Tag: positivity

• 76 thumbs down

  A few weeks ago Seth Godin wrote a post on his blog called: What 99% looks like. He used the example of a Turkish vlogger who had posted an interview with him to YouTube that received the following view count, up votes and down votes:

  

  The point he wanted to make was that many of us will instinctively focus on that one number: 76. We will say to ourselves that 76 people hated our video, our work, so much so that they felt compelled to give it a decisive thumbs down.

  His message was clear: “Ignore it. Shun the non-believers and ship your work.” 76 people out of 108,605 views is not even 1%. And 76 out of (10,827 + 76) interactions is still not even 1%. You could easily say that this video has a greater than 99% approval rating.

  I love this message, because there will always be naysayers, especially if you’re doing something interesting and unique. In fact, having naysayers is probably a good litmus test to make sure that you are indeed doing something interesting and unique.

  But here’s the thing. 

  The YouTube metrics above make for a rather transparent platform. You can see that the video received 108,605 views and that 10,827 + 76 people felt so strongly about it that they wanted to leave a mark by way of a thumbs up or thumbs down. But most importantly, you can see that way more liked the video than hated it.

  But what if it wasn’t clear that over 10,000 people were fans of your work? What if all you saw was how many people hated it? And what if those voices were amplified? That would be pretty discouraging, considering that many of us are already focusing on that number to begin with.

  I can think of many instances where the fog is thick and we don’t have full visibility. That’s where it gets even tougher, but more critical, to “shun the non-believers.” There may be people out there who truly love your work and what you’re trying to do. You just may not know it, yet.

  2017.06.29

• Why pessimism sounds so smart

  Tom Gardner and Morgan Housel (The Motley Fool) recently published a LinkedIn article called, Why Does Pessimism Sound So Smart? (Especially When Things Are So Good.)

  Here is the gist of it:

  If you say the world has been getting better you may get away with being called naïve and insensitive. If you say the world is going to go on getting better, you are considered embarrassingly mad. If, on the other hand, you say catastrophe is imminent, you may expect a McArthur genius award or even the Nobel Peace Prize.

  Part of the reason for this is that we, as humans, respond more strongly to losses:

  There’s clearly more at stake with pessimism. Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize for showing that people respond more strongly to loss than gain. It’s an evolutionary shield: “Organisms that treat threats as more urgent than opportunities have a better chance to survive and reproduce,” Kahneman once wrote.

  The behavioural economic theory being referred to above is called Prospect Theory. I wrote about this back in the fall of 2013 and made the argument that Prospect Theory might explain why NIMBYISM is so common in city building. 

  Change to our communities is perceived as risky. And in the face of these uncertain situations, we tend to place more emphasis on the potential losses (traffic, congestion, shadowing, and so on) rather than the potential gains (increased vibrancy, improved streetscape, creation of more housing, and so on). It’s human nature.

  Having said all this, I show up here every day and try to make this blog a positive place on the internet. Sure, I make suggestions about things I think we should do, but I generally focus on them as opportunities. Hopefully that comes through, because I’m a big fan of optimism.

  2016.03.28

• My approach to blogging

  In yesterday’s post about the city as an egg, I received a comment basically saying that I use this blog to carefully curate my own image and that I would never argue against “dumb Toronto planning” because, after all, I’m a developer. I am going to do what breads my own butter.

  I welcome intelligent debate on this blog. That’s why it is open to anyone who would like to comment. But since I’ve received similar comments in the past, I thought I would use the opportunity to talk broadly about my approach to blogging.

  Firstly, there will always be some level of curation involved. That’s inevitable. We see it all over social media. But I’m a big believer in transparency and I try to do exactly that on this blog. I am keen to push the boundaries in this regard.

  At the same time, part of what makes blogs unique is that they’re often personal. That is the origin of blogging. Some of my favorite blogs to read are the ones that have figured out how to combine a particular niche topic with personal stories. And since ATC is ultimately my personal blog, I am going to continue taking that exact same approach.

  Secondly, I only write about things that I’m passionate about. I get asked all the time to write about and promote specific projects, causes, and events. But almost all of them do not get written about it. Because if I don’t care about it, then I’m not going to write about. It’s as simple as that.

  Thirdly, I believe in positivity over negativity. I believe that optimists, not pessimists, change the world. President Obama won his first term with a message of hope, not despair. To me, that is a stronger motivator.

  I’ve been told before that I’m overly optimistic and that my youthful exuberance will one day wear off. Boy, I sure hope it doesn’t. Because would you rather have a beer with someone who is optimistic or someone who is pessimistic? I will always take the former.

