Tag: creativity

  • The Zombie Apocalypse is upon us!

    Zombies, zombies, everywhere.

    If you look to Hollywood, the world is but about to become a big zombie-fest.

    Life imitates art, or so they say.

    That being the case, I’ve pondered the meaning of all the zombie movies of late. They seem to be taking off where the “robots that conquer the world” left off. (For some reason, I had more affection for the robot stories, like Battlestar Galactica, The Matrix, Terminator, etc… not any good ones lately, though)

    In any case. Does this say something about our culture? The preponderance of zombies?

    I think it does.

    We have been living under the pall of the industrial era. It turned us into good little zombies…(or robots), obedient to the “system” so we could crank out widgets on the assembly line.

    Don’t get me wrong. I love the creature comforts that the industrial era has provided to humanity.

    But all good things must come to an end. It’s time to move on.

    Yet our economy, our schools, and most of all, the big mega-companies who prefer drones rather than thinking humans as employees, perpetuate the old way. The zombie robot drone way.

    Humanity is waking up. We realize that old way no longer works. We want something more, something better, something more freeing.

    Unfortunately, most of us haven’t yet figured out how to get it. (Hey, it’s why I’m doing what I am, to show that there IS another way, by example…)

    So we sit back and fantasize about wiping out the evil flesh eating zombies. That’s fun and all.

    But it is no substitute for the real work we have to do:  to escape the zombifying system that we’ve grown up in and to replace it with something better.

  • Productivity is NOT about getting more done!

    Does anyone remember record players? I suppose that statement dates me.  But the one big flaw of record players is that when a scratch was present, they could get caught in a “loop” – endlessly playing the same litte bit over and over.  It was annoying as hell to be listening to your favorite song and to suddenly have the last three words of the verse go on endless loop.

    That’s a lot like the notions of “productivity” that are out there.  It is and endless loop: get more efficient, cross things off your list more quickly, outsource more – and you’ll magically get to the top of the field.

    It just ends up with lots of people more stressed out and overwhelmed than ever, because they’re missing a “secret ingredient” that the truly productive implement in their lives (don’t worry, it won’t be so secret once I finish with this post).

    Let’s take an extreme example: Bill Gates. He’s a polarizing figure, but almost nobody can deny that he’s been successful.

    Is he a billionaire because he “gets far more done” than other people?  Of course, that’s a ridiculous notion. If you compared the fortunes of Bill Gates to that of the average McDonalds clerk, he earns like 10,000 times more from interest on his investments alone than does the clerk, but if he was working 10,000 times harder, he’d be dead by now!

    Some – who are particularly susceptible to the poverty mentality – may argue that Bill Gates makes his money “off the backs of others.” I know of at lest two people who have jobs working for Microsoft that help them support their families, and if Bill Gates didn’t exist, those jobs probably wouldn’t exist, either.

    Then, what is the difference between Bill and the thousands of people that work for Bill, and make far less than him?  If we suddenly “evened out” the pay so that everyone at Microsoft earned a salary equal to Bill (by giving him a huge pay cut) – how long would the payroll stay even-steven? NOT LONG.  Companies like United Airlines have tried experiments along those lines, and there are always those who rise to the top, and those who sink like a falling stone.

    No, Bill has a “secret ingredient” that would very likely get him back on top if he were to loose his fortune.

    • It’s not his connections. Those are helpful, but they aren’t the answer. There are plenty of people in poverty who have connections
    • It’s not his “golden spoon” – that makes success easier, but by no means assures it. Just look at the history of people who’ve won the lottery – many of them return to poverty after their winnings run out
    • It’s not his “extremely hard work” – I’m sure Bill worked hard at times, but like I said above, not 10,000 or 100,000 times harder than others.

    His secret ingredient is his creativity.  He found a way to creatively come up with the right solutions at the right time for a fledgeling market in computers. He didn’t just do that once – he and his team did it time and time again! That is how he got to be a Billionare.

    Take another example: Steve Jobs.  In his Stanford commencement speech, he talked about how the design of the first Mac was a creative endeavor – bringing in new typography (and building on ideas that he’d seen at Xerox Parc labs).

    Some say he “stole” the ideas from Xerox, but they misunderstand creativity. It doesn’t happen in a vacuum! You don’t go from nothing to a complex idea in one single step.  It’s almost always incremental. Steve may have gotten ideas from them, but he and Wozniak built on those ideas, creatively.

    Did you ever see the first iPod? I had one. At the time it was a fricking revolution – storing 5GB of songs in your pocket.  It was a leap beyond the other players at the time, like the Archos jukebox (I owned one of those, too).

    Now, compare the current ipods and iphones to that first iPod. There’s no comparison! The current lineup is far more advanced, smooth, holds more songs, is easier to use, etc… (and the price is lower!)

    It didn’t happen in one step. It happened in many small steps – iPod touch, original iPhone, iPhone 3, iPhone 4, etc.

    If Apple had stopped innovating (creating) with the first iPod, would Apple exist today? Of course not. Their success is in direct proportion to how much they can apply focused creativity to solve the needs of the market in new ways.

    My point is this: if you want more success, you’ve got to bring your creativity into your endeavors – in a focused way. Lots of people associate creativity with dreamers and other often not so focused applications of creativity.  If you apply it willy-nilly, you’ll get willy nilly results!

    The challenge for a lot of us (me included) is that our schools teach us to thoroughly develop the left-brained skills of analysis, mathematics, etc – but they do almost nothing to develop our creativity.  That’s why some of the most successful people (like Steve Jobs) were college dropouts – they weren’t exposed to so much of the over-development of the “left-brained” skills.

    So, if you want to be more “productive” (i.e. getting to your goals faster) – learn to develop a balance between the right-brained skills of creative, big-picture thinking and the left-brained skills of rational analysis.

    If you are a business owner or entrepreneur interested in more training on that topic, check out https://morgangiddings.com/o/overwhelm

     

  • What are you changing into? (and why this explains the horrible economy)

    The title of the post alludes to an old cliché, “the only constant is change”.  Today I had a strong reminder of the importance of this saying – especially in these challenging times.

    It’s a Sunday. Rarely do I check my email first thing in the morning, because it’s counterproductive to getting real work done (i.e. real work being the important creative work like book writing – checking email is almost never real work).

    It’s bad.

    Because it was Sunday, I let my defenses down a bit, and I had a peek at what was going on in email-land.  I noticed an email from one of the newsletters I subscribe to.  I rarely read this one anymore, but today something caught my eye, so I succumbed to a dire-sounding headline.  This newsletter is put out by Chris Martenson, whose goal in his work is to warn people of the impending economic and social collapse.

    I read a few articles, such as this one about the dying middle class. I got a bit depressed.  That’s why I don’t read these things much anymore.

    It’s worse.

    Right after that, I did a Google search on “house prices.”  I was curious about what’s happening nationally to home values, because I just made an offer on a house.  After reading the article on Martenson’s site, I was a bit paranoid, and wanted to reassure myself.

    I wasn’t reassured.  The search turned up another site that was all about the post-housing-bubble situation, where families and the middle class are being squeezed out, and rich investors are the ones buying all the houses. Following the article, there were a slew of posts by middle class folks who are stuck in situations not of their choosing – such as living long-term in an apartment, or being stuck underwater in a mortgage.

    The banks are to blame.

    Most of the folks there were blaming the bankers for their predicament.  Those greedy bankers (and Wall st types) are ruining the middle class; they’re ruining the ability of the average person to own a detached home.

    The politicians are to blame.

    The folks who weren’t blaming the “greedy bankers” were blaming the “stupid/inept/greedy” politicians, who are running our economy into the ground just so that they can get reelected.

    Everyone was blaming someone or something, yet nobody placed the blame where it really lies.

    What’s really to blame: an expectation of “stability”

     For a while after World War II, there was a suburban housing boom in the USA.  This boom gave us the promise that we could own detached homes with two car garages, in order to live the American Dream.  This went on from about 1950 until 2008 (though signs that it was headed towards problems were appearing in the late 90’s).  For fifty years, most Americans could count on being part of this particular “American dream” – and now, many Americans are being left out of it.

    50 years is but a mere blip in history.  On the scale of human development, it’s nothing.

    Just because something is a certain way for 50 years doesn’t mean that it’s going to stay that way for the next 50.  In fact, it very rarely does.

    Yet in all of the dire warnings by people like Martenson about the economy and the future, and from those who track the housing crisis, there seems to be an underlying belief that change must be painful and bad.  The belief seems to be that it will lead to instability and chaos.

    This runs deeply.  It’s not just these pundits – it’s nearly everyone that seems to think that stability and insulation from change should be the order of the day.  Maybe we’ve been fed too many movies where the hero lives “happily ever after,” so have come to expect that in real life.

    Real life doesn’t ever meet our expectation of stability

    Think about owning a car.  If you don’t fill it with gas, change it’s oil, and clean it regularly, then soon it’s going to be a worthless piece of junk (no matter how nice it is to start with).

    This is true of any object we “own.”  If you get a house, and then you don’t maintain it for 10 years, it’s going to get run down and dilapidated quickly.  If you don’t mow the lawn, it’ll be only a few weeks before the city is going to be giving you fines for your weed lot.

    There is no truly stable situation in life.  Stability is an illusion!

    Physics tells us why

    There’s a classical physics problem called the “three body problem.”  In this problem, we try to use Newton’s laws to predict three heavenly bodies that are interacting in orbits around one another.  It turns out that predicting their behavior far into the future is not only difficult, it is practically impossible.  The tiniest variation on the part of one of the bodies leads to major variations in the orbit patterns later on.  No computer is powerful enough to predict the effects of these tiny variations very far into the future.  And that’s for only three planets.

    While there are patterns of orbits that appear to be somewhat stable, they always still acting chaotically and unpredictably.  They may stay within certain semi-orderly patterns for a while (this is a so-called strange attractor for the physics geeks), but at seemingly random and unpredictable times they can shift the pattern.

    In the three body problem, there are only two states: somewhat unpredictable, and completely unpredictable.  There is no constancy, and there is no stability.

    Our social and economic systems are a 7-billion-body-problem

    If physics can’t even predict the behavior of 3 planets in orbit, and if there is no constancy in this system, then what does that tell us about a vastly more complex system involving 7 billion living, breathing humans? (Or, if we want to confine ourselves, we can look at just the 300+ million in the US).

    It tells us two things:

    1) predicting what will happen is impossibly futile.  It would take a universe-sized computer to predict what’s going to happen even in the next 10 minutes, much less what will happen a year or ten years from now.

    2) that stability doesn’t exist at any time or anywhere within this system.  Everything is always changing.

    This is truly a universal law

    It’s kind of weird that nobody else has labelled it as such, but that gives us the opportunity to do it.  We’ll simply call it “the Law of Change.” This law says that everything is always changing.  It tells us that any expectations to the contrary are in defiance of a deep, universal law, and are bound to be dashed upon the rocks of history.

    If we consider the housing situation from a “numbers” perspective, it follows this law well.  There has been no time in the past 50 years in which the housing situation has been stable.  It’s been either growing or shrinking.  The suburbs were either growing or dying.  Neighborhoods were coming up, or going down.  There is no constant.

    The same is true of our money system.  In the Nixon era, a nice car cost less than $10,000.  Today, a nice car is over $30,000.  The “value” of our money is always changing, due to a lot of factors in our complex system (such as monetary policy, but not only due to that).

    The Law of Change says that constant expectations are the real problem

    There are a lot of people who are down and out in our current economy.  Most of those people don’t understand the law of change, and they blame the politicians and bankers for the changes that have rendered their lives much different (and seemingly less satisfactory) than they used to be.

    The real problem is not the bankers or the politicians.  The real problem is a failure to acknowledge the changes always happening around us, and to creatively work to keep ahead of (or at least up with) those changes.

    Clinging to the old American dream is clinging to a past that no longer exists.  That dream said: get a steady job, get a loan, get a nice house, get an RV, and you will be happy ever after.  We could debate about whether that dream ever did lead to any true happiness, but that’s for another blog post.

    Here what we need to see is that, while there was a brief period in history where that equation worked for quite a few people, that equation no longer works.

    No amount of finger pointing, blaming, or even more extreme action such as rioting and wars, or anything else, is going to bring it back.  The world has moved on, as it always does, never to turn back.

    Some people are nonplussed by change (and in fact, profiting from it)

    In the forums from that housing site I was reading, many commenters were pointing blame at those evil investors who are buying up houses, making them unavailable to plain American families who might otherwise occupy the homes.  Those evil investors rent out the homes, preventing those families from owning the homes.

    This misses the reality quite stunningly.  The reality is this:

    1) Because many of these families are still clinging to the old American Dream, looking for a stable good-paying job and an affordable mortgage – yet not achieving it (because it no longer exists) – many cannot afford a home – even in today’s down market.  If they can’t afford the homes, then who’s going to buy them?  The alternative to the investors buying up homes is to have a glut of homes on the market, further depressing values and causing even more foreclosures, short sales, and the like.

    2) Those investors are the people who understand the Law of Change – at least to some extent.  They are people who see where things are headed, and have come up with a way to ride the wave of change in the housing market.  Many of them are making out quite handsomely as a result.

    This doesn’t excuse malfeasance.  It doesn’t excuse corrupt bankers or the like.  But what it does do is say this: any time change occurs (which is always) there are those who sit around resisting it, and there are those who embrace it.

    Those who sit around resisting it and complaining about it are those whose fortunes sink.

    Those who embrace the change are those whose fortunes rise.

    Change and the rise of Hitler

    If we think about one of the most dire economic situations of the 20’th century, the Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic that led to the rise of Hitler – there were many people suffering and resisting change.  But there were also people profiting, who rode the tide of extreme currency change that was happening.

    Which of these two groups more enabled the rise of Hitler? The change resistors, or the change adopters?

    If we look at what people who resist change do, they blame the “negative” changes they see on other groups.

    If we look at what people who embrace change do, they don’t usually sit around and point fingers, they usually are too busy creatively keeping up with the changes to sit around and to point fingers of blame.

    While the reality of the Weimar was certainly more complex than this, we can know quite likely which group it was that spent more time blaming the bad state of the Weimar on the Jews: the change resistors.

    If more people had said, “ok, look, this currency business sucks, let’s figure out an alternative” and they had focused on building that alternative, there wouldn’t have been as much time to sit around pointing fingers at the Jews.

    To be clear, the rise of Hitler was due to more than just the change resistance.  But the change resistance did play a part.

    Resisting change is the problem, not the solution

    Chris Martenson (and many others who have a similar message) says that we can’t rely on the old ways anymore.  He’s right. We can’t, and we never could.  The only difference between now and twenty years ago is a matter of degree.  Right now, the challenges we face are forcing more people to face this universal truth head on.  The longer people resist, the more the struggle and difficulty (and perhaps war/etc) that occurs as people are forced to deal with the changes that have been resisted for decades.

    At any time in our lives, we can choose to either resist or embrace change.  

    Resisting change is often the more comfortable and less scary route – but far less satisfying.  It tells us that we are nothing but hapless pawns who can’t help our circumstances.  We shift all the responsibility to outsiders, and so if bad things happen, we aren’t to blame (except that, by our own resistance, we are ultimately to blame for what happens to us). There’s no fear about doing the wrong thing, because we don’t have any responsibility.

    Embracing change is the more scary but also far more rewarding route.  When we embrace change, we can find ways to stay on the leading edge; to grow with the times where growth is happening.  But when we embrace change, we are forced more directly to take responsibility – if we make a decision to try something new, and it fails, it is much more difficult to blame someone else.

    There’s not any actual difference in where the blame lies for our failures; in reality, we are always and the only people to blame, ever, for our failures. But in the change-resistance mode, it is much easier to deny responsibility for failure, and pretend to pin the blame on someone else.

    Change and the rise of  YOU

    It’s a shame that our standard educational system doesn’t prepare us for what’s going on. Our educational system teaches nothing about being entrepreneurial or creative.  It only prepares us for a standard job and a standard life – the one that no longer exists for an increasing number of people, as the world continues to change.

    As with alcoholism and drug addiction, the first step to a cure is always to admit there’s a problem.

    The problem we need to admit here is that maybe we’re a bit too addicted to the idea of stability, or to an unchanging and unchanged “American Dream.”

    If we can truly admit this problem, it then opens us up to begin looking for creative solutions to the problem.

    The creative solutions abound, and I’ll talk about them in other places. But we can’t even start on the creative solutions until we’ve said, “yes, I have a problem.”

    Once you’ve moved down this path, you’ll realize that the number of possibilities is nearly endless.

    Once we stop clinging to a narrow dream (that was defined by movie script writers and politicians), we open up a wide realm of new and more satisfying ways that we could be living.  We open up ourselves to the fun and the challenge of moving towards new goals and new ways of being, rather than the boredom and fear of trying to maintain the status quo.

