Digressions

Human Incompetency In A Flat Screen World

“Most men would rather die than think. Many do.” – Bertrand Russell

How much truth does the quote above carries today? With tech companies coming out with driverless cars, digital refrigerators that order food and clean themselves, smart TVs that listen to voice commands, and more, it is hard not to wonder what will computers not do for us in the future.

This is what Google’s driverless car looks like. Would you hop in for a ride?

Back in the day people had to work harder to get things done. There didn’t use to be phones with alarms to remind us of our appointments, they had to write it down with a pen or just plainly remember it. Free time didn’t revolve around Facebook, but rather on playing cards or reading a book (yes, a physical one). And chatting with friends actually required you to use your vocal cords (and not your fingertips).

Where has all of those primal capabilities gone? Will in 100 years from now our society still be able to look at each others’ faces while speaking to one another? Will we know how to drive on highways at a constant speed without using cruise control? Or will we still be able to play sports with our bodies rather than with our game consoles?

How much has the exponential growth of technology advancements negatively affected us?

How a Business Should Use Tech

In the book Good to Great, by Jim Collins, he talks about the role of technology in companies’ success. He points out that technology speeds up the processes that lead advancement rather than substitutes them. You can have all the gadgets to measure risk, predict trends, produce more, and cut costs but if you don’t have the right people, none of that matters. A business will not succeed, no matter how much the Gods of computer science want, if it doesn’t have self-motivated people willing to work hard towards a common goal.

Jim Collins makes the analogy of a flywheel, which takes a long time before it completes a full circle. Pushing a flywheel at first takes a lot of effort, and it might just move an inch or two in the beginning. But as you keep pushing the wheel, it soon starts gaining momentum and eventually it no longer needs to be constantly pushed to keep spinning.

Edwin Catmull, the president of Pixar Animation and Disney Animation, was the pioneer of computer animated feature films. In 1995, his dream of producing the first computer-animated movie was reached when Pixar launched Toy Story, but what most people don’t know is how that turned into a reality.

Pixar Animation is the perfect example of how the usage of technology has not overridden the importance of its people.

Long before Catmull incorporated Pixar Animation with the help of Alvy Smith and Steve Jobs, he had been dreaming about computerized movies. He did not know when or how he would get there, since at the time when he was going to school the field of computer science was brand new. In other words, he knew where he wanted to go, but did not have the right people to help him get there.

He kept learning and applying himself on the field, until he joined Lucasfilm where he had the resources to experiment and eventually create the Pixar Image Computer. When Lucasfilm had to size down due to George Lucas’ divorce, Ed and Alvy were left alone looking for investors to keep Pixar “alive”. That is when Steve Jobs came along and was able to pump cash and business knowledge into the veins of what became to be known as Pixar Animation.

Ed Catmull, in his book Creativity, Inc., emphasizes the management tactics he uses to keep Pixar’s creative environment vibrant. In the early days it would take them many years to complete one film. But as the technology evolved over the years, they were able to shorten that time period and work on multiple projects at the same time. And that is how the company grew.

In other words, without the right people clocking in the hours and pushing that flywheel every single day, advanced computer systems would not have been able to produce Toy Story, Bug’s Life, or Up on their own. What technology did, instead, was offer a way to do make operations run more smoothly and films produced with greater detail. The core of Pixar still revolves around creative people thinking of great stories, not of advanced computer systems producing good looking films.

People vs Smartphones

A smartphone is worthless without its applications.

Therefore, people aren’t addicted to their phones, they are addicted to the apps in it.

Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram, etc… are responsive technologies. In other words, they respond to our stimulus instantly, and since patience is not one of humans’ greatest assets, it works quite well with us.

Social media platforms have enabled us to stay connected at all times, but it has also disabled us from staying connected in the physical world.

On top of that, these social media platforms make us interact with other humans without having to expose ourselves. Humans love the feeling of belonging, and as a matter of fact we feel safer when we are part of a group. Now, add instant response to social interaction and you have a very addictive tool readily available almost unlimitedly (and as you might also know, humans love tools as well…).

So, that photo that you posted on Instagram that is racking up likes is actually sending a rush of instant gratification to your brain every time it shows on your locked screen. It’s like a drug, and we are all becoming dependent users of it.

How Technology Cancels Its Purpose

In the age of flat screens we are all guilty of being addicts.

But don’t get me wrong, technology has brought many positives into our lives. Being able to fly across the globe in less than 20 hours was unthinkable 100 years ago. Talking to friends in other continents has become nearly free (thanks to Skype, Viber, and Whatsapp). Not to mention finding unique places to eat in our gigantic cities, due to our beloved GPSs.

But when we are setting up phone alarms to wake us early to go to work and we’re still arriving late because the first thing we do in the morning is check Facebook… the whole purpose of technological practicality goes to waste.

An 8 hour work day is now taken over by 3 hours of afternoon Internet surfing. Exercising three times a week has become nearly impossible now that we need to catch up on our favorite shows on Netflix. Reading a book? Haa we’re too busy reading what other people are up to on Twitter.

The bottom line is, as humans beings the only reason why we are here today is because we have been able to develop critical skills that have enabled us to progress – such as reading, speaking, running, thinking, driving, building, etc. Technology should never replace those skills. Rather, it should enhance them, accelerating the momentum as we push that flywheel.

Let’s Put Alberta’s 2015 Election In The Books

The reason why this post is under the “Business” tab is because: 1) I had nowhere else to put it, and 2) because politics is a form of business on its own.

For my foreign readers, I apologize about this post, but maybe you will get something out of this. For those who don’t know, Alberta is the economic engine of the oil-driven Canadian economy. The province has the third largest reserves of crude oil in the world (behind Saudi Arabia and Venezuela) and is expected to produce nearly 3.8 million barrels of oil per day by 2022. If you haven’t heard much about the “Alberta’s oil sands” yet, then click here.

The province of Alberta’s official flag.

However, that’s not all. Alberta has the fourth largest population in Canada (just over 4.1 million people), has the second highest GDP per capita in the country ($84,390), and is the home to the city with the second most businesses’ headquarters in Canada, Calgary.

On May 5th of 2015 Alberta had its 29th general provincial elections, where the New Democratic Party took down the the Progressive Conservatives who had been in power for the past 44 years. Quite the feat to say the least.

Voter Turnout

This time around we had an amazing number of voters take their opinions to the ballots, amounting to the highest turnout in 22 years. Out of 2,543,127 possible voters, 1,481,477 voted (58.25%). It is not where we would like it to be yet, but it’s a huge step in the political scene of Alberta.

Living in Alberta for the past 7 years, I’ve noticed that politics isn’t much of a conversation topic at the dinner table. Growing up in Brazil, politics account for nearly 100% of the conversation in any given day (mostly due to corruption scandals, however).

I still have my doubts about how much that was due to the Netflix hit series “House of Cards”, but so be it.

So, here we are today, May 6th, looking at a somewhat unknown future for ourselves as Albertans.

Policies

Over the past few months we could read a lot about what each party was going to offer (click here for more) if they were elected on May 5th. And, as of the past week we could see an unmeasurable amount of party signs on our lawns everywhere we went.

It all came down to a battle between two parties, really, the Progressive Conservatives (PC) vs the New Democratic Party (NDP).

Below you can watch a 30 minute condensed debate held on April 23rd of 2015 between the PC, NDP, the Wildrose, and the Liberal parties. It is easy to see that the Wildrose party was on the defensive the whole time – “we will not increase income taxes” – and the Liberal party was trying to squeeze in an argument here and there from time to time. The show really went down between Jim Prentice (PC) and Rachel Notley (NDP), who were both on the offensive throughout the program.

Oil companies were all in favor of the Progressive Conservatives (PC), who’s main points were:

maintaining existing two-tier corporate taxes (3% for small businesses and 10% for businesses with more than $500,000 in annual revenues);
adding $18 billion to the Heritage Fund (fund to support government programs in healthcare and education) over the course of 6 years;
funding long-term infrastructure capital assets in the province;
protecting jobs and getting off the boom/bust oil field cycle.

Whereas a large part of the population – especially after the debate – was supporting the New Democratic Party (NDP), who’s main points were:

funding of the Office of the Auditor General, which helps identify wasteful spending and regulatory mismanagement;
in-province refining and upgrading to create more value-added industries in Alberta;
improving transportation and access to local markets in the Agricultural sector;
improving healthcare, education, and job creation within a fair revenue creation system.

Outcome

Once the NDP was announced winner of the 2015 election many people took their opinions to the social media platforms claiming that now we are all doomed.

Maybe NDP’s idea of increasing corporate taxes by 20% (from 10% to 12%) in a time of economic crisis is a bold movement, but so was the PC’s budgetary cuts in healthcare and education in April to compensate for the province’s deficit.

Having election in times like these is always though, because each person has their own concerns about what should be fixed and what should be left untouched, but the matter of the fact is that politics’ issues go way beyond what an average person could comprehend. If you put money here, something has got to give there – there is a lot at stake and a lot of people to look after.

No politician will ever be able to make everyone happy. What political parties intend to do is to propose their ideas to solve a problem. Each one has their own set of solutions, and as Albertans we had to bet our money on one of them.

I believe that change is always good, especially one that hasn’t happened in over 40 years. I understand that what gives Alberta an edge over the rest of the world is our low corporate taxes, what attracts capital investment making of us a free enterprise province. But I also understand that we need to look at the long run.

We need higher investment in education and healthcare. We cannot allow our governments to take money out of those sectors because they are what make society progress. The business environment is changing and we are in a higher need of educated workers in the market than ever before (that is why the federal and provincial governments have so many programs in place to attract qualified immigrants to Canada). And we also need to reduce waiting times at the E.R. without privatizing our healthcare system – because in the end of the day we need our people alive.

Can we expect the NDP government to set up stricter environmental rules to the oil companies? Yes. Can we also expect the NDP government to create over 27,000 jobs? Yes. That is what Rachel Notley preached during her campaign, and now as Albertans our duty is to help the province continue to move forward.

Will the NDP make mistakes along the way? Of course. But we should trust our leadership and work with them to help make Alberta’s vision of progressing into a role-model province become a reality.

There is no reason to complain if you didn’t vote NDP, quite yet. And there’s is no reason to celebrate if you voted NDP quite yet, either.

The Mysterious Power of Our Unconsciousness

Do you know that feeling when something inside your mind already knows what to do, but you’re still trying to reason your way around it?

That “something inside your head” happens to be your instincts.

The same way the Canadian Geese know when it’s time to fly south, your mind knows when it’s time to let go, or when an opportunity is right for you, or when danger is around the corner.

We all neglect our instincts because we live in a world where reason rules. We must always be in control. We must always know what is going on, and if something doesn’t make sense, we shouldn’t listen to it.

In Blink Malcom Gladwell tells us a little bit about what happens in our unconscious, and why we should listen to it more often.

What’s Behind that Locked Door

What’s hidden behind that door can help you make major life decisions.

Baseball movies. We have all watched one. Where the entire franchise decides to draft a particular player because of its batting percentage and other loads of stats, but that one old man who has been around the game for decades tells them otherwise. He tells them that that other player that has a lower batting percentage is a better choice for the team. Nobody wants to believe him, and as it turns out in the end he was right.

That old man does something that those businessmen and statisticians don’t often do: he listens to that little voice inside his head.

Gladwell tells the story about one of the world’s top tennis coaches named Vic Braden who began noticing something unusual whenever he watched a tennis match.

In tennis, the players are given two chances to serve the ball across the net, and if they fail twice in a roll the point goes to the opposition. That’s called a double-fault. In professional tennis, double-faults happen once every 100 serves or so. Those are very rare.

Vic Braden began noticing that milliseconds before any player would serve he knew whether he/she would commit a double fault. He decided to bring his friends along and keep track of how many times he would get it right: he would call out loud (not that loud, since that would distract the players) whenever a double-fault was about to happen and they kept a tab of his success rate. In the course of numerous games he would get twenty out of twenty right!

Vic would spend numerous nights sleepless trying to figure out how he was doing that. He wasn’t noticing anything unusual about the player’s form, or the wind direction, or anything else; he just knew it when it was about to happen.

That snap judgement Braden was making in the blink of an eye was coming from what was behind that locked door in the back of his mind.

How our Unconsciousness Works

Behind that locked door are infinite amounts of information that Vic Braden had been collecting over the course of his career in tennis. Information that most of the time went unnoticed by his conscious mind, but his unconsciousness picked it up.

In an experiment ran by a psychologist named Norman R. F. Maier we can see exactly how much influence our unconsciousness has over our conscious decisions.

He tied two ropes to the ceiling of a room full of objects far enough that you couldn’t touch both at the same time, and asked people to come up with as many ways as possible to tie both ropes together. There are four possible solutions to this problem:

stretch the rope as far as possible, anchor it to a chair, then go and grab the other rope
tie an extension cord to the end of a rope so it is long enough to reach the other rope
grab one rope with one hand and use a pole to bring the other rope towards you
swing the first rope back and forth and simultaneously grab the other rope and attach them together

Most people figured out the first three solutions. But the last one, only a few thought of it. Ten minutes later, Maier would walk across the room without telling them anything and swing a rope by the window. Right then and then people would think aha! and went on to figure out the fourth solution.

After the experiment, he asked the people how they thought of swinging the rope, and most people answered that they didn’t know, it just came to their minds.

Norman concluded that our unconsciousness can pick up on things that our consciousness cannot. We can only process so many things at once in our minds, but behind that locked door our unconscious can process a lot more.

Survival Instincts

Malcom Gladwell points out that throughout the lifetime of a police officer only about 10% of them get involved in a real life shooting. And from the testimonials that the police departments get, it is nothing like what we see in Hollywood films.

We can find a few descriptions in common as we read the testimonials:

I couldn’t hear anything
My vision went blurry and I could only see the target
I could watch my bullets entering the suspect’s body

All of these seem strange, and almost impossible. But that is a perfect example of our instincts taking over.

Dave Grossman, a former army lieutenant colonel and author of On Killing, argues that the “optimal” state of arousal is when your heart rate is in between 115bpm and 145bpm. In that window our instincts are believed to serve us the most good and we can make snap decisions very quickly.

Larry Bird had the ability to slow things down and make instinctive decisions in the blink of an eye.

Larry Bird was one of the greatest players to ever play in the NBA. He was known to have “great court vision” and a “feel for the game” that very few others had. He claims that in the final moments of the game the stadium would go quiet and he could not see anyone in the stands. As a result, he could knock down the game winning shot more times than not. He played at that “optimal” range of beats per minute.

The reason why we hear stories of people doing impossible things in moments of stress is because some people manage to operate in the optimal heart rate range when faced with “danger”. And if it wasn’t for those very same instincts humanity would not have survived as long as it has so far.

When to Listen to Your Instincts

The question that you’re left with by the end of Blink is: “when should I listen to my instincts and when should I reason through a problem?”.

Gladwell says that we should consciously analyze a problem when the issue is straight-forward, such as planning your work schedule or negotiating a better price in a purchase. When questions of analysis and personal choice start to become more complicated, we should rely on the big computer hiding behind that locked door since it can handle more variables than our consciousness.

Our unconsciousness is there for a reason, and it has helped humanity survive through over 200,000 years of danger. Neglecting it would be foolish of us, the same way it wouldn’t be very smart to solely rely on it. Starting to develop a better feel for when to listen to what’s behind that locked door is what will strengthen your decision-making skills.

Why is China No Longer a “Sleeping Giant”

Napoleon Bonaparte once pointed at China and said: “There lies a sleeping giant. Let him sleep! For when he wakes, he will shake the world.“.

China is a giant that has awaken

When you think of economic powers the first countries that come to mind are: USA, the EU (European Union) as a block, India, and China. You have probably noticed that I’ve left South Africa, Brazil, Russia, and many others out of the equation. That is because I believe these countries most likely will not become global powers within the near future due to their inconsistency to deliver economic results (which is due to many reasons that range from commodity dependency to political corruption).

Looking back, the same countries seem to have held the top spot in the largest economy in the world ranking for centuries:

Year	Country
1-1500	India
1500-1888	China
1888-present	USA
2020-onwards	China?

Although the world economic dynamics has changed dramatically in the 20th century (with the birth of the Internet), by looking at the past and analyzing current trends in the world it is reasonable to make certain predictions.

China currently has the largest population in the world, it holds the largest trade balance in goods surplus, the largest foreign reserves, and is quickly becoming one of the most important sources of foreign investment. All of these observations point at the same direction: China is well on its way to take away USA’s global power belt.

Most people would agree with that statement, however, very few could explain why.

China’s Strengths

Population

Up until 1520, India had the largest population in the world, until China took over and has been on top since then. Although population size represents a significant factor when determining a country’s global power strength, it can work against you if it is not properly controlled. And that is what happened to China, when they decided to implement the “One Child” quota throughout the country in 1979 – pushing birth rates to fall from 5.5 in the 70s down to 1.6 in 2012.

There was way too much poverty and the country was consuming alarming amounts of energy – although they continue to experience those same symptoms today. The policy was intended to alleviate social, economic, and environmental issues; however, it has caused some new problems in return. China’s population is aging, with the 25-54 age cohort representing nearly 48% of the population – in contrast with the 0-24 cohort representing only 32%. They are not replacing themselves.

Young Chinese are feeling the push and pull of family duty as they deal with aging parents. This puts a constraint in their productivity and well being.

With that, population-wise, India is forecasted to surpass China by 2030.

So, China’s population supremacy has been a two-sided sword, causing both benefits and damages to its development. But as of right now, they do possess an immense work force that willing to put in long hours, what has led China to grow its economy dramatically over the past few decades – currently second largest in the planet.

Gigantic Economy

China has a predominately goods’ – rather than services – economy. As of 2012, China had the largest trade balance in goods surplus in the world by a large margin, with Germany coming in second place – that is, when a country exports more than imports. With an increasing amount of foreign investors dumping money into Chinese companies and multinationals opening HQs in China’s largest cities, the giant of the East has proved to be a tempting place to bet your money on.

Here’s a quick overview of manifestations of global powers in the world over the centuries:

	1800s-1914	1945-1990s	2000s-present
Largest Economy	China until 1888, then USA	USA	USA (soon to be China)
Largest Trading Country	UK	USA	China
Dominant Reserve Currency	Pound Sterling	Dollar	Dollar and Euro

Economists forecast that China’s GDP will surpass USA’s by 2020. This is due to a changing level of play in the economic field. The effects of globalization have really benefited China, who until the 2000s had a tough time integrating its upsides with the Western world. But today, with the Internet so easily available and flights going in and out of China on an hourly basis, it has become much easier for the Chinese to offer their services to the Western economic powers.

China’s Drawbacks

Open ocean access

If you look at the global map you might notice that China does not have direct access to any ocean. Although this might seem trivial, it limits China from freely having maritime commerce, open ocean commercial fishing, and a significant navy force.

China’s limited access to the ocean presents some serious economic drawbacks.

If we look at the USA, they have direct access to the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic oceans. Off-shore oil drilling and goods’ exportation are only two of the many benefits the Americans experience with their geographic location. The Chinese, in the other hand, are limited to land.

This type of restriction forces the Chinese to maintain good diplomatic relationships with their land neighbors. Aside from India – which has become a strong economic partner of China over the past years leading to the so-called “Chindia” – most of the neighboring countries are economically poor, forcing China to feed the Western world with what it has to offer.

Currency convertibility

Before 2009, the Chinese government prohibited almost all export of currency or its usage in international transactions. The US Dollar – which, as of this day, still is strongly tied to the Yuan’s value – was the currency used to perform such transactions. So, with Chinese people unable to have US Dollars and the international community unable to hold the Yuan, all transactions were made through the People’s Bank of China, leading to a lot of bureaucracy.

In June of 2009, the Chinese government started a program that allowed certain places to utilize the Yuan for international transactions between certain countries, removing the hassle of converting everything to US Dollars beforehand. Nowadays, all Chinese provinces are allowed to do the same, however this type of trade is only available between certain countries: Russia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Japan.

This type of limitation ends up restricting the usage of the Yuan, which in turn ends up having little reserve currency power.

Conclusion

To determine a country’s global power we must look at more than just economic and military factors – and the ones discussed above are just a few of them. There are two types of power resources: hard power and soft power. Hard powers are factors such as the country’s economy, territory, population, military, and finance. Soft powers are things such as knowledge, technology, and culture.

China clearly has a strong economy, currently the largest population on planet Earth, a large military, and a territory the size of the USA. However, its soft powers are weak compared to the ones of developed nations. Most of the strongest universities in the world are in the USA, Japan, and Europe – China has only 3 universities in the top 100. Technological R&D follows the same pattern.

But, Thomas Friedman once said: “When I was growing up, my parents told me, ‘Finish your dinner. People in China (and India) are starving’. I tell my daughters, ‘Finish your homework. People in China (and India) are starving for your job.’.”

Don’t be fooled by their limitations. China has changed a lot. But so has the economy. I hardly believe that one single country will dominate as global power from here and on. With a much “smaller” world today, a single country cannot do anything on its own. We are already seeing a shift in mentality on how things are done economically, and this new way of thinking will be easily translated onto how global governance operates, as well.

Jazz: an American Story

When we think about music today, popular music has been on the decline. The market has become a lot more segmented; rarely you will find artists’ fan bases as large as The Beatles anymore.

Miles Davis continues to be one of the biggest legends of Jazz.

People have more freedom to choose. With the iTunes revolution, you can now download individual songs from various artists and group it into a playlist – or the so called mixed albums. Unless you are a die hard fan of a band, chances are that you won’t download the full album. Music producers have been struggling to put out strong albums that will sell in its entirety (and the vast majority is illegally downloaded online anyways). Marketing has more than ever become a crucial tool in the industry.

But let’s rewind a bit. Let’s discuss the origins of most of the music we listen to today… I am not talking about African music (the actual root of things), I am talking about Jazz.

Early days

By mid-1800s enslaved American people, who were extremely religious, were widely known for playing spiritual music. This genre was a major driver in the African-American community’s involvement with music. In turn, by the end of the 19th century another genre began to appear: the ragtime.

Some might argue that ragtime isn’t jazz, others would argue otherwise. So let’s put it this way, the genre was the embryo of jazz. Scott Joplin – a Texan born in 1867 – was widely known for it and played it in the red-district streets of St. Louis. The sound was very simple, yet extremely happy. Joplin liked to describe ragtime as something “that’s not to be played fast”:

In the transition to jazz, another artist had a great impact in the birth of the genre: Jelly Roll Morton. He likes to call himself the inventor of jazz. Born in New Orleans, the pianist had a foot in ragtime and a foot in jazz. His music was also very happy and people loved to dance to it. And he was the major influencer of the first type of jazz, known as Dixieland jazz.

Dixieland Jazz

Also referred to as Hot Jazz or Early Jazz, dixieland was originated in the beginning of the 20th century in New Orleans. The musicians were often very poor, since most of them were African-American. But this humility gave dixieland a distinguishable touch to its sound.

Artists strived to help each other rather than to steal the spotlight. It was a very easygoing sound, and often played in the streets. The standard band composed of a banjo, a trumpet, a clarinet, a tube, and a piano or drums. There were also lyrics and it quickly became very popular in Louisiana. Musicians, such as the Preservation Hall Jazz Band, like to describe dixieland as a style of playing rather than a style of music:

Kid Ory, another great dixieland musician, took the genre to Chicago where it developed a different variation. Since there were richer people in the Windy City, most of them white, dixieland was being played by people who had better quality instruments – which is evident when you listen to it. Ory brought with him a student by the name of Louis Armstrong, who eventually took the genre to New York. And that is how the early days of jazz began spreading.

With more sophisticated people jumping into the jazz scene, by the mid-1930s a new style was being born: Swing Jazz.

Swing Jazz

Swing had a Manhattan air to it. It was more sophisticated and the music was no longer improvisation. Great artists were born from Swing, such as Frank Sinatra, Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman, Bobby Short and more.

Duke Ellington was an African-American academic from NYC who played the piano. His music was a little slower, and if you try closing your eyes as you listen to it you will be able picture the elite dressed up in suits dancing to it. It sounded “very NYC”.

Benny Goodman was another legend who played swing. He was a white man from New York who played the clarinet, and his sound was even finer. The transition of jazz from New Orleans to Chicago and New York began attracting richer and more academically inclined people, what highly influenced the genre.

Since the elite had money, they were often traveling to Europe, and with them they brought Jazz to France. A notorious artist from Paris who went by the name of Django Reihardt made the American swing jazz sound very French. The man had only three functioning fingers and that’s how he played his guitar (alongside his good friend Stephane Grappelli):

As the the African-Americans began losing their “market share” in jazz to the white people, they grew mad and that is when a new style was born in the 40s: the Bebop Jazz.

Bebop Jazz

This was a more modern style of jazz, which was extremely hard to play because it was a very broken-up sound that only specialists could manage the chords. Due to its level of difficulty there were not many musicians in the scene – some artists hated the style, claiming that it took away the romance from jazz, and often boycotting the bebop musicians. With that, bebop didn’t last very long, but it was a very important phase in the history of jazz.

Charlie “Bird” Parker played the saxophone and was a major player in the scene. His music had a lot of improvisation – like usual bebop sound – and consisted of a very complex melody. Parker had a lot of problems with drug addiction and died at 34, but his footprint in the history of jazz inspired many others who came after him:

Another great artist who played bebop was the one and only Dizzie Gillespie. Although Dizzie started in swing jazz, the trumpet genius had many talents and his great friend Parker eased him into bebop.

As mentioned earlier, bebop didn’t last very long, specially because of a popular jazz style that was about to take over in the late 40s: Cool Jazz.

Cool Jazz

With the intention to take out the “excess” from bebop, Miles Davis gave birth to Cool Jazz with the release of his historical album “Birth of Cool” (1957 – but recorded in 1949).

This was a slower jazz and in it you could really listen the notoriously known “walking bass”. It was a radical movement that incorporated elements from classical music. It was popular in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York – it was exactly what people needed after the war:

By the 1960s, the African-American jazz musicians began a new movement: Free Jazz.

Free Jazz

This style did not have a fixed harmony anymore, it was free improvisation. Geniuses like John Coltrane and Ornette Coleman led the way with its often criticized style of play.

Coleman drew a lot of attention and generated some controversy due to the lack of harmony in his music – even more than Parker and Gillespie did with Bebop Jazz. Not anyone could follow because it was so free and open:

Alongside Free Jazz in the 60s, another movement was occurring: Fusion Jazz.

Fusion Jazz

That is when jazz players decided to join forces with Rock n’ Roll. Although rock musicians often lacked instrumental skills at that time, they were taking jazz’s audience away. So Miles Davis decided to take the leap.

Miles Davis’ “Bitches Brew” (1969) was the first fusion jazz album of all time. If you listen to it you might ask yourself: where is the rock? That is because only a few elements of rock were incorporated into the jazz genre, such as the beat and the electric guitar. Although there aren’t any heavy rock and roll solos, you can listen to some guitar “attacks” here and there.

Now, in Chuck Corea’s “Return to Forever” album (1972) you can feel the rock a little more. And with that, most of the jazz after the 70s was a style of fusion. This is V.S.O.P. (with Herbie Hancock) – another great fusion band:

You can really see how jazz influenced rock after this phase, when bands like YES and Pink Floyd – which played with a higher level of complexity than others in the past – began to run the progressive rock scene. The superior instrumental skills from jazz musicians had been transferred over.

A parallel movement that began in the 50s was also unfolding: the Third Stream.

Third Stream

This was a mix of jazz with classical music. Extremely complex which also had some improvisation involved. Bands like The Dave Brubeck Quartet released a really good album named “Time Out” (1959). This was very classical, with a little bit of jazz here and there:

And here it “ends” the main jazz styles that really took off over the years past. But this isn’t all, as jazz has an amazing way to adapt with any genre of music…

Jazz Nowadays

Nowadays a lot of music is considered jazz – what makes jazzists really mad. But sometimes it is hard to classify what kind of jazz certain sounds are, as the art is so easily adaptable with any other music genre. And this is what makes jazz so dynamic and interesting.

It is important to note that all the styles discussed above continue to be played today, some more than others, but overall the spirt has not died for any of them. However, with so many cultures being affected by the “jazz contamination”, I have selected a few really good jazz adaptations seen today worth listening to:

Jazz + Bossa Nova: Stan Getz Quartet
Jazz + Samba: Pat Metheny Group – “The Road to You”
Jazz + Spiritual: Take 6
Jazz + Pagode: Dizzie Gillespie featuring Trio Mocoto
Jazz + Latin Music: Machito (Cuba) featuring Cannonball Adderley (USA)

Enjoy!

Note: I must give credit where credit is due: Paulo Porto Alegre (my father, acclaimed musician and professor) who gave me a compressed Jazz course one afternoon. He’s a Jazz specialist and the reason why I began listening to this great genre.

The 6 Negotiation Traps to Beware Of

In a perfect world, people would negotiate being fully transparent and no written contracts would even be necessary to be signed. As Warren Buffet once did, he never even had to sign a written contract in a deal with the giant Walmart, because they had an established trusting relationship in place and Buffet “knew that they would deliver, and they did”.

Beware of negotiation tactics in order to better position yourself

However, in most situations this is not the case. Yes, you should sign a written contract in order to set the ground rules of the relationship, and yes, you should be aware that there are dirty tricks that are often used in negotiations.

Here I will discuss some of the most famous negotiation tricks and how to avoid becoming a hostage at the table.

1. “Let’s meet up at my place”

The physical surroundings of a negotiation are known to play an enormous role in the outcome of a meeting. Often the other side picks the place they want to negotiate and sometimes this might mean they are setting you up for failure.

For example, if they arrange the negotiation to be taken place at a bar or a noisy place, they are probably trying to make you feel uneasy what will lead you to want to conclude the negotiation as fast as possible.

So, whenever you can, be the one to pick the place. This will make sure that you are negotiating in a place that you feel comfortable at, and hopefully the other side feels the same way. Remember, a good negotiator looks for mutual gains, so take into consideration the other side’s needs.

However, there are times that letting the other side pick the spot is advantageous to you. Stepping into their turf will put them at ease and more open to suggestions.

If you ever get caught up negotiating in a “uncomfortable” place express your concerns and postpone the negotiation to another time and a different place.

2. Personal attacks

This is one of the dirtiest tricks in the book, and often used by people who a poor negotiators.

In this situation the other side will make personal attacks to your appearance, ignore you, make you wait for them, refuse to make eye contact, and more.

A perfect example is if the other side makes a comment about how tired you look. All these comments are intended to put you down and make you feel self-conscious. If you do look tired the other side should not be commenting on it, as this is irrelevant to the negotiation.

Whenever you feel that you are being attacked make sure you mention it to the other side and be hard on the problem. No negotiator should have to put up with such behavior.

3. Threats

This one if self explanatory. If the other side starts making threats of taking something away from you, or doing something harmful, remember one thing: the only reason they are doing that is to build up pressure on your side. Good negotiators don’t cave in to pressure.

On the other hand, warnings are a lot more legitimate than threats. These are realistic potential outcomes that could occur in the case of failing to reach an agreement. For example, expressing that if no agreement is reached, you both should be aware that the media will expose both parties’ inability to negotiate a deal, and no one wants that.

Also, expressing your plan of action in case no agreement is reached could be seen as a warning rather than a threat. For example, “if no deal is reached we will have to go with company X instead, as we absolutely need the material Y in order to produce product Z”.

If you ever feel that you are being threatened you can do any of the following: ignore it, make them unauthorized, make them irrelevant.

Businesses often record phone calls (and express that they are doing so) to avoid either side from threatening each other, forcing them to act in their best behavior.

4. Anchoring

In this case the negotiator will try to “anchor” an initial value proposal to a lower one. For example, if you are selling a house worth $200,000 the other side might make an initial offer of $100,000, what is extremely below your expectations, increasing the amount you have to bargain for.

Anchoring the price means throwing a first desirable price

This technique can be advantageous when the price of a product is unknown to both sides. Letting the other side throw the first price will give you an idea of how valuable this product is to them, and from there you can begin bargaining for your price.

However, if you are aware of how much something is worth (such as the home you are selling), go right ahead and throw the first price. This will allow you to start off with some advantage and have the other side bring the value to their desired range.

Beware that throwing an unrealistic price, such as $300,00 for the house, might make you lose credibility, leading the other side to walk away from the table without even bothering.

5. “Take it or leave it!”

I believe we have all been held hostage of this tactic. When we go to a store, for example, a product has its price tag on it and that is how much it will cost you – no room for negotiation. This is a non-interactive deal making method that is very effective in most developed countries.

If you ever travel to Peru, for example, on the way to Machu Picchu you will encounter a bunch of street vendors that will be willing to sell their products to much less than what they are asking for. This happens because they have a lot more to lose if they don’t sell that product than you do if you don’t buy it.

If you ever encounter a “take it or leave it” situation ignore it at first. Carry on with your principled negotiation trying to get to the bottom of the objective criteria as to how much something is valued at. Try to present different solutions, and if you do bring up that you are aware of such tactic explain to the other side what they have to lose if they don’t make a deal.

At Michigan University, professor George Siedel in his negotiation class asks his students to bargain for a lower price in a “take it or leave it” situation, such as buying a hamburger from McDonalds. And, unlike what most of us would have guessed it, generally over 69% of the class is successful in negotiating a lower price, yielding an average discount of 40% overall.

6. Contrast Principle

This tactic is famously used by real estate agents. It is an illusion that makes things look different when presented in sequence.

Presenting houses in sequence can help boost the value of the final house

For example, when someone is looking for a house, the real estate agent often takes the person to a really run-down house that looks horrible. The person says that there is no way that they would live in there. And then he/she takes the client to another bad looking house – once again it is a no-no. But finally, the real estate agent takes the person to a beautiful looking house – very expensive – and the client often agrees to buy it. The agent has just created the illusion that the last house is a perfect place that is extremely hard to find by presenting bad looking houses beforehand.

Most likely, if those two ran-down houses were not presented beforehand the client would not have bought the last house in the first place, and that is why you should beware of this tactic. Make sure that you always use objective criteria when analyzing a deal and avoid becoming affected by external factors.

Finally…

Becoming aware of these 6 tactics can make you a much better negotiator. It will help you become more knowledgeable of what is really going on and help you stay on track.

You can even use some of these tactics – with the exception of 2 and 3, for obvious reasons – as tools to better your position in the negotiation, as long as these don’t conflict with your ethical standards. Remember, don’t do anything that you would regret later if it were to be shown in the front page of the newspaper the next day.

Who would you pick to be the face of your franchise?

Let’s pretend you have hundreds of millions of dollars sitting in the bank and you want to start a new NBA franchise today. What player would you pick to build this team around?

Who would be the face of your franchise?

I am a Lakers fan, and realistically I would not pick Kobe Bryant today to be that guy. Probably 12 years ago I would, but not today. Neither I would pick Lebron, Carmelo, or Durant.

Here I will explain to you who would I pick based on statistics with a little sprinkle of reality in the middle.

Stats Talk

Let me first define the metrics I am using to analyze each player (based on the 2013-14 season):

MPG: minutes per game
PPG: points per game
APG: assists per game
RBP: rebounds per game
SPG: steals per game
BPG: blocks per game

I have also decided to use three advanced statistics metrics because I believe they will be able to better define how effective each player really is:

PER: player efficiency. This is the player’s productivity per minute taking into account positive accomplishments (field goals, assists, blocks, steals, etc.) and negative accomplishments (turnovers, missed shots, fouls, etc.) – the NBA average is of 15.00
TS %: True shooting percentage. This is the player’s shooting efficiency taking into account 2-point field goals, 3-point field goals, and free throws
BPM: Box plus minus (or just +/-). This shows the impact a player has on the team taking into account when he is on and off the floor, per 100 possessions. From the team’s perspective, it represents how many points they are up or down by when the player is playing.

There is some controversy regarding the PER, because this metric is largely an offensive one, since it only takes into account two defensive statistics – blocks and steals. And since it is a “per minute” metric, it might show distorted numbers, because it cannot measure when one is playing against the other team’s second unit. However, since I am analyzing players of similar quality (all starters) and of similar minutes, this should not present a problem.

My Picks

According to a study done by Dave Berri – professor of economics at Southern Utah University – players in the NBA are at their best when they reach 24 years of age and stay that way until 25, then start declining. Of course, this is not the same case to all players, such as Jordan who won all his titles after the age of 28.

However, since I am assuming that there will be no anomaly in this sample, I have picked the top 8 players under the age of 24 in the NBA today that I believe could potentially serve as a good first building block. Assuming that every thing else is perfect – that you have a great coaching staff and you are the GM of this team – picking players this young and already established would attract other key players to play for your team.

All the data below is based on the 2013-14 NBA season:

Player	Age	MPG	PPG	APG	RPG	SPG	BPG	PER	TS%	BPM
Anthony Davis	20	35.2	20.8	1.6	10	1.3	2.8	26.5	58.2%	3.7
Kyrie Irving	21	35.2	20.8	6.1	3.6	1.5	0.3	20.1	53.3%	2.9
Kawhi Leonard	22	29.1	12.8	2	6.2	1.7	0.8	19.4	60.2%	5.4
DeMarcus Cousins	23	32.4	22.7	2.9	11.7	1.5	1.3	26.1	55.5%	4.2
Paul George	23	36.2	21.7	3.5	6.8	1.9	0.3	20.1	55.5%	4.5
Damian Lillard	23	35.8	20.7	5.6	3.5	0.8	0.3	18.6	56.8%	2.6
Klay Thompson	23	35.4	18.4	2.2	3.1	0.9	0.5	14.3	55.5%	0.7
John Wall	23	36.3	19.3	8.8	4.1	1.8	0.5	19.5	52.4%	2.6

From looking at the data above we can conclude a few things right off the bat:

all of these players have a positive +/- average contribution
all of these players have an above 50% TS %
there are only 2 players who play the center/power forward position (Anthony Davis and DeMarcus Cousins)
Kawhi Leonard has considerably smaller MPG and PPG metrics
Klay Thompson has considerably smaller PER and +/- average contribution

Analysis

The reason why all of these players have a positive +/- average contribution is because they are all key players on their respective teams. They are all starters and play a considerable amount of minutes, contributing in all aspects of the game.
Having a TS % above 50% is a good sign. The NBA average tends to be always above 50%, so these numbers are not so surprising. But to put things into perspective, last season’s MVP, Kevin Durant, had a TS % of 63.5%. So the players above aren’t doing so bad.
Unfortunately, today’s game does not have that many dominant centers anymore. The league even eliminated the center position from the All-Star ballot last year (what I think is outrageous). However, these two young players, Davis and Cousins, seem to be right up there with the best in the business, such as Noah, Howard, and Duncan. With that, these two guys have their stock values increased due to the shortage in their position.
The way Greg Popovich runs his team is very different from the rest of the league (what might be a hint to the other coaches as to why they keep winning titles). Pop uses all of his bench in every game, and it is rare to see someone in the Spurs scoring more than 25 points. Consequently, Leonard has lower PPG and MPG averages in comparison to the other guys. However, he has something that no one else in this list has: a ring and a Finals MVP award.
Thompson’s low PER is due to the fact that last season he did not contribute to the team all that much in any other categories besides scoring. This could be alarming, however I decided to pull Klay’s early 2014-15 season PER and we can see an improvement: 22. Aside from his new 4-year $70 million max contract extension, we can all agree that Thompson has improved a lot over the summer, as he was one of the members of the Gold medalist USA team in the FIBA World Cup. His low +/- is not alarming as I am sure this number will increase in the upcoming seasons.

With that, who would be the best pick to build a franchise around today?

Reality Check

Taking into consideration that Davis, Irving and Cousins did not play for playoff teams last year, it is easy to understand why they put up such big numbers. They were the star of their teams and got a lot of the offense going through them.

DeMarcus Cousins was not part of a playoff team in the 2013-14 season

Wall, Lillard and Thompson played for teams that were strong playoffs contenders. Although Golden State did not get past the first round, they were still a pretty strong team, finishing 3rd in the highly competitive Western Conference. Lillard proved himself by beating the Rockets with a last second shot taking his team to the second round for the first time in years. Wall, in the other hand, managed to lead his team to the second round of the weak Eastern Conference playoffs by beating the Bulls. All three of these players have proved to be a critical part of their team’s success, but none of them ever got past the second round.

Finally, George and Leonard were part of championship contending teams. Indiana dominated the East but came up to when they lost to the stacked back-to-back NBA champions Miami Heat. Leornard’s Spurs won the title and he had a breakout season by winning the Finals MVP. His performance during that Finals took a lot of people by surprise when he showed the tip of the iceberg of his upside potential.

If I had the chance to take any single one of these guys today I would. But if I had the privilege to pick, I would go with…

My Pick

Anthony Davis.

Anthony Davis has the potential to become one of the best centers/power forwards to ever play the game

The hype about this guy is real. His stats are right up there among the best players in the NBA. On the 2014-15 season opener he had 9 blocks – the first player to ever do that in a season opener since the 1974-75 season. He is currently in the top 10 in points, rebounds, blocks, and steals in the league.

Considering that NBA MVPs generally have a PER of above 27.5 (Jordan has a career PER of 27.91), on his second season he recorded a PER of 26.5 – considered to be a “weak” MVP contender.

He finished in the top 5 in double-doubles recorded in the league in the 2013-14 season, with an average of 20.8ppg and 10rpg at the age of 19. Plus, the kid can shoot the ball from 18 feet with consistency.

Taking into account that he has won an Olympic gold medal in 2012 and another gold medal in the 2014 FIBA World Cup with the USA National Teams all before the age of 21 adds even more credibility to his curriculum.

He has an immense wingspan of over 7’7″, what makes it understandable why he blocks so many shots, gets so many steals, and grabs so many rebounds.

And, on top of all of that he has proven to be extremely coachable and professional at such a young age.

The sky is the limit for AD, and if he continues on this pace he will certainly become one of the best centers/power forwards to ever play the game.

With that, he would be my pick to be the face of my newly formed franchise, as he would also easily attract other key players to join the team.

I will leave you with a few of his highlights. Enjoy.

Should U.S., Canada and Mexico merge into one?

Stephen J. Dubner, in Freakonomics Radio, has recently done a podcast where he explored the possibility of merging the U.S. with Mexico into one gigantic country. It was a 55 minute podcast where an immense flow of ideas came in and left American listeners with this hopeful fantasy of being able to have the best guacamole in the world for cheaper than ever.

NAFTA Logo

In the other hand, one day I was looking for a new book at Chapters and I stumbled upon a book named The Merger of the Century by Diane Francis, where she discusses why Canada and America should become one country.

Now, as we have been hearing on the news lately, with Catalonia pushing for independence from Spain, California trying to split itself into 6 states, Scotland trying to become an independent sovereign state, and more, why not unify and become a super powerhouse? East and West Germany is a perfect example of why this is possible.

Here I will discuss the potential upside and downside for each of the North American countries, politically, economically, and socially, and why this is not a feasible idea.

Political

The American political system is something that not many people understand very well. Basically it is divided into a judiciary branch, which interprets the Constitution, federal laws and regulations; the legislative branch, which is vested in the two chambers of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives; and finally, the executive branch, which is headed by the president and is independent of the legislature.

U.S. Capitol – Legislative Branch

Canada, in the other hand, is a constitutional monarchy that has a multi-party system and a legislature that derives from Great Britain’s Westminster Parliament.

Finally, Mexico is organized in a system that is somewhat similar to the U.S., with executive, legislative and judicial branches organized into a federal representative democratic republic.

Bringing Mexico and Canada into the equation would require some large political restructures for everyone. The U.S., being the larger country, would probably impose their system and begin electing Senators for each of the new states incorporated. Canada would need to detach completely from the U.K. and divide itself into democrats or republicans. Mexicans would more easily adapt into the new system.

Passing new bills, restructuring the new legislative system – Canada and the U.S. derive from Common Law, with the exception of Quebec and Louisiana which, alongside Mexico, derive from Civil Law – would be harder than ever. Can you imagine the confusion this would cause to businesses and people?

Would we then have one single president who would rule the entire continent of North America? How would we determine whether he/she should be from Canadian, American, or Mexican descent? How about the changes in languages that Quebec has so hardly fought for through the implementation of the Bill 101? Would we not require ex-Mexicans to learn french and english in school? What kind of super citizen would we be breeding by mashing together all these different cultures and expecting them to become a single one?

And I will not even touch on how the militaries would unify, because this is a whole different ball game.

The bottom line is, regardless of how different these systems are, and the fact that this new gigantic country would be trilingual, this change would costs trillions of dollars and a restructuring that would take decades to be implemented, slowing down the growth of this country and potentially putting it in a hole impossible to get out of.

Economic

The benefits that businesses would get from this unification would probably be the only positive thing out of this merger.

Mexico has one of the strongest automotive industries in the world. Ford, GM, and Chrysler have been operating there since the 30s and nowadays it produces a lot of the technologies we see in our cars. Alongside the automotive industry, Mexico is the 6th largest producer of oil in the world. Their tourism is arguably the strongest in North America, being the 8th most visited country in the world with over 20,000,000 tourists per year.

Canada is as natural resources rich as Russia and is U.S.’ largest importer of oil. From the oil sands in northern Alberta, to the unexplored oil reserves in the Arctic Sea, to having the largest coast line in the world, the nation is an economic power house with a shortage of workers.

The U.S.’ financial markets account to nearly 45% of the world’s market and has an immensely diversified economy. From the tech hub located in the Silicon Valley, to the off shore oil explorations in Louisiana, to their internal real estate dynamics, the country represents 22% of the nominal global GDP, being the strongest economy in the world.

If these three countries unified, the final result would account to a GDP of over $20.6476 trillion.

But how beneficial would this unification really be? By summing up the numbers everything indicates that it would be a great idea, however we need to take into account the different legislations that govern these economies, which allow them to flourish in the way they do.

The different currencies would present an issue

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was created for the strengthening of each country’s economy without interfering with the way the countries are ran. Since the dynamics of an economy are highly tied to the country’s politics, changing the internal legislation of each nation to accommodate this North American merger would affect a lot more than just the economy. What about the currency? The Canadian dollar is lower than the American right now, and the Mexican peso is worth nearly $0.07. How would this new country compensate for the financial shift that would occur?

That is why NAFTA is such an asset to these countries, because it allows them to become a trilateral economy (free trade and exchange of workforce with TN Visas) without compromising their independence and currencies.

And let’s not forget about the darkside of Mexico. The cartels run large drug trafficking operations from South America (where they get a lot of their drugs) all the way to the U.S. (who are their largest consumers). Although the DEA works hard to keep things in order in the Southwest (Braking Bad will show you exactly how), becoming one gigantic country would enable drug lords to move illicit drugs across North America with much more ease than ever before, now that they don’t need to go around borders anymore.

Therefore, the economical upside isn’t as good as we would have thought, since there already is a great agreement in place that allows these three countries to operate in a trilateral economy.

Social

The social changes from a merger would be unimaginable.

	Canada	U.S.	Mexico
Population	35.16 million	320.05 million	122.33 million
Area	9,984,670 km²	9,857,306 km²	1,972,550 km²
Unemployment (%)	6.4%	5.9%	5.2%
GDP per capita	$40,588	$50,859	$16,143
Life Expectancy	81 years od	79 years old	78 years old
Water System	Excellent	Excellent	Poor

From looking at the data above we can conclude a few things:

Canada has a lot of uninhabited land
The U.S. has an immense amount of people (who make good money)
The average Mexican makes barely enough money to pay rent

Now, with all the immigration issues that the U.S. has with Mexico, it would be safe to say that once these nations merged, a large chunk of the Mexican population would migrate to the U.S.’ current land to look for jobs. The Mexican work force is a lot younger than the U.S.’ and is used to get paid a lot less. This would bring the minimum wage down across this new gigantic nation, bringing down with it the GDP per capita.

Americans would not be very happy about that, and would start moving up to Canadian lands to work in the oil sands (more than they do now). This increased workforce competitiveness would increase the unemployment rate in the northern part of the territory and Canadians would not be happy about that.

A few Canadians would then move down to warmer regions, such as Arizona and California, and eventually move back after suffering from severe sun burns.

Jokes aside, this new nation would cause an immense amount of inland migration leading to severe impacts on unemployment rates and lowered average income, causing the nation to collapse. Plus, the government would need to find a way to standardize and restructure Mexico’s water treating system.

Another big issue to consider is how would this new nation deal with the elderly. Nowadays, Connecticut pays for a large amount of elderly compensation across the U.S., whereas poorer states, such as Mississippi, need a lot more compensation than other states. Bringing in Mexican retired people, who live under the American poverty line, would require this new nation to compensate the southern territory with larger retirement checks, leading income taxes across the country to sky rocket.

Finally, these are only a few of my social predictions from this unification, and I am sure that there are a million other scenarios that we could think of that would lead to a million more, and so on. The bottom line is, merging these three countries into a single one with a population of almost half a billion people would require a lot of governmental changes to compensate for the inequality that would result from this.

Plausible Solution?

Mexicans are very proud of their culture and are not willing to melt into a single nation identity. Canadians are on the same boat, they are proud of the maple leaf and would never want to unify their hockey team with the Americans’ (I cannot imagine Mexicans playing hockey, I’m sorry). So the Americans are standing in the middle with their hands in the air thinking: what do we have to gain from this?

The North American Union would be extremely large

One possible dream that Mexico’s ex-president Vicente Fox proposed on Freakonomics Radio was to create a union, such as the European Union, where countries are independent but people do not need a passport to move around the continent or live somewhere else.

This would be called the North American Union and would potentially bring a lot of benefits to the continent. However, Europe has shown us that it is not all sunshine and rainbows; when one country struggles, the others suffer from it too, leading to inland migration to the countries that are doing well, increasing unemployment rates, and so on. The repercussions from such a Union would be somewhat similar to a merger.

Dreaming is fun, but maybe things should just remain the way they are.

How to become a great negotiator

Getting to YES is a best-seller that first came out in 1981 written by Roger Fisher and William Ury. It has been used in numerous university negotiation courses and is recognized as one of the ground breaking negotiation books of all time. Since the business world is not the same from 1981, the title has been revised multiple times over the years and still holds strong relevance nowadays.

Getting to YES still is one of the most important negotiation books in modern age

The book is useful for all people, since negotiation takes place every day in our lives. When we are teenagers we negotiate with our parents the parameters of our nights out (curfew, where is it, who is going, how we are getting there, etc.), when we are recent grads we negotiate our salaries and vacation time with our employers, when we are husband and wife we negotiate who is going to take up which section of the closet and our private spaces in the new home, when we purchase a meal at a restaurant we engage in a negotiation of what to order and how much to pay for it, when we are senior executives at major corporations we negotiate high scale international deals with the Chinese, etc…

Shift in Paradigm

Fisher and Ury discuss a method that they have developed over the years that consists of approaching the negotiation table with different lens.

We all have gotten caught up in other people’s attitudes during a discussion, which consequently affected our ability to get what we wanted. We all have dealt with some kind of conflict that has left us with a bitter taste in our mouths. So what have we been doing wrong?

Here are the 4 pillars that every successful negotiator bases his/her attitudes around when faced with conflict:

Separate the people from the problem
Focus on interests, not positions
Generate third alternatives (win-win outcomes)
Utilize objective criteria

Separate the People from the Problem

In business, especially, negotiators often forget that they are dealing with humans first. Every person has its own internal conflicts, psychological issues, and desired outcomes. Naturally we have different construals for every situation because our past life events all play a role in how we see things.