  However, this is not to say that I want to be blind to the realities of the world. Last summer I disagreed with Toronto’s decision to rebuild the elevated Gardiner Expressway East along the waterfront, and I continue to disagree with that decision. 

  When I believe something is a mistake, I am happy to make it public and put it in writing on this blog. But as a developer, I suppose I have certain biases working against me. That’s just the way it is.

  In any event, this is my rough and ever-evolving approach to blogging. As usual, I welcome any and all comments.

  2016.02.12

• Being grateful

  Lately I’ve been reading about and interested in the idea that the more grateful you are, the happier you can actually become. It’s similar to the idea that positivity can lead to better outcomes in your life. Believe something and you make it true.

  It turns out that some people could have genetic tendencies towards more positivity and gratefulness. But there’s no reason why you couldn’t train yourself to be more like that.

  I’ve thought about adding to my daily discipline and introducing a bit of gratefulness here on Architect This City. But it’s hard to do that without regularly sounding braggadocious.

  In any event, I’ve also thought about how this same idea could apply to cities. I mean, when was the last time you were grateful and appreciative of the city you call home? Sometimes, or maybe most of the time, it’s easier to just complain about what we don’t like.

  But if being grateful about your own life can make you happier, I think being grateful about your own city could do the same. I did a bit of that in this post a few months ago. But I try and do it far more often than that. I’m a big fan of my city.

  2015.11.24

• Building on optimism

  To be a real estate developer, or at least to be a good real estate developer, I think you need to have a certain kind of personality. Specifically, I think you need to be an optimist.

  Because if you’re going to take big risks and deal with lots of uncertainty – which is how most development projects work – then you have to believe that you’re going to be able to figure it all out and make it happen.

  That is not to say that you’re not worried about risk and you’re not thinking critically about what you’re doing. Managing risk is a hugely important part of the business.

  Rather it’s accepting that unexpected things will come up, whether it’s a small construction hiccup or a huge black swan event. And knowing that if and when that happens, you’re going to do whatever it takes to get through it.

  As an example, I remember a developer telling me a story about one of his projects in South Florida. This was back when I was in grad school so some of the details are a bit fuzzy.

  But basically he had excavated a site for an underground parking garage and they had just finished pouring the foundations and first underground level. (Because of its high water table, underground parking garages are rare and expensive to build in South Florida.)

  It’s then 2 ’clock in the morning and he gets a call from his engineer telling him that a hurricane is coming through. And that once it comes through the water is going to lift up his foundation from below and basically destroy it.

  They immediately start brainstorming solutions and the engineer ultimately decides that if they fill up the hole with water before the hurricane comes through that it will weigh down the built structure and keep it intact.

  So in the middle of the night, before a storm was about to hit, they’re all on-site pumping water into a big hole.

  The storm eventually came and went and the engineer was right: the water-filled hole kept everything in place. So instead of spending what could have been millions, the developer probably spent tens of thousands on a water bill. That’s a much easier pill to swallow.

  This, of course, wasn’t in the development pro forma or in the construction schedule. But it happened, as stuff invariably does. And for future projects, I’m sure it’ll be something he thinks about it. 

  But it’s all part of the game. And to be good at the game, I believe you need to be an optimist.

  2015.07.08

• Positivity in life (The happy secret to better work)

  https://embed-ssl.ted.com/talks/shawn_achor_the_happy_secret_to_better_work.html

  Earlier this week I watched the above TED talk called, The happy secret to better work. It’s only 12 minutes long.

  In it, Shawn Achor argues that we’ve got it all wrong and backwards when it comes to our happiness. We constantly set (moving) goals and then tell ourselves that once we achieve those goals we’ll be happy.

  We tell ourselves that once we get that degree, buy that new home, or secure that new promotion, that we’ll be happier. And I’m definitely guilty of that sometimes. I think many goal oriented people are.

  But his argument is that if happiness sits outside of those moving targets, we’ll never be as happy as we could be. Happiness needs to sit within those goals. In other words, we need to focus on being happy today, not tomorrow.

  But the other powerful thing about this approach is that greater happiness has been shown to improve productivity. So if you simply flip this equation, you’ll probably be not only happier but more successful.

  At the end of last year, somebody told me that they were really enjoying my blog because of how positive I always seem to be about the future of cities and the world.

  And that was honestly one of the nicest things to hear from a reader, because I truly believe that optimism, not pessimism, is what moves the world forward.

  2015.01.10