    Once you open up to, and embrace the change, you open up the door to your imagination.  You have the possibility to then re-imagine your life in whatever configuration you’d like it to be, and you get to move towards that.

    Doing that is way more fun that clinging to a sinking ship, and pointing fingers at all the bad people who caused it to run into the iceberg.

    That’s why I no longer regularly read stuff like Chris Martenson’s blog or the Oil Drum.  That’s the game they’re involved in.  Instead, I’ve become involved in a very different game: how can I take advantage of change, to increase life satisfaction and well-being.  I’ve found out it’s more than possible.

    Do you need an antidote to all the gloom and doom out there, without a bunch of touchy-feely mumbo jumbo?

    I will show you how to tune out all the dire predictions and negative thinking.

    I will show you how to “reimagine” your career and life, making you more valuable to your employer or customers and increasing your life satisfaction.

    I will show you how to stay ahead of the changes that are happening, so that you can be a person that benefits from them rather than suffers from them.

    Check out the free new videos I’ve made for you, including “You can take this job and shove it!” and “$215,517 per hour.”

  • Goal oriented or fun oriented?

    Today, I had fun.

    For the past few years, whenever I’ve gone on a bike ride, I’ve been goal focused.

    Mountain biking: distance and elevation. Have I pushed myself hard enough?

    Road biking: speed. Have I kept up a high enough average pace? How many people have passed me? How many did I pass?

    Today: cruising around on my city bike, in no hurry, the scenery is great, isn’t it? Stop at the wine store, buy a few nice bottles, cruise around through the neighborhoods, look at the mountains, cruise past the river to see all the people having fun in the water.

    I haven’t had that much fun in years.

    Ok, well, I admit – I have had some fun moments on my mountain bike, cruising around the great trails here.

    But the point is the same: it was refreshing to drop the goal orientation, and just…. ride.

    This isn’t a biking blog – I previously wrote plenty about that at cycle9.com. This holds a deeper lesson.

    Somewhere along the way, I, and many others, lost sight of the “fun” and got caught up in the “achievement” and “goals.”

    What’s up with that?

    Goals and achievement are good, in moderation.

    Yet life is a lot more than that. Life is here to be enjoyed. To be experienced. To have fun with.

    Ours may be an overreaction against the freewheeling 60’s.

    It’s one whopper of an overreaction.

    It’s time to get fun oriented again. We all deserve it.

  • Would computers really want to do math proofs?

    Roger Penrose wrote a book titled “The Emporor’s New Mind.” The book roused quite a bit of controversy, because he claimed that he had proof that computers can’t think in the same way that humans do.

    To illustrate, he used the complex subject of mathematical proof making. Using various fancy arguments tied to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, he basically said this: computers can’t go beyond the logical system they’re already inside of, and math proofs must go beyond what’s already known, therefore humans are doing something when making math proofs that computers can’t do.

    There’s been a lot of argument about the points he raised. Some artificial intelligence proponents have shown ways in which computers can do things like mathematical proof making. The arguing back and forth goes ’round in circles of complex logic and abstract math theory, with neither side really gaining all that much traction in the debate.

    Yet, it’s almost twenty years after the book was published, and we still don’t have self-aware or creative computers. Sir Penrose was onto something, but I think he somewhat missed the boat on a much simpler argument that could have been wielded for his side: would computers really want to do math proofs to begin with?

    No. Not unless a human programmed them to do math proofs. That is the one and only instance in which a computer will do math proofs.

    This is really where the argument lies. Computers have no inherent self-awareness, and hence no intrinsic motivation to accomplish any goal. The only “motivation” they ever have is that supplied by their human programmer.

    Now, a simplistic argument might go like this: ok, Ms. smarty pants, but our human motivations are simply programmed functions of our DNA and our environment growing up! Despite that there is no hard proof for this would-be-assertion by a would-be-hard-core-artificial-intelligence-practicioner, it is nonetheless likely to be wielded much like a shield wielded by a knight going into battle.

    The counter-proof to this not-really-proof is simple: humans often go directly against our programming. For the new book I’m writing, I’ve been doing a bit of research on the Wright brothers. You know, those guys who invented powered flying machines that actually worked. They went against their programming in many ways. They gave up their bike shop, which provided them with economic well being, to have the time to pursue the flying, and they suffered financially. Multiple crashes resulting in broken bones and potential death, but they kept flying. After their first successful flights (albeit short ones), they faced scorn and outright hostility, with many newspapers calling them liars. They were going firmly against their programming of self-preservation, social belongingness, and economic well-being to pursue a crazy idea that nobody had evidence of actually being able to work.