For example, a person who grew up in a family of artists will naturally approach problems with a more creative way (most of the times), whereas a person who grew up in a family of business executives will approach problems in a more systematic and organized manner. This happens because our environment and life experiences shape up our way of thinking, and as a consequence no human will ever be the same.

And that is where conflicts are born.

Negotiating with anger will most likely obstruct you from generating positive results for both sides. With that, Fisher and Ury discussed 4 important things to keep in mind that will help you separate the people from the problem:

Perception: their thinking is the problem. The reason why people argue is because of the difference in perceptions. With that, is is important to avoid thinking that, whatever your fears are, that is what the other side is trying to accomplish. They have their own interests too and putting yourself in their shoes will take you a long way.
Emotions: people often feel threatened in negotiations, and fear generates anger, and vice versa. It is crucial for you to understand your own emotions before coming into a negotiation. Once you have that, it is easier to understand the other side’s feelings. Pay close attention to their core concerns and openly talk about it. And most importantly, do not react to emotional outbursts, these often have nothing to do with you nor the negotiation, so just continue to act nice and the other side will eventually calm down.
Communication: without communication there is no negotiation. Most of the time people (including ourselves) listen with the intention to respond. Instead, actively listening to understand will most often lead both parties to the higher road. Acknowledge what is being said and put things into perspective by asking questions about it. And finally, speak to be understood and never speak about the other party. Express your feelings and let the other side express theirs.
Prevention: building long lasting relationships will most often cut a lot of the work in a future negotiation. Trust is a huge factor for humans, so investing in the relationship will only do good. People who know each other generally take anything the other negotiator says personal and directed to them. Build your “face” value by facing the problem from the same side of the table as them, both looking at the issue, not at each other.

Finally, by separating the people from the problem negotiators can deal with the interpersonal relationships first and prevent feelings from getting involved with the actual issue in hand. Always keep in mind to be hard on the problem, but soft on the people.

Focus on Interests, not Positions

Prior to any negotiation both parties will have their own interests. In a perfect world both interests would be fulfilled and the parties would walk away from the table with a big grin on their faces. However, that is not how things normally go…

This section is strongly tied to the previous one (separate the people from the problem). When we let our feelings get involved with the negotiation deal we often tend to park our minds on a strong position and fight for our pride. No one gives in, no one wins. Matter of fact, both parties lose.

We are so focused on our positions that we often forget what was our interests in the first place. For example, a couple fighting over who is going to get which side of the bed; on one side there is a lamp and a window that lets cool air in, and on the other side there is just a bedside table. One party wants to be close to the window because it complains of feeling hot during the night, while the other wants to have a lamp by their side in order to read before falling asleep. But they are both so set in stone on which side of the bed they want (the one closest to the window) that they forget that they can actually move the lamp to the other side. They don’t disclose their interests and end up negotiating over which side of the bed they want instead of negotiating over who gets the lamp.

That is a simple example of how tend we bargain over positions instead of interests.

Fisher and Ury recommend identifying the other party’s interests first. Ask yourself “Why have they not made the decision I want, yet?“.

The first mistake we make is assuming that the other party has the same interests as us. As a consequence we end up battling over who gets the last piece of pizza when in reality one just wants the crust and the other just wants the cheese.

One of the most basic human needs is the one of economic well-being

Another way to identify the other party’s interests is by understanding humans most basic needs; these are often the bottom line of the negotiation:

security
economic well-being
a sense of belonging
recognition
control over one’s life

Most of the time we overlook these interests and think that the only interest involved is money. Is the mother not lending her son $20 dollars because she needs that money or because she is trying to have some control over her son’s life? She certainly could use that money for groceries but maybe she just does not want her son to use that money to secretly buy booze with his friends.

Finally, once you have identified the interests of each party comes the time to discuss those interests and find a solution to the problem.

It is your job to describe your interests to the highest level of detail so that the other party can see where you are coming from. And it is also your job to acknowledge the other party’s interests.

Often we are so focused on what we want and on our problems that we give little attention to the other person’s problems. People respond better when they feel that they have been understood. This is a win-win situation.

And as human beings, when we feel threatened we focus the problem on what other people have done to us in the past. Forget that behavior. You will not get what you want and on top of that you will lose face with the other person. Only look forward, never backwards.

Generate Third Alternatives

Often we believe that our solution is the only right solution. We tend think that we will either go with our way or the other party’s way, and as natural human behavior we truly consider our position the better one. But what if there was another alternative? This is what we like to call it the Third Alternative.

The Third Alternative is something that neither of the parties has thought of it yet. It doesn’t require anyone to compromise or give in. It is a middle ground that meets both interests in such way that both parties contributed to pave the land.

Fisher and Ury describe four obstacles that inhibit people from generating options:

Premature judgment
Searching for a single answer
Assumption of a fixed pie
Thinking that solving their problem is their problem

Generating new ideas requires a lot of effort and cooperation

It is not natural to invent options. It requires hard and practical thinking. But generally we come into the negotiation table with premature judgments that impedes us from generating Third Alternatives.

For example, as a recent graduate you might be afraid of negotiating your salary with your new employer. You naturally assume that disclosing your desire for more money will jeopardize the image your future boss has of you. However, disclosing why you would need that money would encourage your boss to discuss potential alternatives with you. You might want to say that you want to use the extra money to pay the mortgage on your new house; this will imply that you want to stay with that employer for the long run. With that, your boss might decide the give you small increments of salary over the course of five years, which in the end will account to the amount you had in mind in the first place.

Another obstacle is when we see a negotiation as narrowing the gap between two positions, instead of broadening the options available. It is easy to think that by having a hard time to find an agreement is already a big enough task, so thinking of creative ways to make things work will only cause more trouble. Premature closure will only make the process harder.

Thirdly, we see a negotiation as a fixed pie, from which we will try to divide it evenly. What if you could expand that pie? The slices would end up bigger, would they? That is what Third Alternatives do.

Finally, we tend to feel disloyal when we think of ways to solve the other party’s problems. This psychological attachment to our own interests often impedes the wheels from turning during a negotiation. Detaching from our emotional involvement will make your mind freer to think of new ways to untangle the strings.

In order to generate options it is crucial that we separate inventing from deciding.

An employer, when is looking for candidates to fill a position in the company, puts out a job ad for a number of weeks. This allows enough time for multiple people to apply to that job. The point of doing this is to broaden the employer’s options. If he/she can chose the best from a pool of one hundred candidates why would he/she want to quickly look around his/her network and potentially get a mediocre hire?

It is crucial that we generate as many realistic options as possible before deciding on which one to take. Fisher and Ury recommend going through the following process in order to generate Third Alternatives:

Figure out what the problem is
Analyze the problem through the diagnose of potential causes
Develop theoretical cures to what is causing the problem
Take action by choosing the best option from your pool of cures

Finally, there is no point in negotiating an agreement if there isn’t mutual gain. A successful negotiator measures his/her effectiveness by the quality of the solution to the problem, not by how much he/she individually gained. This not only contributes to a good reputation, but also encourages other people to do business with you. Make sure you put yourself in the other party’s shoes and make their decision as easy as possible. This is what generating Third Alternatives is all about.

Utilize Objective Criteria

Building upon the previous three pillars for successful negotiation, this is the last piece of the puzzle, and arguably the most important one.

When we settle an agreement with someone else often we just agree to something the other party says (which might sound good or bad) without really knowing what thoughts went behind the proposal. For example, when a contractor building the foundations of your home comes and tells you that it has to be done a certain way and this is how much it will cost you, most of the times we assume that this is how things are done and there is no contesting the offer. However, when the price seems a little too high we blindly try to convince the other party to lower it. But unless you are dealing with someone who is going through financial struggles and really just needs the money, this attempt will generally fail.

In order to critically come to a fair deal we must understand the criteria that the opposite party used to make the offer. This is the process of utilizing objective criteria.

Principled negotiation comes from the same grounds of principle-centered behavior, which I discussed in: “Your Personal Constitution: what holds true to you“. It is about acting based upon a well-thought out set of values/principles and, in the case of negotiations, criteria.

During a negotiation both parties need to decide on what are fair standards to base their offers upon. One party wants to sell it at a high price while the other wants to purchase it at a low one, how can they reach a fair price?

Never yield to pressure, instead insist on using objective criteria

Therefore, before beginning the negotiation both parties need to agree upon fair principles so that no one feels taken advantage of. Once these are clear it will be easier to separate the people from the problem and focus on the interests. It is inevitable that eventually you will run into someone who will try to pressure you or make threats. Never yield to that. Insist on the criteria agreed upon in the beginning and keep looking for that Third Alternative.

For example, you go into a car dealership with the intent of selling your current used vehicle. The other party offers you $15,000. So you ask him why $15,000 (looking for the criteria). He says that they are currently selling the same vehicle in the dealership for that price. So you ask him if that same vehicle is as old as yours and if it has leather seats. The man working at the dealership says it does not, so you inquire about how much leather seats cost and what is the adjusted value for your vehicle with its year taken in consideration. And so on.

By doing this you will be utilizing concrete values (add the price of leather seats and adjust the year value) to determine the value of your vehicle. You might get $14,000 or you might get $16,000 instead, but the important thing here is that you are reaching a fair agreement for both parties, and this is what great negotiators do.

But, what if…

By practicing the four pillars of negotiation you will be able to generate better results and build a strong reputation for yourself. These are the most fundamental shifts in paradigm that will help you become a great negotiator.

However, in real life things don’t always do the way we learn on paper. The other party might be more powerful, have more authority, or simple have more options than you do. In the book Getting to YES, Fisher and Ury address all of those issues and introduce new tools, such as your BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement), to leverage your position at the table.

There is always a solution to any problem. Negotiating help parties see the problem more clearly and push people to work together to reach win-win outcomes. The only way to get better at it is by constant self-development and real world practice.

But I must admit it, paying someone’s dinner or just buying them a coffee will also take you a long way.

Your Personal Constitution: what holds true to you

Stephen R. Covey says that we should always begin with the end in mind.

For most things in our lives we do begin with the end. We are just not fully aware of it.

For example, artists, before painting a portrait, have a picture of what they want it to look like before grabbing the brush. Professional athletes visualize what they want to do in a game before the game has even started. An entrepreneur, before launching his/her business, will write down a business plan of what he/she would like the business to be.

So, with everything in life there will always be 2 creations. Our visualization and the concrete product.

We always create things twice: once in our minds and then in the physical world

The Funeral

As an exercise, Covey asks his readers to close their eyes and picture themselves driving to a loved one’s funeral.

As you get there you see family, coworkers, community friends, and others getting ready to speak in honor of the fallen. There will be four speakers: one from his/her immediate family, a coworker, a friend, and someone from a community organization (a church or volunteer program) whom which has been involved with him/her.

However, as you get close and look inside the casket you see yourself! This is your funeral in 3 years from now.

Now, what would you like these speakers to say about you?

Write down 10 to 15 things you would like to be remembered for.

Leadership comes before Management

The 10 to 15 points you wrote down are your principles. These are the things you value the most in life and would define your terms of success.

Living through a well thought out set of values is going to direct you towards the path you want the most. These principles will guide you towards your personal definition of success, and ultimately will be what you will be remembered for.

For example, when I am long gone I would like to be remembered as a person who always loved to help others before myself, had a progressive vision with what I wanted to do, carried myself with great leadership, integrity and confidence, was easy to talk to, and worked extremely hard towards goals bigger than myself in an ethical and value-driven way.

With these set of values I have done my first creation of what I would like my life to be like.

So, now comes the question: what is the difference between leadership and management?

A manager focuses on how he/she can accomplish certain things
A leader focuses on what he/she wants to accomplish

With this distinction it is easy to understand why leadership has always to come before management. For example, group of explorers are traveling in a jungle with producers cutting through trees looking for a treasure. The managers are the ones behind the producers sharpening the machetes, writing procedure manuals, and organizing the schedule.

The leader, however, is the one who climbs up the tallest tree and says: “We are in the wrong jungle!”.

The leader has a set of well thought out principles which serves as his/her compass. This compass will guide his group in the right direction. With that being said, no management success can compensate for failure in leadership.

Your principles become an internal compass that guide you in your journey

Your Personal Constitution

Think about the Constitution of a country. That is the tool used to evaluate any law that is passed or not passed. The Constitution will last and endure over years because it is based on a set of correct principles which are the truths obtained upon the declaration of the independence of this country.

By beginning with the end in mind you will be able to develop your own Personal Constitution by utilizing your imagination and conscience (discussed in the previous post).

As an example, I will share my own Personal Constitution:

I am at my best when I inspire others.
I will try to prevent times when I let my negative feelings dictate my responses.
I will enjoy my work by finding employment where I can lead a group of people towards a common goal.
I will find enjoyment in my personal life through making the ones around me laugh.
I will find opportunities to use my natural talents and gifts such as learning quickly, including people into activities, solving problems, motivating myself and others towards achievements, and communicating with others.
I can do anything I set my mind to. I will start a company in the sports industry and utilize the profits to help the poor in Third World countries.
My life’s journey is to continually develop myself as a leader in my community in order to attain the resources and trust of others to help the poor and my own family. I am doing this because I was raised in Brazil being exposed to poverty and also lived in Canada, getting to see the benefits of living in a developed country. I intend to end my journey by inspiring many others to take on the challenge of being a proactive member in society with the desire to help the ones in need.
I will be a person who will always carry myself with integrity, self-belief, and respect (for myself and for others). I will always be a leader with a progressive vision and trail blaze a path to many others behind me. I will always be easy to talk to.
My most important future contribution to others will be to provide my family with options to choose from. I want to return everything my parents have done for me and become a good supporting parent like they were for me. I also want to help the poor communities in my country to develop and thrive as individuals.
I will stop procrastinating and start working on:

Going to bed earlier and waking up earlier

Getting off my cellphone/laptop and doing more activities outside

Taking more chances on the things I believe are right for me

I will strive to incorporate the following attributes into my life:

Being humble and generous

Carrying myself with great integrity and respect

Leading others with a pioneer’s mindset

I will constantly renew myself by focusing on the four dimensions of my life:

Exercising regularly

Meditating regularly

Reading regularly

Interacting with others regularly

You can also develop your own mission statement by clicking here (read the entire post first).

The 4 Balancing Factors

Before writing our personal mission statement we must first understand what fuels the center of our lives.

Stephen R. Covey describes the four interdependent vital factors that dictate our balance in life:

Security: your sense of self-worth, identity and self-esteem
Guidance: your source of direction in life, your internal frame that interprets what is happening outside
Wisdom: your perspective on life, how your principles apply and relate to each other, a sense of oneness
Power: your capacity to act, your vital energy to make decisions, your capacity to overcome bad habits

Depending on what is in our center, each of these factors will be found somewhere in between strong (security, guidance, wisdom, and power) and weak (security, guidance, wisdom, and power). For example, your sense of security will be found either on one end of the spectrum as extreme insecurity, or on the opposite end as a deep sense of self-worth.

Types of Centers

You could center your life in a variety of different aspects of your life, and with that your four balancing factors will consequently be affected by that.

For example:

If you are money-centered your sense of personal worth is based on your net worth, becoming vulnerable to anything that threatens your economic situation; profit is your only decision making criterion; making money is the lens through which you see life; and your power is restricted to what you can accomplish with your money.
If you are friend-centered your security is a function of the social mirror; you base your decisions on others’ judgements; you see the world through a social lens; and you are limited to your social comfort zone.
If you are enemy-centered you are always wondering what your enemy is up to; you guide your actions based on what your enemy does; you are defensive and overreactive; and the little power you have comes from anger, resentment, and vengeance.
If you are family-centered your security if founded on family acceptance; your family dictates your source of correct attitudes and behaviors; you interpret all your life in terms of your family; and your actions are limited by family models and traditions.

According to Stephen R. Covey you can also be spouse-centered, work-centered, possession-centered, pleasure-centered, church-centered, and self-centered. All of the above provide a volatile way to center your life around, putting your sense of security, guidance, wisdom, and power at the mercy of external factors.

Principle-Centeredness

By centering your life around a well-thought out set of values and a personal constitution your four factors will be dependent on internal factors. This will provide you with a more consistent balance throughout life:

Security: based on principles that do not change regardless of external factors and you understand your own development
Guidance: you are guided by a compass and you stand apart from life’s situations, emotions, and circumstances enabling you to look at a more balanced whole.
Wisdom: you adopt a proactive lifestyle basing your actions on long-term consequences.
Power: you are only limited by your basic understanding of your correct principles and your decisions are not based on your current financial or circumstantial limitations.

Applying your Principles

Our brains are divided into a left and a right hemisphere. The left hemisphere is more logical and verbal, whereas the right hemisphere is more intuitive and creative. Although people use both sides of the brain, one tends to be more dominant than the other depending on the person.

Since we live in a primarily left brain dominant world, where words and logic are enthroned, our creative and intuitive side tends to be overlooked. Even in the public educational institutions we are teaching all of our kids to become mathematicians, engineers, or analysts. We hardly see schools encouraging music and art – it is more of an option for the students.

Once we understand our values we have a better idea of where we want to go

However, we do need to exercise our right side of the brain in order to be able to visualize our first creations. It is extremely important that we begin to value more our intuition and integrate that with our left side of the brain to put it into practice.

Once we figure out what is important to us, what are our values, we make a promise to ourselves not to react to the external environment. We become more aware of ourselves and once we find a fork on the road we are sure of which road to take.