Type in a word in the box below or use the site index to search Navigate the Chaos

Today is May 22 and the Navigate the Chaos question to consider is “how often do allow yourself to feel pain and let the storm change you?” This reflection post may be difficult for those who have experienced traumatic events, relationships, or life situations as it involves a series of questions around your relationship with emotional pain. Today's question refers to a strategy some have used to navigate the chaos; no different from the other 364 blog posts in this series. Unlike so many other posts, however, today's strategy involves one to allow the storm of pain to wash over them as they navigate the chaos. American singer, songwriter, and poet Jim Morrison believed experiencing pain is a necessary to feel alive and wrote “People are afraid of themselves, of their own reality; their feelings most of all. People talk about how great love is, but that's bullshit. Love hurts. Feelings are disturbing. People are taught that pain is evil and dangerous. How can they deal with love if they're afraid to feel? Pain is meant to wake us up. People try to hide their pain. But they're wrong. Pain is something to carry, like a radio. You feel your strength in the experience of pain. It's all in how you carry it. That's what matters. