我刚才删除了我的记录。很生气也很遗憾。基辛格也有别的作家写的书上写的东西都失去了。我怎么办？我找了如果有别的办法所以我发现怎么恢复我的数据。看来这样的办法没有。基辛格的一本书叫《》上我写了很多事儿关中国政府的政策。不过现在都消失了。
<一 首 诗> by Li Bai
床 前 明 月 光
疑是 地 上 霜
举 头 望 明 月
低 头 思 故 乡
看过的电影的列表
Pirates of the Caribbean On Stranger Tides (2011)
Rango
True Legend
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Megamind
Gentleman prefers blondes 1953
Cat Ballou 1965
Blue Kite
The Night of the Hunter (1955)
Sniper
The legend of 1900
The revolutionary road
White Elephant
Rise of the planet of apes
Rio
Let me in
Ponyo
Last Airbender
Restrepo
Bank job
9 Rota
Quantum of Solace
Adjustment Bureau
The Reader
SHooter
Seraphim Falls
Casino.Royale
Toy Story 1
Toy Story 2
Toy Story 3
Rightous kill
Troope de elite
The Duchess
Man on Wire
Catfish
The Big Lebowski
Solitary Man
Bande a Part AKA Band of Outsiders
Once 2006
读书的列表
Moonwalking with Einstein by Joshua Foer
The Mind Map Book
Sheep Falls
The Best advice I ever got
The genius in all of us
Born to Run by Christopher McDougall
A man who loved China
On China by Henry Kissinger
SEAL Target Geronimo
Black Hawk Down: A story of Modern War
Looming tower: Al-Queda
The Price of civilization by Jeffrey Sachs
That used to be US by Thomas Friedman
Steve Jobs iLeadership
Steve Jobs:
INSIDE STEVE'S BRAIN:
Practicing mind
Steve Jobs iLeadership
Min39: About the half of what separates the successful ones from unsuccessful entrepreneurs is pure perseverance. There are so much rough moments that most people give up. I dont blame them. It's really tough. It consumes your life. You have to be burning with idea or plan or right the wrong. If you are not passionate from the start you will never stick it out.
How much difference a single person can make? Milestones are essential to make sure the achievement. Also the celebration of the milestones. Maintaining momentum in face of failures. One homerun is better than double! Quality is better than quantity. [Reserve the energy put everything into just few that will make you known well-throughout the world.]
INSIDE STEVE'S BRAIN:
"Most people would put Apple in that category. You could spend billions of dollars building a brand not as good as Apple. Yet Apple hasn’t been doing anything with this incredible asset. What is Apple, after all? Apple is about people who think outside the box, people who want to use computers to help them change the world, to help them create things that make a difference, and not just to get a job done.”
min 4.47: There is a gotta. You've gotta have a vision for people to follow. A roadmap to infinity. You encourage the ideas that are in line with a vision or roadmap and then give people the chance to be part of it. You have to tolerate the mistakes without penalizing people. [will not give the message of wrong sort - your job would not be at stake]
Chap4: “In our business, one person can’t do anything anymore. You create a team of people around you.” by Steve Jobs
Perhaps most significantly, the public humiliation of the unfortunate rep put the fear of God into all the other sales reps. It sent a clear message that everybody at Apple is held personally accountable.[…] Jobs is famous for his reality distortion field—a ring of charisma so strong that it bends reality for anyone under its influence.
“The reality distortion field was a confounding melange of a charismatic rhetorical style, an indomitable will, and an eagerness to bend any fact to fit the purpose at hand. If one line of argument failed to persuade, he would deftly switch to another. Sometimes, he would throw you off balance by suddenly adopting your position as his own, without acknowledging that he ever thought differently. Amazingly, the reality distortion field seemed to be effective even if you were acutely aware of it, although the effects would fade after Steve departed.
In return, Jobs keeps a distance from rank-and-file employees. Except with other executives, he is fairly private at Apple’s campus. Kramer writes that remaining aloof instills a mixture of fear and paranoia that keeps employees on their toes. Staff are always working hard to please him, and it also allows him to reverse decisions without losing credibility.
Born to Run
233/610: Ultrarunning used to be just a handful of freaks in the woods with flashlights, but over the past few years, it had been transformed by an invasion of Young Guns. Like Karl Meltzer, who rocked “Strangelove” through his iPod while winning the Hard rock 100 three times in a row; and the “Dirt Diva,” Catra Corbett, a beautiful and kaleidoscopically-tattooed Goth chick who once, just for fun, ran all 211 miles of the John Muir trail across Yosemite National Park and then turned around and ran all the way back; and Tony “Naked Guy” Krupicka, who rarely wore more than skimpy shorts and spent a year sleeping in a friend’s closet while training to win the Leadville 100; and the Fabulous Flying Skaggs Brothers, Eric and Kyle, who hitchhiked to the Grand Canyon before setting a new record for the fastest round-trip run from rim to rim.
Matt Carpenter, a mountain runner in Colorado Springs, began spending hundreds of hours on a treadmill to measure the variations in body oscillations when, for instance, he took a sip of water (the most bio-mechanically efficient way to hold a water bottle was tucked into his armpit, not held in his hand). Carpenter used a belt sander and a straight razor to shave micro-ounces off his running shoes and plunged them in and out of the bathtub to gauge water retention and drying speed. In 2005, he used his Leadville—he finished in a stunning 15:42, nearly two hours faster than the fastest Tarahumara ever had.
But! What could the Tarahumara do if pushed? See, that’s what Caballo wanted to know.
259/610: Lisa Smith-Batchen, the amazingly sunny and pixie-tailed ultrarunner from Idaho who trained through blizzards to win a six-day race in the Sahara, talks about exhaustion as if it’s a playful pet. “I love the Beast,” she says. “I actually look forward to the Beast showing up, because every time he does, I handle him better. I get him more under control.” Once the Beast arrives, Lisa knows what she has to deal with and can get down to work.
308/610 : That fall, a photo appeared in UltraRunning magazine. It shows Jenn finishing a 30- mile race somewhere in the backwoods of Virginia. There’s nothing amazing about her performance (third place), or her getup (basic black shorts, basic black sports bra), or even the camera work (dimly lit, crudely cropped). Jenn isn’t battling a rival to the bitter end, or striding across a mountaintop with the steel-jawed majesty of a Nike model, or gasping toward glory with a grimace of heartbreaking determination. All she’s doing is … running. Running, and smiling.
“Nothing works out according to plan, but it always works out.”
391/610 “He’s from L.A., man; he thinks you’ve got to fill every space with noise.”
561: “No. Way. In. HELL!” growled Caballo, who was running in a pack of his own with Barefoot Ted, Eric, and Manuel Luna. When they got to the five-mile turnaround in the tiny Tarahumara settlement of Guadalupe Coronado, Caballo and Manuel started asking the Tarahumara spectators some questions. It didn’t take them long to find out what was going on: the Urique Tarahumara were taking side trails and shaving the course. Rather than fury, Caballo felt a pang of pity. The Urique Tarahumara had lost their old way of running, he realized, and their confidence along with it. They weren’t Running People anymore; they were just guys trying desperately to keep up with the living shadows of their former selves.
ROUGH GUIDE TO RUNNING
Which sports drink?
There are three types of sports drinks on the market:
Isotonic: The balance of carbs and electrolytes to water is thesame as in the human body, so it will be absorbed at around the same speed as water, but has greater calorific value.
Hypotonic: The carbs and electrolyte/water ratio is less that the body’s, so the fluid is absorbed quicker than water but with less energy replenishment.
Hypertonic: A greater carbs/electrolyte concentration than the body, so the fluid is absorbed the slowest, but the energy replacement is the greatest. Best as an after-race recovery drink.
Also, the addition of carbohydrate speeds up your body’s absorption of the drink’s water element. However, for it to be of value to you, a sports drink’s carb content has to be between five and eight per cent. If it is much lower, it won’t be enough to make any difference and you might as well save your
money. If it is higher than eight per cent then the concentration of sugar will actually impede your body’s water absorption, will require too much of the energy that should be saved for running to be used up in breaking it down, and will have a hugely increased chance of upsetting your stomach. This is why sugar-rich “energy” drinks are not recommended for runners.
Moral Animal: Why we are the way we are – Robert Wright
As Emile Durkheim, the father of modern sociology, wrote at the turn of the century: human nature is "merely the indeterminate material that the social factor molds and transforms."
p.23: Darwinian anthropologists see the world's undeniably diverse cultures as products of a single human nature responding to widely varying circumstances; evolutionary theory reveals previously invisible links between the circumstances and the cultures (explaining, for example, why some cultures have dowry and others don't)
。。。Still, neither is the idea that the grimmest parts of the human experience are wholly immutable, grounded in "instincts" and "innate drives"; nor the idea that psychological differences among people boil down mainly to genetic differences. They boil down to the genes, of course (where else could rules for mental development ultimately reside?), but not necessarily to differences in genes
。。。But he must be ever "armed against the temptation of low indulgences," and must not "defile his body by sensuality, nor his mind by servile thoughts.
。。。"Fitness" is the thing that natural selection, in continually redesigning species, perpetually "seeks" to maximize. Fitness is what made us what we are today
。。。 [why there is competition for females? Why males chase after females?] As the evolutionary psychologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson have succinctly put it: for males "there is always the possibility of doing better."7
There's a sense in which a female can do better, too, but it has to do with quality, not quantity
… Bateman saw the import: natural selection encourages "an undiscriminating eagerness in the males and a discriminating passivity in the females."
…
For a male mammal, the necessary sacrifice is close to zero. His "essential role may end with copulation, which involves a negligible expenditure of energy and materials on his part, and only a momentary lapse of attention from matters of direct concern to his safety and well-being." With little to lose and much to gain, males can profit, in the currency of natural selection, by harboring "an aggressive and immediate willingness to mate with as many females as may be available." For the female, on the other hand, "copulation may mean a commitment to a prolonged burden, in both the mechanical and physiological sense, and its many attendant stresses and dangers." Thus, it is in her genetic interest to "assume the burdens of reproduction" only when circumstances seem propitious
… One way to strengthen an evolutionary explanation is to show that its logic is obeyed generally.
…At some point, in other words, extensive male parental investment entered our evolutionary lineage. We are, as they say in the zoology literature, high in MPI.
…
But high MPI has also created whole new ways for male and female aims to diverge, during both courtship and marriage. In Robert Trivers's 1972 paper on parental investment, he remarked, "One can, in effect, treat the sexes as if they were different species, the opposite sex being a resource relevant to producing maximum surviving offspring.
…What drives men craziest is the thought of their mate in bed with another man; they don't dwell as much as women do on any attendant emotional attachment, or the possible loss of the mate's time and attention. Wives, for their part, do find the sheerly sexual infidelity of husbands traumatic, and do respond harshly to it, but the long-run effect is often a self-improvement campaign: lose weight, wear makeup, "win him back." Husbands tend to respond to infidelity with rage; and even after it subsides, they often have trouble contemplating a continued relationship with the infidel
… In a high-MPI species, the female seeks two things: good genes and high ongoing investment. She may not find them in the same {69} package. One solution would be to trick a devoted but not especially brawny or brainy mate into raising the offspring of another male. Again, cryptic ovulation would come in handy, as a treachery facilitator.
… You might think that the number of sperm cells in a husband's ejaculate would depend only on how long it's been since he last had sex. Wrong. According to work by Baker and Bellis, the quantity of sperm depends heavily on the amount of time a man's mate has been out of his sight lately.37 The more chances a woman has had to collect sperm from other males, the more profusely her mate sends in his own troops. Again: that natural selection designed such a clever weapon is evidence of something for the weapon to combat.
… A good example lies in Robert Trivers's 1972 paper on parental investment. Trivers noted two patterns that social scientists had already uncovered: (1) the more attractive an adolescent girl, the more likely she is to "marry up" — marry a man of higher socioeconomic status; and (2) the more sexually active an adolescent girl, the less likely she is to marry up.
… (Women report putting more emphasis on a sex partner's looks when they don't expect the relationship to last; they are apparently willing, unconsciously, to trade off parental investment for good genes.)
… Among all the data on contemporary marriage, two items stand out as especially telling. First is the 1992 study which found that the husband's dissatisfaction with a marriage is the single strongest predictor of divorce.66 Second is that men are much more likely than women to remarry after a divorce.67 The second fact — and the biological force behind the second fact — is probably a good part of the reason for the first.
… when monogamy is found in subsistence-level cultures, Alexander calls it "ecologically imposed." When it appears in more affluent, more stratified cultures, he calls it "socially imposed."3 The question is why society imposed it.
… The United States is no longer a nation of institutionalized monogamy. It is a nation of serial monogamy. And serial monogamy in some ways amounts to polygyny.15 Johnny Carson, like many wealthy, high-status males, spent his career monopolizing long stretches of the reproductive years of a series of young women. Somewhere out there is a man who wanted a family and a beautiful wife and, if it hadn't been for Johnny Carson, would have married one of these women. And if this man has managed to find another woman, she was similarly snatched from the jaws of some other man. And so on — a domino effect: a scarcity of fertile females trickles down the social scale
… There are ways to fool mother nature, to induce parents to love children that aren't theirs. (Hence cuckoldry.) After all, people can't telepathically sense that a child is carrying their genes. Instead, they rely on cues that, in the ancestral environment, would have signified as much. If a woman feeds and cuddles an infant day after day, she may grow to love the child, and so may a man who has been sleeping with her for years. This sort of bonding is what makes adopted children lovable and nannies loving. But both theory and casual observation suggest that, the older a child is when first seen by the substitute parent, the less likely deep attachment is. And a large majority of children who acquire stepfathers are past infancy.
… The best that natural selection can do is give us adaptations — "mental organs" or "mental modules" — that play the odds. It can give males a "love of offspring" module, and make that module sensitive to the likelihood that the offspring in question is indeed the {106} man's. But the adaptation cannot be foolproof. Natural selection can give women an "attracted to muscles" module, or an "attracted to status" module, and, what's more, it can make the strength of those attractions depend on all kinds of germane factors; but even a highly flexible module can't guarantee that these attractions translate into viable and prolific offspring.
… After reflection of unknown length, he modified the foregoing sentence with "better than a dog anyhow." He continued: "Home, & someone to take care of house — Charms of music & female chitchat — These things good for one's health. — but terrible loss of time." Without warning, Darwin had, from the pro-marriage column, swerved uncontrollably into a major anti-marriage factor, so major that he underlined it.
…And, as many husbands and wives can attest, the birth of a child often cements a marital bond, if obliquely; the love of spouse is partly diverted to the child and then refracted diffusely onto the family as a whole, mate included. It is a different kind of love for the spouse, but it's sturdy in its own way. In the absence of this roundabout recharge, love of spouse may tend to disappear entirely — by design.
…Divorce statistics support Samuel Johnson's characterization of a man's decision to remarry as "the triumph of hope over experience."
…He[John Stuart Mill] wrote: "Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures. ... It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides."
… Perhaps the greatest threat to lasting marriage — the temptation of aging, affluent, or high-status men to desert their wives for a younger {142} model — was met with great social firepower.
…Consider the sexual double standard. the most obvious Darwinian explanation is that men were designed, on the one hand, to be sexually loose themselves yet, on the other, to relegate sexually loose women ("whores") to low moral status — even, remarkably, as those same men encourage those same women to be sexually loose.
… So unless identifying kin is very hard, evolution should produce a strong and well-targeted strain of benevolence, not a weak and diffuse strain. And that is what has happened. It has happened, at least to some extent, with ground squirrels, which are more likely to deliver warning calls in the presence of close kin.7
…For, assuming the mother's poor health leads — through skimpy milk, say — to frail offspring, it will bode especially ill for the sons. Malnourished males may be shut out of reproductive competition altogether, whereas a fertile female in almost any condition can usually attract a sex partner.
Some nonhuman mammals seem to comply with this logic. {171} Florida pack rat mothers, if fed poorly, will force sons off the teat, even letting them starve to death, while daughters nurse freely. In other species, even the birth ratio of males to females is affected, with mothers in the most auspicious condition having mostly sons and less advantaged mothers having mostly daughters.26
In our species, somewhat polygynous through much of its evolution, wealth and status can be as important as health. Both are weapons with which men compete for women — and, in the case of status, at least,, this has been the case for millions of years.
In the course of his basically sound approach to evolutionary psychology, Darwin succumbed to a temptation known as group selectionism. Consider his central explanation for the evolution of the moral sense. In The Descent of Man he wrote that "an advancement in the standard of morality and an increase in the number of well-endowed men will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. There can be no doubt that a tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to give aid to each other and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection." Yes, this would be natural selection, if it actually happened. But, while it isn't impossible for it to happen, the more you think about it, the less likely it seems. Darwin himself had seen the main snag only a few pages earlier: "It is extremely doubtful whether the offspring of the more sympathetic and benevolent parents, or of those which were the most faithful to their comrades, would be reared in {186} greater number than the children of selfish and treacherous parents of the same tribe." On the contrary, the bravest, most self-sacrificial men "would on an average perish in larger number than other men." A noble man "would often leave no offspring to inherit his noble nature."
… We now know that habits are passed from parent to child by instruction or example, not via the genes. In fact, no life experiences (except, say, exposure to radiation) affect the genes handed down to offspring.
