December 18, 2011
Social Status in Peru


Peru is a very culturally diverse country. It was conceived as a state not because people from just one nation inhabited it, but because it was how the viceroyalty of Peru was organized. Peru is a state with many nations inside, some are small others are bigger. It has been said that Jose de San Martin, the General of the Liberation Army and the person who declared Peru’s independence, stated that Peru needed to do more work than the other liberated South American countries towards creating a national identity. Many states have made the effort to create a national identity that raises above all the local identities that initially composed them; others haven’t been able to do it. Peruvian territory served as home for many cultures during history. At the time of the Spanish colonization, there was a vast array of Andean and Jungle societies living in what is now known as Peru. Many Andean societies had been conquered or annexed to a culture from Cusco that became the Inca Empire. The Inca Empire was a relatively young organization that was still struggling for control of its land. While the cultures of the jungle remained isolated from western influence for many centuries, Andean cultures were exposed and transformed by their contact with the western culture and the colonization systems that ruled the viceroyalty of Peru for almost 5 centuries. The huge displays of gold and precious metals that the Incas had impressed the conquistadors that immediately decided to conquer and exploit the vast reserves of minerals available below the ground of the Inca territory. Mining was the main economic activity promoted by the colonial government and in order to get cheap labor Andean people were classified as second class citizens who were only allowed to perform basic jobs and weren’t given any political power. Only the Spaniards were given full rights by the government while the decedents of the Spanish people born in Peru were assigned the ‘criollo’ label that granted them some privileges over the Andean population.

 

Class separation was justified with an ethnocentric view that stated that the locals were less developed, ignorant, and of inferior race. It is important to acknowledge that the differences in culture, practices and language were immediately labeled as a characteristic of the race. Given that all the Spaniards were white and all the Andean people were olive-skinned. The history of class separation, to use a Marxian or Weberian term, as explained by Julio Cotler in his book ‘Clases, Estado y Nacion en el Peru’, was based initially on cultural differences. The Spanish saw the new, different culture as technologically undeveloped and thought that Andean people weren’t capable of The Spanish government classified Andean people as members of a lower class because they didn’t originally believed in the Christian god and their practices were seen as primitive, in opposition to the most ‘advanced’ western practices and developments.  The cultural practices of the different Andean communities were seen as less developed, as a product of ignorance, or as negative.  These factors created what later became the racial segregation. As all the people classified as lower class were of Andean physical traits, suddenly all the people with Andean physical features were generalized as  ignorant, less developed and poor. This is the same process to which the black population of Africa was subjected to. It is important to notice that the main reason for racism wasn’t race per se, but a series of characteristics that people from a race had in a particular moment that were later generalized to the whole race.  This fact is relevant because to understand the current situation of discrimination in Lima we need to stop considering race as the only factor and incorporate others.

Saying that the racial differences are not the main reason for discrimination can make people classify this paper as part of the ‘neoliberal racial project’, but that will be shortsighted. While the ‘neoliberal racial projects’ aims to say that matters of race should be minimized, I’m trying to find the complex system by which discriminatory practices are born in order to have clearer perspective to conduct a change in our behavior.

Discrimination based on race is still very strong in Peru, especially among the older white population of the coastal cities. A lot of people still assign status to others based just on their skin color and physical features. However, recent incidents point out that discrimination is based on other factors such as clothing, language spoken, occupation, among other reasons. These factors are part of a complex equation of assignment of social status that everyone makes according to their cultural and social backgrounds. Some people with Andean features that display cultural traits common to Lima are not discriminated against. For example, a person with Andean physical features wearing Abercrombie & Fitch clothing can get into a cinema without problems, but the same person with traditional Andean clothes will get discriminated or at least will get uncomfortable looks from the other people in the area.  It is true that certain races (understanding race as a social construct and not as a biological fact) have a negative connotation in certain places of the city. For example, if a white person from Lima goes to the cinema in a wealthy distric wearing Andean clothes they will get into the cinema. That is because despite having Andean clothing, the white person speaks a coastal Spanish, is accustomed to the social norms of the city – social proximity, slang, etcetera -. Social discrimination is believed to be a product of a combination of factors that have different weight.  I think it will be interesting to develop a study to identify the factors that people use to assign status in order to get a clear perspective of where discrimination finds its origins. And how the process of socialization, understood as the process by which people gain social skills, needs to change to create a more tolerant environment. Making this effort will allow government officials, parents and the private sector to reform education to avoid social discrimination in a country that has a population that is racially and culturally diverse. 

