be seeking more lucrative pursuits (e.g., more paid freelance work).

On the rare occasion that I dive into “my own writing,” I feel guilty about the time spent on something that doesn’t bring in any money. (This despite the fact that I’m not currently strapped for cash.) Maybe it’s due to a deep-seated Puritanal work ethic or something… but working on my own writing, since it’s not an income-earner, feels somehow self-indulgent and irresponsible. (So much so that I have to put “my own writing” in quotes). The end result, of course, is that I start feeling resentful about never spending quality time on what I set out to do.

I was outlining my dilemma to a friend this morning and he pointed me to a post on LifeClever about an idea called the Unschedule. Taken from the self-help book The Now Habit: A Strategic Program for Overcoming Procrastination and Enjoying Guilt-Free Play, the Unschedule is a tool for making sure you get to do the things you *want* to do, without feeling bad about it.

According to the book, procrastination is “a symptom, a way of coping with deep psychological self-criticism and fear… because we’re taught to believe that working is good and playing is bad.” So on your Unschedule, you schedule times for *only* non-work related things (like breakfast, lunch, gym, social time, tv watching, recreation). The whole idea is that when something is on a schedule it magically legitimizes your personal time.

While the Unschedule is primarily designed to promote more focused bursts of work amid acceptable down-time, I think it could also work to “give permission” for creative pursuits. For me, creative writing is imbued with a certain frivolity, even though intellectually I know that’s not the case. So putting it on a calendar might be just the mindgame I need to give it an official, important status and make it happen more often.

What other tactics do you use to legitimize time spent on creative endeavors?

Image from LifeClever

Be Conscientious — Don’t Forget

Good news for those of us who’ve watched a relative suffer from dementia and would do just about anything to avoid it: new research on Alzheimer’s suggests there may be ways to decrease your chances of getting the disease. A few months ago we learned that people who worry and feel distressed may have an increased risk of Alzheimer’s. Now it seems your chances are reduced if you are a person who could be described as “driven.”

According to research done by the Rush University Medical Center, people who define themselves as as “self-disciplined, organized achievers” are less likely to develop the disease than people who self-identify as less directed. The study was conducted on 997 Catholic priests, nuns, and brothers, none of whom began the experiment with symptoms of Alzheimer’s. By the end of the 12-year study, 176 had developed the disease.

Participants who earned a high “conscientiousness” score on an introductory questionnaire were 89% less likely to contract Alzheimer’s. (Conscientiousness was defined by how much participants agreed with statements like, “I work hard to accomplish my goals,” “I strive for excellence in everything I do,” “I keep my belongings clean and neat” and “I’m pretty good about pacing myself so as to get things done on time.”) After other risk factors were accounted for (smoking, inactivity), dutiful people were still 54% less likely to develop Alzheimer’s.

Researchers acknowledge that this particular religious sample group may not be an exact representation of society at large, but contend that it contained a “normal range of personality types,” and maintain that this new information “adds to our knowledge that lifestyle, personality, how we think, feel and behave are very importantly tied up with risk for this terrible illness.”

It certainly couldn’t hurt to be more conscientious… as long as doing so doesn’t cause worry or distress.

Photo credit: Donna Cymek on Flickr.

I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar… for My Health October 2, 2007

Remember the old adage, “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all”? Turns out it’s a bad idea—at least if you’re a woman arguing with your spouse.

According to the New York Times, recent studies show that women who bottle up their true feelings during arguments with their husbands may be shortening their lifespans. One study found that women who “self-silenced” during spats were “four times as likely to die during the 10-year study period as women who always told their husbands how they felt.”

It’s a pretty radical claim. And the interesting part is that this apparently proves true regardless of whether women identify as being in a happy or unhappy marriage. It appears that when it comes to health, arguing *styles* make all the difference, rather than the frequency or subject matter of the fights. Another study found that if either partner’s arguing style was “warm” (with caring undertones) rather than “hostile” (you know, um, hostile), a woman’s risk of heart disease was lowered.

Other studies have linked the self-silencing trait to depression, eating disorders, and heart disease.

Strangely, although men are statistically more likely than women to self-silence during an argument, it appears that their health is largely unaffected by their arguing style. How ’bout that for something to yell about?

Globe Trotter (and Peddler and Paddler)

So you say you want to see the world. Well, how much time do you have? If you choose to follow in the footsteps of adventurer Jason Lewis, you’ll need to allot approximately 13 years. As reported in the Dorset Daily Echo, Lewis is about to become the first person to circumnavigate the globe solely via human power. The 40-year-old Brit began his journey on July 12,1994, and will return to the exact place he started (the Greenwich Meridian Line) this Saturday, provided his final paddle up the Thames goes as planned.

In addition to hiking and swimming, he has used kayaks, mountain bikes, in-line skates and a pedalo (pedal boat) to make his way around the planet—traversing five continents, two oceans and one sea for a total of 46,000 miles. The long, strange trip hasn’t been a walk in the park. While in the US, Lewis had both legs broken by a car. In Australia, he was chased by a 17-foot crocodile. In Egypt, he was arrested on suspicion of being a spy.