    No computer can do that, or will do that – at least not as presently constructed. A series of binary switches, no matter how complex, is still just a responsive mechanism. There is no place for motivation in there. There are just inputs and outputs. That’s all. Those inputs and outputs may do some incredible things, and do them very fast. But at no time is it suddenly going to become magically “aware” as the computers get faster.

    A lot of people think that when computers reach the computing capacity of our brains that they will automatically become aware. Ummm no. That’s about as logical as saying that putting a bigger engine in your car will help it drive itself. Putting the bigger engine in your car will help it go faster, but the car still needs a driver.

    Computers are ultimately just machines, much like that car. It’s a fine and noble mission to be giving them ever “bigger engines” so that they can do more stuff and faster. But to assume that, at some point, this will automatically lead to them being self-aware and self-motivated is much like assuming that your car is going to suddenly start driving itself. It is just a fantasy.

  • Why I hate writing grants

    No, it’s not the writing part that bugs me.  I actually like that part.  Being able to put together well-constructed plans and rationales is fun.  Describing a project-to-be is fun.

    But… there’s another part about it that I really hate.  It’s that you can’t be authentic.

    I often use the analogy between writing a grant and “marketing.”  In a grant, you’re trying to “market” a project or idea.

    However…. there’s one important difference.  In a real marketplace, you don’t have to please anyone and everyone.  You only have to please a particular segment of people.  For example, if you open a used car dealership, your marketing will be targeted to a segment of people that buy used cars.  It’s very different from the segment of people that you might target if you open a Mercedes dealership.

    The grant marketplace is artificial.  In order to get a grant funded, you get assigned a random group of peers, and you have to please all of them.

    Imagine a car dealership where you get randomly assigned customers by some outside entity, and if you don’t please every single one of them, you fail.

    This leads to excessive conservatism.  If your idea is “too innovative” then you’ll displease at least one reviewer, and your proposal is toast.

    On the other hand, if it’s not innovative enough, you’ll bore all your reviewers, and you’ll also end up a bit burnt and crispy.

    So it’s a game of trying to be just innovative enough, without ever crossing that line of being even slightly speculative.

    In other words, it’s a game of make-believe. You either avoid innovation (and never accomplish anything really great), or you pretend in your grant to not be innovative, then once you get the grant, you be innovative despite the ruse.  This is a risky game, because if your being-innovative-despite-their-conservativism doesn’t pan out over the short term, then you’re left trying to explain why you spent all that grant money that was supposed to be for a conservative (but boring) project on something innovative that didn’t work out.  So, most people I know – if they do this at all – they only do it with a tiny fraction of their grant money.  Yet the truly innovative ideas often require more than just a tiny little trickle of resources and money.  So they stall out.  Yes, I’ve had it happen.

    Everyone (ok, not everyone, but most intelligent people) knows that good science actually requires risks and innovation.  A look at the history of Nobel Prizes demonstrates that many of the ideas were, at the time they were first announced, considered utterly heretical.  In other words, un-fundable.  Just check out this video featuring Dan Schectman, the discoverer of Quasicrystals:

    This game of make-believe is not only annoying, it’s damaging.  It hurts progress.  It damages the reputation of the scientific community (i.e. why, after 10’s of billions in cancer research don’t we have better cures?  The main answer is in what I just wrote above.  And don’t be deceived, the public does notice the lack of sufficient progress!).

    If others are interested in “playing the game,” I can help them play it better (based on what I learned over many years of doing it successfully).  That’s what my business has been all about for the past two years, and I’ve helped many people achieve grant success.

    But I have no interest in continuing to play that game for my own work, dumbing down all my innovative ideas to please overly conservative review panels by pretending that the ideas aren’t actually all that innovative (or altogether hiding the innovation).

    So, if you’re going to play the grant game, realize what you’re in for.  If you enjoy doing incremental projects (with the occasional bit of innovation thrown in), then the system may work fine.  But if you prefer to really innovate and go beyond… well, then, be prepared to do a lot of pretending that you’re not quite so innovative.