Posted via email from Sushi with a fork | Comment »

October 22, 2011
Conglom-o: We own you.

When I was a kid I used to watch the Nickelodeon cartoon Rocko’s Modern Life. (Who am I kidding, I still watch it these days). Rocko is a subtle critique to the modern world and the industrial ways of living. Today I was reading an excerpt of Arlie Hoschield’s The Managed Hear: Commercialization of Human Feeling  and I was immediately transported back to O-town the city where Rocko lives. 

In the cartoon one big corporation owns most of the businesses in the town (Conglom-o), this corporation had many employees that look the same and act the same. Conglom-o, who owns the town has a really funny motto: “We own you”. If one was to make a lighter interpretation of these motto one would conclude that they’re saying that it doesn’t matter what you buy, you’ll always end up buying from Conglom-o. But if we make analyze the scene in more detail we can find out that all the workers of Conglom-O look the same because they’ve lost their personalities and emotions to those of the corporation. That’s exactly what Hoschield proposes in her book.  

The extract from the book shows us how Delta Airlines trains its stewardesses to smile, lose their emotiosn and apply an emotional role while doing their job. I immediately started thinking of many examples where job does not only requires you to give your labour for a wage, but to give your emotions and to fake an emotional state for a wage. The first example that came to my mind was the phone representatives of my cellphone carrier that I have been in touch with for the last week. Everytime I call I get the same answer, the same speech, the same joyful tone of voice and the same happy way of dealing with an angry customer. It doesn’t matter if it’s a male or female representative I always get the sense that I’m talking to the “corporate personality”. That was true up until last Wednesday when I was left on hold for about 20 minutes and the rep forgot to switch the hold music on. I got to hear all the conversations that were going on in that call center and especially the one being held by the representative next to where the headset my rep was working with was left. This guy started giving out the same speech I was given and I started to imagine a room full of people dressed in the same way, wearing red ties and black suits, with the same faces. It was the clone wars (from Star Wars) all over. About 4 minutes into the call (and into my hold - assholes who make their customers wait) the representative started to lose his temper and his personality came out as he started to demand some respect from the customer, he was clearly overwhelmed by the angry customer. Having worked at customer service for a period of my life (heck! I think I’m still in that area right now) I knew how he felt. I’ve never felt that having a corporate speech and losing your personality to that of the corporation is a good thing to do. Even though all the experienced managers who are control freaks want it that way (it’s my blog, I don’t have to be politically correct, right?).

So, to make a long story short the representative lost his corporate personality and showed that its really difficult to sell your personality as part of the whole package you sell as work. The problem I see is that the idea that people need to hide their emotions at work is a bit too much for anyone to handle and stay un-alienated by their work.  Let’s define alineation as the loss of your true personality and values for those of the corporation you work for. Alienation causes you to become resentful and even violent towards the institutions that make your life lose meaning. 

What my empirical observation tells me is that the raise of all the self-help industry, the proliferation of so many new cults and religions and the creation of opposition groups is all a result of the alienation created by “control freak” corporations who want all their employees to act and smile in the same way. Employees who fake their emotions to fit certain work persona are in fact being hypocritical during work. They are hiding their emotions and they’re learning how to control their emotions to give certain images to the customers they’re serving.  Finally, these customer service employees will end up feeling distant from themselves and commiditising their emotions. 

Emotions are considered to be very personal feeling and that are indeed part of our originality and our essence. Losing it to corporations is the ultimate sacrifice for work and as a world of broadening inequality arises the only way to achieve a higher income is to sell your emotions to others. The selling of emotions is out in the market since very long, but now it has permeated the majority of fields of work. This situation has made many workers feel unhappy about their work and their lifes in general. People do not know who they are any longer, they don’t know if they’re faking their emotions in their personal lifes as they do in their work life.  They’re trying to find meaning for their lifes in activities and institutions that are removed from theirselves.

Consumerism, fundamentalisms, radical religious cults, tribes of drug users,  and tribes of any kind are all activities and groups that emerge and gain power as we lose the ability to find our essence inside us. We end up being Conglom-o employees who look the same and act the same. We all smile and are supposed to be happy at work, to show no sadness and to become robots. 

The simple solution for this will be for the company to strive to make their employees find true happiness rather than teaching them how to fake it, or forcing them to learn how to fake it. Of course this will require for managers to trully care about their employees which seems to be too much to ask to the average manager who has also selled his emotions to the corporation. Having happier people will lead to better results and also to a culture where consumerism and meaning are not products that one can buy, but states one can achieve by socializing with the group their living with. 

This post proposes one problem that is a result of the evolution of work and consumer expectations as our economy turns from a product economy to a service economy. This is turning people unhappier with their living situations and especially with their emotional situations. How do we change this? How can we change the culture of standarization? What can it be done to reduce alienation? What other problems emerge with this one? These are all questions we need to ask ourselves and work on if we want to help us find a true meaning in our life. 

 

Posted via email from Sushi with a fork | Comment »

October 15, 2011
Fighting for the status quo

In the last couple of weeks the Occupy Wallstreet movement has gained much more press and the campaign has been joined by several protestors from many cities in the USA and around the world. Tumblrs such as “We are the 99%” had been created and have many inspiring protests. I believe in their concerns and that they are tired of current situation of the system we’re living in, which has lead to an economic downturn of huge proportions. In fact, probably all the economic growth that brought that wellfare in the first place has been made out by a “fake value” economy that has brought by this consequences upon us. And my concerns start to raise right there. It seems to me that people protesting at the Occupy Wallstreet movilizations are fighting to maintain the status quo, or to go back to the state of affairs that caused the status quo, and that is a very dangerous thing to do for all of humanity. 

The emergence of the Information Age has changed how social systems are organized. We can talk about the world systems theory, or about the network society as proposed by Castells. Actions done at Wallstreet can affect all the world’s economies, labor markets, standards of living, and any other system in general. According to Castells (and to any educated analysis of the news of the last couple of decades) the powerful, first-world, developed states have been making decisions that affect the whole world considering only on the consequences for their nations and not of the consequences for other actors in the system. Nobody thinks about what would happen to Latin America is the USA raises traiffs to create “American Jobs” or if they subsidize farmers from the midland states. All of those actions will have consequences for people outside of the US and while the economy will be better for a couple of years, the position of the US in the world will generate a huge chaos and more insecurity. The fact that these decisions impact other countries generates animosity of those nation-states against the developed world, which are probably the cause of many world tentions around the world. The probelm that surfaces from these points is that the actions asked for by the Occupy Wallstreet movement will probably have a positive short-term effect in the United States, but will (without the shadow of a doubt) bring terrible consequences if other actors in the networked society are not taken into consideration in the decision making process. To achieve this, people will need to start thinking globally. The idea of a global village regains validity once again, and not because globalisation has produced a unified culture or system, but because all the systems have become interrelated due to globalisation. 

As I read the demands of the 99% I can’t help, but to feel concerned about what people are asking for. I see a myriad of posts and all ask for higher paying jobs so people can pay back their credits, the return of the wellfare state and the creation of labor regulations. All of these demands may seem to have a direct causality with the economic well-being of the population, but in reality are the causes of the current downturn of the system. What needs to be done is a totally different thing. I remember arguing about this with Liz Pullen on twitter and she made a very good point which i will paraphrase as I can’t seem to find the tweet. Liz said that people making the revolutions rarely know what they want, they just protest to show a discomfort. Nevertheless, the problem is that authorities will listen to the claims of the people and will probably aim to give them what they are asking for, changing direction towards the new crisis and the further destruction of the economic system as whe know it. This will be natural evolution, but the problem is that this natural evolution will bring pain, suffering and death to many people before the system is corrected, if it ever is. We can do better and we need to do better.

I propose that the revolution needs to be one that upgrades our social systems and not one of returning to the good times of the past. One of evolving our current systems of values and socialisation towards the future. We need to start hacking our systems and valuing other things beyond money and our individuality. Many theorists, such as Ulrich Beck, argue that individualism is the sole cause of the current crises we’re living in. I think that the lack of concioussness of the people we affect with our decisions is one the main causes of the huge damage the system has made towards the lower end of the class system. 

A new set of values needs to be set, the re-emergence of social capital as the key value of society should be a key component of the revolution. This will lead to the relegation of economic power to a second place and will end with the corruption lead by high paying corporations. A revolution of going back to the old systems will only make the “one percent” more powerful and will maintain the status quo for a couple of years, befeore we face the next world crisis. 

We have the choice to change or to repeat the cycle. What will it be?

Posted via email from Sushi with a fork | Comment »

October 5, 2011
Think Different, Live Different

Steve Jobs’s life will mark moments in each and everyone of us. He changed the way we communicate, the way we appreciated technology, the way we thought of design. He made many of us design junkies. He made us love simplicity and changed many life philosophies with the creation of a single button. He changed industries, revolutionized every single aspect of modern life. He taught us amazing lessons. He cared about the humans, and the human exprience. He didn’t care about customers, he just wanted us to suck on every beautiful icon of the Mac. He decided tha black and white will never go out of fashion and that limiting our choices of color was actually the classy thing to do. We can’t imagine the idea of a pink iPhone and we hope it will never come. 

Everyone has a story or a couple of stories influenced by Steve Jobs and I am no exception. He taught us that nothing was impossible and that we shouldn’t be trapped in dogma. He revolutionized the way in which we communicate. He created a mobile device capabale of handling all the functionalities of a computer. He made it possible to broadcast an international IM for cheap. He gave me the iPhone and he have birth to the smartphone (even the G1) that made my last relationship possible. His invention kept me close to who I loved and made me part of every tiny bit of her life. Before that revolution it was impossible to be close to your loved one who was more than 4,000 km away. But he dreamt of a world where everyone was close enough, where distance wouldn’t matter, and we dreamed with him. We believed because he believed. I shared many times of joy through Facetime, enjoyed the Gamecenter games, chatted through Meebo, and shared an appstore account. He made it possible for me to be as close as technology could get me, which was a long way. He made me believe that whatever is the hurdle we find, there’s a way to overcome it and achieve true happiness. Even though that relationship is over, he made it possible. Even though he is gone I still keep with me his most valuable lesson: “Always remember that any dream can become true. You just need to be bold enough to make it happen”.

Posted via email from Sushi with a fork | Comment »

February 8, 2011
Ethnotrend: What is ethnography?

ethnotrend:

Ethnography is a method of research that studies people’s behaviors in their natural environment. This method of investigation provides accurate results because it digs into people’s lives by observing, conversing and analyzing them as an insider, as opposed to doing surveys and interviews as an…

December 4, 2010
When your employees don’t want to work for you

I have some friends who run big businesses and they work really hard for their paycheck month after month with hard work. Yesterday as I was talking to one of them he told me of a problem he has. The employees of a department don’t want to work there any longer. All of them want to go to other jobs, look for new opportunities or even retire. I couldn’t believe the story, I’ve never seen something like that. I began to wonder what was going on there, what could make 20 or 30 people want to quit a job that pays well at the same time. The answer was simple: Culture.
Culture is very important and it is not created during a board meeting by 13 to 35 board members writing down a mission statement. It’s not created by employees in a company retire either. Culture is created by the people who work everyday and culture is created everyday and from that we can elaborate a mission statement, values and all the documents we need to make it “official”. 

What is the problem with this department?
The culture sucks. The business is so big that every department has it’s own culture and it’s own mission statement. So you have a boat and every area is trying to push their way and to make the boat go in the direction they think is right which ends up in a very frustrating battle inside the company. 

How can you spread a positive culture in a big business?
 That’s a tough question to answer. One of my friends told us his experience.
To ensure a positive culture the CEO should be fully committed to the culture and so all the Vice Presidents and area managers. This is important because whether the culture comes from the top positions or the bottom positions (and there shouldn’t be so many levels between them anyway) the CEO and the VPs are the ones that will make sure that every department follow suit and will finally make the decision to decide which new hires fit the culture of the company. 

Empower the champions. You’ll find some champions who are perfect culture fits and live it everyday. These champions are the ones that will embody the culture and set the example to most of the employees. It’s far more motivating to have someone other than the board members and this will make the right attitude expand across the employees faster.
Finally what will spread the positive culture is to ensure that every interaction that we hace with each person inside the company follows certain values and guidelines that are small in number and easy to remember. To make them easy to remember you need to relate these values to human actions such as humility and pursuit of learning and improvement.

If you do this you’ll make sure you have a well oriented and committed team. Change has to be total and made fast. Slow change will probably won’t lead to the desired results in the needed time because many big organizations are well behind in this matter. 