And over the years of his journey, his motivations have shifted… which is perhaps unavoidable when you’re experiencing the whole world from the ground up. Just imagine what sort of change in perspective that would bring! As Lewis says on his website:

Although the primary objective to circumnavigate the world using only human power remains the same, my reasons for doing it have changed over the years, and with them the inspiration to keep going. Instead of running away from England (as I think I was at the beginning) it is now more a question of riding forward on the back of ideas that I feel passionately about, and which justify going ‘out there’—with all the associated risks—again and again.

He’s hoping to use his adventure in the name of humanitarianism, particularly, he says, for furthering human compassion, environmental and social responsibility, and common citizenship.

But for now the traveler is excited to enjoy the simple pleasures of home. “I really miss the green rolling hills of Dorset where I grew up and going to a country pub and drinking a warm beer,” he says. “And also getting on a motorcycle and going a lot faster than I have in the past 13 years.”

Photo credit: kenyee on Flickr.

Dream Weaver September 28, 2007

Do you ever awaken disappointed by the way a dream turned out—wishing you could’ve pummeled your boss or slain the monster or made out with that movie star?

Proponents of “lucid dreaming” contend you can train your brain to do exactly that. As explained in a recent New York Times article, lucid dreamers “are able to generate or manipulate the fantastical events that unfold… they can fly without wings, play instruments they never learned, go bowling with T. S. Eliot—and, yes, indulge sexual fantasies.” Practioners like Stephen LaBerge (founder of The Lucidity Institute) say beyond fun “there’s also the possibility of creative problem-solving, overcoming nightmares and anxieties, learning more about yourself.”

Interested in playing director of your dreams? The article lists several ways to make yourself more prone to lucid dreaming, including waking up a half-hour early and going back to sleep for a short time, and keeping a dream journal so you’re more attentive to dreams (even while sleeping). There’s also a lengthy catalog of lucid dreaming how-to books available for bedtime reading.

Alternately, you can try building your own “dreamachine.” Invented in 1959, this pulsing light cylinder allegedly incites a trippy dream state even while you’re awake—but take heed, it may also induce seizures in photosensitive people. Fans of the dreamachine once believed it would replace television as a form of entertainment. (Fans of the dreamachine might have been spending too much time tripping out in front of it.)

For those who aren’t particularly crafty, you can always turn your browser into a dreamachine (click here and prepare to choose your preferred color and flash rate). Turn it on, try it out, and report back. Just don’t say I didn’t warn you about the seizures.

Photo: Dreamachine replica by 10111.org

Getting Lucky: Field Report #3

[The following is part of a series by guest blogger Ali Davis.]

The trip to Long Beach was fine. I wasn’t showered in leprechauns, moonbeams, and job offers, but the train ride was smooth and the weather was lovely and I shook up my routine and was open to whatever possibilities cropped up, which was kind of the real point.

Mostly what I got out of it was a good story: A guy and his son, who seemed to be about seven or eight years old, were sitting on the boardwalk eating ice cream cones. The dad was in a surgical neck brace, the kind with spokes poking down out of it. Just as I was thinking, “Wow. That guy could not be any more uncomfortable,” the boy turned to him and said, “Where do babies come from?”

It was a pretty great moment to witness, but also a pretty random one. And that brings up an interesting point about this project: Even though the main thrust of The Luck Factor is about “directed” luck, changing your point of view, and making the most of your opportunities, a fair amount of just plain dumb luck seems to crop up as well.

This week marked the first day I had to flip a page in my daily journal of lucky happenings to fit them all in, but almost all of the entries were sort of random: I *did* get to sit with a fun group at lunch, and I *didn’t* happen to choose the dish that had much of the group throwing up twelve hours later.

It’s the increase in dumb luck that the scientifically inclined part of my brain is having trouble reconciling, and I suspect it’s something that Dr. Wiseman has trouble with too. Is it entirely about my point of view? Would I really not have noticed a couple of weeks ago that I was lucky that the weather was nice, or that I was fortunate in not having to spend Monday night kneeling at the porcelain altar? I’m not sure.

On the other hand, it seems to be working. Why knock it?

Photo credit: taylorkoa22 on Flickr.

Risky Business September 27, 2007

If you watch Oprah regularly or read the self-help literature, you’re likely getting a lot of encouragement to take more risks. Which is probably a good idea for most of us (it’s certainly the case for me), since pushing your own limits is the only way you’re likely to make big changes in your life.

But last weekend, in an article called, “When the Limits Push Back,” the New York Times‘ William Yardley raised the issue of risk-taking gone too far. He discusses risk taking in the context of two new movies about real-life extremists—Into the Wild, based on John Krakauer’s bestselling book, and Deep Water, a documentary about an inexperienced sailor who attempted a solo circumnavigation of the globe in 1968—along with the story of Timothy Treadwell, who lived among grizzly bears in Alaska (documented in Werner Herzog’s Grizzly Man). In each case, the risk ended up killing the risk taker.

Yardley’s conclusion? “There are risks, it seems, and then there are very, very bad ideas.”