… Once the prevailing winds of cooperation are shifting — from generation to generation, from one village to an adjacent village, or from one family to the next — these shifts are a force to be reckoned with, and a flexible strategy is the way to reckon. As Axelrod showed, the value of a particular strategy depends utterly on neighborhood norms
… One way to put the matter is to say that Victorian England was an admirable society, but not one composed of especially admirable people. They were only doing what we do — acting conscientiously, politely, and considerately to the extent that it pays. It just paid more in those days. And besides, their moral behavior, however laudable it was or wasn't, was more a heritage than a choice; the Victorian {224} conscience got shaped in ways the Victorians never understood and were in some sense powerless to affect.
…The simpler way to account for this sort of "excessively" moral behavior is to recall that human beings aren't "fitness maximizers" but rather "adaptation executers." The adaptation in question — the conscience — was designed to maximize fitness, to exploit the local environment in the name of genetic self-interest, but success in this endeavor is far from assured, especially in social settings alien to natural selection. {225}
Thus the conscience can lead people to do things that aren't in their self-interest except in the sense of salving the conscience itself. Sympathy, obligation, and guilt, unless subjected to a veritable extermination campaign during youth, always have the potential to bring behaviors of which their "creator," natural selection, would not "approve."
…Beneath the behavioral parallels between human and nonhuman primates lie biochemical parallels. In vervet monkey societies, dominant males have more of the neurotransmitter serotonin than do their subordinates. And one study found that in college fraternities, officers, {242} on average, have more serotonin than do their less powerful fraternity brothers.21
…In any event, there are good Darwinian reasons to believe that everyone is born with the capacity for high serotonin — with the equipment to function as a high-status primate given a social setting conducive to their ascent. The whole point of the human brain is behavioral flexibility, and it would be very unlike natural selection, given that flexibility, to deny anyone a chance at the genetic payoffs of high status, should the opportunity arise.
…What does serotonin do? The effect of neurotransmitters is so subtle, and so dependent on chemical context, that simple generalizations are risky. But often, at least, serotonin seems to relax people, {243} make them more gregarious, more socially assertive, much as a glass of wine does. In fact, one of alcohol's effects is to release serotonin. As a slight and useful oversimplification, you might say that serotonin raises self-esteem; it makes you behave in ways befitting an esteemed primate. Extremely low levels of serotonin can accompany not just low self-esteem, but severe depression, and may precede suicide. Antidepressants such as Prozac boost serotonin.
… "Woman seems to differ from man in mental disposition, chiefly in her greater tenderness and less selfishness," he wrote in The Descent of Man. "Man is the rival of other men; he delights in competition, and this leads to ambition which passes too easily into selfishness. These latter qualities seem to be his natural and unfortunate birthright."
…Under his rule, life was orderly and just. If two chimps were fighting, he would step between them with calm authority, ending hostilities without fear or favor. And when he did side with one combatant, it was almost always the one who was losing. This pattern of support for the downtrodden — {252} populism, we call it — had also been employed by Yeroen. It seemed to impress the females especially; being less caught up in the pursuit of status than males, they seemed to place a premium on social stability. Luit could now count on their support.
… Still, if we are not going to explain such things — respect, reverence, awe, honor, stubborn pride, contempt, disdain, ambition, and so on — as natural selection's way of equipping us for life in a status hierarchy, how, then, are we to explain them? Why are they found in cultures everywhere? Is there an alternative theory? If so, does it explain, as well, why pride and ambition, for example, seem to reach greater heights in men, on average, than in women? Modern Darwinism has an explanation for all of this, and it's simple: natural selection in a context of status hierarchy.
… Indeed, the hunger for status may actually lower the costs of redistribution. Humans, it seems, tend to compare themselves to those very near them in the status hierarchy — to those just above them, in particular.49 This makes evolutionary sense as a {257} ladder-climbing technique, but that's not the point.
… The range of things that can bring status in different cultures and subcultures is astonishing. Making beads, making music, delivering {259} sermons, delivering babies, inventing drugs, inventing tales, collecting coins, collecting scalps. Yet the mental machinery driving these various activities is fundamentally the same. Human beings are designed to assess their social environment, and, having figured out what impresses people, do it; or, having found what people disfavor, avoid it. They're pretty open-minded about what "it" is. The main thing is that they be able to succeed at it; people everywhere want to feel pride, not shame; to inspire respect, not disdain.
… In other words, what we call cultural "values" are expedients to social success.55 People adopt them because other people admire them. By controlling a child's social environment, by selectively dishing out respect and scorn, we can program his values as if he were a robot.
… The command of resources — that is, money — will tend to hold a certain appeal. Still, resistance is possible. There are cultures and subcultures that try to put less emphasis on the material and more emphasis on the spiritual. And their success is sometimes impressive, if less than total. And, moreover, there is {261} no reason to believe that any of them have reached the limits of biological potential.
…Reciprocal altruism brings its own agenda to the presentation of self, and thus to the deception of self. Whereas status hierarchies place a premium on our seeming competent, attractive, strong, smart, et-cetera, reciprocal altruism puts its accent on niceness, integrity, fairness. These are the things that make us seem like worthy reciprocal altruists. They make people want to strike up relationships with us. Puffing up our reputations as decent and generous folks can't hurt, and it often helps.
DARWIN’s STRATEGY:
First, Darwin strengthened his argument. While immersed in barnacles, he continued to gather evidence for his theory, partly through the postal interrogation of far-flung experts on flora and fauna. One reason for the Origin's ultimate success was Darwin's meticulous anticipation of, and preemptive response to, criticism. Two years before the book's publication, he correctly wrote, "[I] think I go as far as almost anyone in seeing the grave difficulties against my doctrine."
…
The second prong of Darwin's three-pronged strategy was to beef up his credentials. It's a commonplace of social psychology that cred ibility grows with prestige. Forced to believe either a college pro fessor or a grade-school teacher on some question of biology, we usually choose the professor. In one sense, this is a valid choice, as the professor is more likely to be right. In another sense, this is just another arbitrary by-product of evolution — a reflexive regard for status.
…
The third prong of Darwin's strategy was to marshal potent social forces — to meld a coalition that included men of stature, men of rhetorical power, and men who fit both descriptions. There was Lyell, who would bring Darwin's first paper on natural selection before thes Linnean Society of London, lending it his authority (though Lyell was then an agnostic on natural selection); Thomas Huxley, who would famously confront Bishop Wilberforce in the Oxford evolution debate; Hooker, who would less famously confront Wilberforce and would join Lyell in unveiling Darwin's theory; and Asa Gray, the Harvard botanist who, through his writings in the Atlantic Monthly, would become Darwin's chief publicist in America. One by one, Darwin let these men in on his theory.
…
We spend our lives desperately seeking status; we are addicted to social esteem in a fairly literal sense, dependent on the neurotransmitters we get upon impressing people. Many of us claim to be self-sufficient, to have a moral gyroscope, to hold fast to our values, come what may. But people truly oblivious to peer approval get labeled sociopaths. And the epithets reserved for people at the other end of the spectrum, people who seek esteem most ardently — "self-promoter", "social climber" — are only signs of our constitutional blindness. We are all self-promoters and social climbers. The people known as such are either so effective as to arouse envy or so graceless as to make their effort obvious, or both.
p.707
SWITCH
p.20 You need to control commitments, projects, and actions in twoways horizontally and vertically. "Horizontal" controlmaintainscoherence across all the activities in which you are involved.Imagine
your psyche constantly scanning your environment likepolice radar; it may land on any of a thousand different items thatinvite or demand your attention during any twenty-four-hourperiod:
the drugstore, the housekeeper, your aunt Martha, thestrategic plan, lunch, a wilting plant in the office, an upset cus
p.21 "Vertical" control, in contrast, manages thinking up and down the track of individual topics and projects. For example, your inner "police radar" lands on your next vacation as you and your spouse talk about it over dinner—where and when you'll go, what you'll do, how to prepare for the trip, and so on. Or you and your boss need to make some decisions about the new departmental reorganization you're about to launch. Or you just need to get your thinking up to date on the customer you're about to call.
[...]The goal for managing horizontally and vertically is the same: to get things off your mind and get things done.
p.24 THE CORE PROCESS I teach for mastering the art of relaxed and controlled knowledge work is a five-stage method for managing workflow. No matter what the setting, there are five discrete
stages that we go through as we deal with our work. We (1) collect things that command our attention; (2) process what they mean and what to do about them; and (3) organize the results, which we
(4) review as options for what we choose to (5) do.
p.51 The Six-Level Model for Reviewing Your Own Work
50,000+ feet: Life•
40,000 feet: Three- to five-year vision•
30,000 feet: One- to two-year goals•
20,000 feet: Areas of responsibility•
10,000 feet: Current projects•
Runway: Current actions