Posted via email from Sushi with a fork | Comment »

November 19, 2010
Ethics in Advertising

I’ve been working with advertising agencies for a while now, though I’ve never worked for one. During this time I’ve been able to observe that in the advertising world the client has the priority even over the client’s customers. Sales people for advertising companies or account managers try to learn and embrace the client’s needs even if these needs go against the end user best interest. So I was wondering how ethical is this considering that ad agencies have the job of convincing people to do something that harms their health, financial well being, etc. For example, the ad agency of a cigarette manufacturer needs to convince people that smoking is sexy, hot, cool or even the right thing to do while they know that it’s harmful for their health. Where do we draw the line into what advertising agencies can do?
I think this problem is particularly hard to address because of the fine line defining what is harmful and what is not and the different opinions around, not to mention the big lobbies in congress that try to stop any project that labels these activities as harmful. So these actions are legal and therefore no one will go to jail and the money made will be legal, but I wonder if people could live with the guilt of knowing they are encouraging certain behaviors that harm other people for money. 

I’d like to bring this topic up because advertising agencies are now leading companies into the online world which is a more social world and trying to get brands to act as one more friend, which is totally fine, but what about when a friend pulls you to do a bad thing.  All the creativity in the world can pull people to drink, smoke, spend extra money in that giant car and many other things and all the creativity in the world can lead to these messages entering the social space. The social space is an space that will be hard to regulate as we cannot attach the creation of a Facebook Like Page to a brand, it may be created by a fan or maybe by the company. Either way it’s almost impossible to try and regulate how we get ads on the social space. If a friend likes Marlboro on Facebook we can’t choose not to see that “ad”  unless we choose to lose all our connection with that friend and so advertisers might have successfully found the only way to subtly get us to watch their ads with out being able to choose not to watch them. The problem turns a bit more complicated when I start to like Johnnie Walker Black Label and my 10 year old niece can see that on her Facebook feed. Now it doesn’t matter that we regulate tv times for those ads, because kids aren’t watching TV anyway. 
I think the only way to stop this is to think what we like on the Internet, what we are broadcasting to others and above all to start taking our lifestyles above and beyond so that we actually have valuable things to broadcast to others, without losing our personality of course. And for adversting agencies, I think it’s time for them to start to think about the moral implications of what they’ve been doing and try and make a better model out of the online world. They need to stop trying to trick customers in to buying things that could be bad for them and start to actually generate some value and promote the warnings as they promote the products. 

Posted via email from Sushi with a fork | Comment »

October 27, 2010
Still doing things a little different

As of lately I’ve been wondering if job security is really that good. I’ve been observing how people still build and plan all their life based on the premise that they will get a high paying job for someone else. What’s with opening a business? Stakes are higher, I get it. But do we really have so much fear in ourselves that we can’t open our business. I’m not talking about a consulting firm, that is self-employment, I’m talking about a real business, one that could eventually work without you being there. You know, making a real product. 
I don’t think Job Security is the answer and here’s why.  It’s not the answer because as of lately my goals in life have changed and I’m planning on moving faster and not in waiting until someone decides I’m ready. Probably by being young and not having a fat resume I won’t get hired by a big company paying me the amount I need to make. It’s not about the money itself, it’s about the projects I can fund with the money that interests me. So I’m ready to start a business (besides my consulting firm which I love). I need the money because it’s hard to find Angels or VCs wanting to invest on the Internet in Peru. It’s tough and we need to be creative in the ways we fund projects. I’m up for the challenge.

Job Security is not for people that can’t fit into the model. I doubt that most of the people with a safe and secure job are enjoying it or living out their passion. Some do, for sure, but not the vast majority. On the other hand you could do things a little different. How about starting a project in the two hours after work?
You arrive home, say hi to your wife, kids, dogs, cat, mom and grandpa and then start working hard on the project you have. No matter what it is, even at slow pace you can make it happen. For example, today I was at the presentation of a web project made by two college students on their free time and this website has turned into a huge sucess that is loved by their readers and is becoming the top source for Peruvian soccer news. The project is already making money and it didn’t took much off the creators time. 

This side project will probably won’t make them super rich but a similar approach could yield you a job that you love, one that you’d want to stay in and one you’re passionate about. But above all you’ll become the owner of your own destiny. Sounds scary, but what should be scary is putting your future in the hands of your employer. 

Posted via email from Sushi with a fork | Comment »

October 25, 2010
OH MY GOD WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT SHOULD I DO?