It turned out these particular risk takers weren’t adequately prepared for the challenges they set for themselves. But does preparing yourself for a risk negate its riskiness altogether? It probably depends on individual psychology. As Yardley puts it, “Motives can be different, from a raw need for thrill or attention to physical challenge, spiritual enlightenment, intellectual discovery or something darker.”

This past weekend, the Times printed reader responses to the question, “What’s the biggest risk you have ever taken?” It’s a pretty interesting collection of responses, from “telling a woman I loved her” to “choosing to have a child alone” to “enlisting in the Marine Corps in 1967” to “donating a kidney.” But what’s more interesting is to read whether the risks turned out to be good or bad ideas. Personally, the biggest risk I ever took was moving to Seattle from DC in my early twenties, with no job prospects, no place to live, and no network of family or friends in the area. It turned out to be the best move I ever made!

And you? What’s the biggest risk you’ve ever taken?

Photo credit: AnnieMathilda on Flickr.

Stuffocating September 26, 2007

In harrowing news for the clutter-prone (ahem), the Boston Globe reports that a human chain of 14 firefighters pulled a Massachussetts man out of his clutter-filled house last week, where he had become trapped by “a mountain of debris.” According to the article, “it took paramedics more than 10 minutes to locate him amid the piles of furniture, boxes, magazines, appliances, and trash that he’d accumulated over several decades.” (Found dehydrated and barely conscious, the 90-year-old is now recovering.)

To be sure, this is an example of extreme clutter, or “compulsive hoarding,” but it serves as an object lesson for those of us who tend to let the New Yorkers pile up.

Gail Blanke, life coach for Real Simple magazine, says there’s a great way to get your own de-cluttering process started: throw out 50 things. It certainly sounds “real simple,” at least until you hear the part where she says *all* your magazines and catalogs count as only one thing. Yikes.

She also suggests making a physical list of the 50 things you throw away, so you can look at it later and “feel lighter.” This idea is actually quite appealing to me—I like the sense of accomplishment I think it would bring. And Blanke says it can lead to even more than a clean house. From the article:

When you start throwing out a lot of physical clutter and you get on a roll, a new urge kicks in—the desire to clear out all the clutter in your mind. That’s when you get into the really good stuff. It’s the mental clutter that drags you down and holds you back, that keeps you from stepping into the next great segment of your life—the one that’s filled with promise, joy, adventure, and, best of all, fulfillment. You can’t move forward into the future when you’re constantly sucked back into the past.

And you can’t move anywhere when you’re trapped under a mountain of debris!

Photo credit: heet_myser on Flickr.

Travelers In September 25, 2007

I’ve been hanging out in New York City for the last several days, and while the city has much to remark upon, what I keep hearing myself say are things like, “Look at that squirrel,” and “Nice benches,” and “Good graphic design on that street sign.” This morning I actually marveled at an acorn and put it in my pocket.

I think that’s my favorite part about traveling—how the simple act of leaving your well-trod sphere has the effect of removing the scales from your eyes. You no longer slip through your environs, unseeing. Instead, everything catches your attention—not just the skyscrapers and monuments, but the tiny mundane things too. (We have squirrels and benches and street signs in Seattle, but I can’t remember the last time I genuinely *noticed* one.)

Is it possible to experience the same sort of hyper-awareness in your own city? It sure seems like it would make it a more invigorating place to be, no matter where you happen to live. Feeling surrounded by brand new sights and sounds makes it nearly impossible to tune out. You just can’t help but feel more alive and inspired.

I know I’ve tried to observe my hometown with a traveler’s eye before, but I’ve been surprised by how hard it is to amp my attention level when a big part of my brain is numbed out by familiarity. Anyone else had any luck with this? What’s the best way to trick yourself into believing you’re on vacation at home (and perking up those eyes and ears accordingly)?

Photo credit: caribb on Flickr.

Too Much Information September 24, 2007

Last week an article in the NY Times profiled a healthy 33-year-old woman who had elected to have surgery on her breasts. In this case, it wasn’t the standard breast augmentation, or even the less popular but still common breast reduction. Hers was a double mastectomy, which after much research and worry she had to decided to undergo in order to reduce her chances of getting breast cancer.

DNA tests are now able to tell whether women carry “the breast cancer gene,” called BRCA1 (or BRCA2). If your mother has the gene, there’s a 50/50 chance she’ll pass it to you. If you have the gene, your chances of getting breast cancer at some point in your life are increased by 60-90 percent. If you have the gene and have a preventative mastectomy, your chances of getting breast cancer are reduced by 90 percent.

I have a friend who has the gene, and is making the same difficult decision right now. For her, watching her own mother die of breast cancer is a strong argument in favor of such a radical procedure. But others would argue (for lack of more graceful phrasing) “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.”

As genetic mapping continues to advance, we’re able to know more about more about what the future of our health is likely to hold… whether that include cancer or Alzheimer’s or some other debilitating disease.

So my question it this: Is it better to know what (probably) lies ahead and take measures to alter the outcome? Or would you rather avoid the stress of knowing, and let things come as they may? In other words, is the crystal ball of genetic mapping a blessing or a curse?

Photo credit: Liquid29 on Flickr.