Success takes work for geniuses, why not us?

The appetite for 'Getting Rich Quick' is nothing new in American society. Whether reflected through Ponzi-type schemes or the popularity of lotteries, it a dynamic that exists alongside a puritanical momentum in the cultural fabric of this country.

Open Fridge Door thinks a 'short-cut' mentality has two companions, the 'Get-Success Quick' and Get-Expertise-Quick' trends. (These tendencies are far more prevalent than just among the Generation Y cohort, whose sense of entitled advance in the work-place has been well documented through syndicated research and won't be expounded upon here). People are inclined to inflate their career capabilities and accomplishments because doing so make them appear more desirable candidates and thus more competitive in their hunt for a job. (We'd speculate that such a tendency has evolutionary roots.) The tendency to self aggrandize about career capabilities goes beyond the current unemployed looking for work in this harsh economic climate. Evidence suggests we are in another climate, one in which people have embraced belief in a lower threshold for how success is earned and what it takes to achieve. It has created higher expectations about the value of one's experience and accomplishments.

Can we learn anything by looking at the highest achievers of all in society? From the geniuses in our midst?

It's tempting to think that genius is genetically determined (or god-given), an innate ability that simply exists and emerges of its own accord requiring little effort. Two recent books that study the ways of geniuses share a startling discovery. We might do well to take a page from their books and take it to heart.

In its review of these two books, the New York Times reports:

"The latest research suggests a more prosaic, democratic, even puritanical view of the world. The key factor separating geniuses from the merely accomplished is not a divine spark. It’s not I.Q., a generally bad predictor of success, even in realms like chess. Instead, it’s deliberate practice. Top performers spend more hours (many more hours) rigorously practicing their craft."

The full article is available here.

It is a refreshing perspective indeed: Short-cuts are illusory. If even geniuses have to work hard and diligently for their prodigious feats, what makes us think we can do any less in pursuit of our own?

Unconscious activity is 'thinking'.

When it comes to dissecting the brain, the subconscious can hardly be considered new territory. Freud gave it significant attention almost 100 years ago after all.

There has however been a stack of current coverage which has raised the visibility of this subject, notable contributions being Gladwell's Blink and Robert Walker's Buying In.


















































Neuroscience has recently shed light on previously unknown processes and activities. Mind Wide Open ably provides an accessible introduction to this emerging field.

All three sources reach the same conclusion. Much of what we believe is ‘free-will’ is apparently far from it. Brain activity below the surface of our awareness accounts from much of what we do, and has an inertia that carries through to our conscious realm.

It’s a theme affirmed in this week’s The Economist. In describing the use of brain imaging upon people given tasks to solve, it reports that EEG traces preceded conscious awareness by a participant of an ‘aha’-type moment by some eight (8) seconds. More curious still, while not all participants solved the task, the character of how brains ‘lit up’ was predictive of which people solved the challenge and which did not.

While the idea of a subconscious is not new - nor is the idea that its processing takes place beyond our ability to access or influence it - such activity is not thought of as, well, thinking. The findings from the study by Dr. Bhattacharya and Dr. Sheth are exciting precisely because they suggest that it is.

So while the magazine's reference to it as 'unconscious thought' might at first appear counter-intuitive, it is highly apt.

The full article appears here Here

Winner of the John Fenton Award for Audacious Marketing

OFD is proud to announce a new annual award that recognizes audacity in marketing practice.

Named after John Fenton, the legendary English salesman who is able to craft the most compelling pitch in the sale of the almost unthinkable (sand to Arabs, ice to Eskimos) the 2008 award goes to Red Envelope.

What garnered the 2008 accolade is its promotion of love notes embossed on collar stays, those thin rectangular, removable strips that fit in the underside of shirt collars in order to keep them straight and firm.















It is a stroke of inspiration to identify this unused piece of real estate. It is a stroke of genius to create utility and value for space that overcomes the medium’s biggest challenge – it remains permanently out of sight.

Red Envelope does it by using the affection-expressive ritual of Valentines Day. This is a context in which the value in sharing personal sentiments is only heightened by being hidden from others. It succeeds in transforming what was a purely functional accessory into a medium of communication that carries meaning.

The spin that the salesmanship takes is an interesting one:

“Why settle for tucking love notes in his briefcase when you can deliver a message of love from much closer range?”

If it’s proximity one is going for, one wonders why Red Envelope does not also promote love notes on underwear. This would seem an ideal opportunity to create a line of merchandising targeting women: “I wish I was here” for example on a thong would give a girl a lift to wear all day. Women do after all intimately understand the psychology of wearing something no one else knows about: the entire lingerie category is grounded in this principle.

Our advice for Red Envelope: make the love notes customizable. This is the age of consumer sovereignty and personalization. The raciest of the pre-defined messages – ‘That tie will be useful’ - is really too tame in today’s age.

Darwinism 2.0

To introduce an improvement to an original idea the software industry started the practice of using versions differentiated with numbers, as in Lotus 4.0 or Apple OS 9.0. In the organic way language evolves with culture to assume new meaning (as with the term "ground zero" which connotes the return to new starting point) this numerical version convention has been more widely adopted, such as signifying the new internet era in which we now live, web 2.0.

OFD is proud to launch Darwinism 2.0, a new expanded understanding of the seminal thinking the scientifically established that the authentic explanation for man's development is evolution.
Darwinism 2.0 recognizes that evolution - the act of interacting with the environment to become better adapted - must be extended beyond the physical realm to incorporate cognitive and psychological activity.


While physical evolution takes place over many thousands of years, the pace and scope of technological and cultural change means that for people to remain in harmony with their environment and maintain a good fit, a more rapid evolution in the psychology of the species - the way of thinking - is needed.


Widespread evidence suggests this is not happening. The number of non-genetic based disorders that are emerging and the scale in which they exist are clear indications that homo sapiens sapiens is not adapting to the new world mankind has fashioned:

*Hyper-activity and attention disorders among children from a over-stimulated technology fueled media culture

*Sleep disorders from high stress work/life culture

*Depression linked to levels of stress, due to the role of technology in intensifying the pace and complexity of work, life and social demands


In today's culture of prescribed and self medication, it is no surprise that the consequences of the profound lack of adaptation to the new techno/socio/familial environment is a reliance on pharmacology. People are encouraged to accept that this is a viable remedy when all it does it treat the symptoms rather than the underlying cause: homo sapiens sapiens' limits in speed of cognititive and psychological evolution to an environment he has created for himself. A deep irony indeed.


This creates an interesting possibility for a mechanism for evolution that lies outside the scope of Darwin's original field. While evolution of a physical nature cannot be directed (it is the result of shifts that happen over a long period of time) it is fundamentally different paradigm for mental evolution. There is much progress to be made in actively equipping people with the tools to direct their mental evolution: in the form of coping strategies as well as educational psychology to expose formative minds to influences that will prepare them not just to adapt but thrive in today's world.


In the meantime, Darwinism 2.0 represents a milestone in the use of cognitive sciences and psychology to assist in evolutionary adaptation of thinking to the emerging technologically oriented society.