When working in the Digital World we forget lots of things. This book reminds us of the things we might have passed by and corrects some missconceptions.

Posted via email from Sushi with a fork | Comment »

August 30, 2010
Starting a business in times of conformity

For a long time the comfortable, used to a paycheck me has been battling my starter self. This has turned into an epic battle inside me that not always leads to good decisions on my part. Starting a business it’s not an easy task. Not only because it’s hard to do it, but because it’s very hard to fight the programming in our brains that is set to looking for a job, waiting for a paycheck an doing the bare minimum to get through. Many of us fight this programming as a whole or in different fronts and that’s what makes us go forward and stand out of the crowd that is still happy with conformity.
Conformity comes in many ways, the most common being manifested as fear. We like where we are, we like security. In fact, if we follow Maslow’s hierarchy of needs we are very happy to have a secure portion of Fruit Loops on our table everyday. So this is the first thing we need to fight to start a business. Security. Job Security. 

Job Security is as fake as the ability of the keyboard cat to play the piano. The reason why job security is fake is that we’re in a market economy and as part of the system businesses will be here one day and be gone the next day. So if we want real security we should start building ourselves. To build real security we need to be sure we have the skills to be able to scan the market for opportunities, the ability to learn fast so we can reinvent ourselves and the resilience to come back if we fail one, two or three times.
We need to be aware that though we may have changed the recording in our brains we are at risk of going back to the old programming if we listen too much to what people say. The usual speech goes with going for the safe paycheck, that the economy is rough, that nine out of every ten new businesses never make it and so on. We’ve already talked about the non-existing safe paycheck, so let’s talk about the economy. The economy is down because companies are failing to serve the new markets that are emerging. For sure they are the same people, but this people have different needs. These needs are being met by new companies (maybe that’s why the recession didn’t affect many technology firms) that are focused on the customer instead of profits and the ones that haven’t lost focus on what needs to be done to be a successful in the market. We’re now in an era of Customer Centric Capitalism, people matter and their opinions matter a lot more now because everyone has a voice that can be heard. The opportunity is right in front of us, before people wanted something and they were given another thing and they didn’t have a choice. Now companies and starters can listen and respond to specific market requirements, which will create a million niche markets around the world that can be supplied by new companies. 

Another advantage that a down economy gives starters is that it sparks creativity to make things happen with less resources and to bootstrap the start of a company. If you are able to pull it off in a down economy you’ll have a company with lean operations for a rising economy that will be sustained by it’s fast moving backbone. Having lean operations gives enough margin to be prepared for any surprises that may occur and being in a down economy gives us the chance to have less margin for adding fat to the organization. We don’t need two people answering the phones when everybody can answer theirs and we don’t need big office spaces if we can all make it from a coworking space. 
The odds we’re against are pretty bad. I can’t hide those numbers. Nine ouf of every ten new ventures goes out of business this is not only in the United States (where the number originally comes from) it’s true almost everywhere in the world. Having those odds may scare a lot of people from starting a business. But it shouldn’t stop us. Fear sometimes paralyzes people, when it comes to starting fear should be the fuel that moves us. A serious starter will face those odds because she should be a serious student of what’s happening in the market, the probabilities and the real opportunities out there. The nine businesses that fail are built with below the bar thinking, below the bar performance and below the bar plans. To be the one that survives you need to work hard in planning, executing and rethinking when things don’t go according. Hard work makes the difference and, in case you haven’t heard it, probabilities can change. So maybe in ten years eight out of ten will fail and in one hundred years it could be 5 out of ten. Probabilities are not static and that’s why we should’t take them as if they were a fact that is true forever. 

Starting a business also requires some basic commitments. The first one is to seek learning from day 1. In order to do a business we need to be looking for opportunities, listening to the experience and insights from other people and looking to get the experience where it matters. The learning process in business in different than in school, learning involves trying, volunteering, having conversations, walking and observing people. Starters should dedicate most of their time studying people and what motivates us. There are many ways of doing this, observation is the first big resource as we can see what sparks start fires in us, reading helps a lot too. There is a myriad of books on motivation (Predictably Irrational and Drive are two of them) that have scientifically backed data on how we behave.
Starting a business is a way to avoid showing conformity with what is given to us and a way to stand up and start a change.

Posted via email from Sushi with a fork | Comment »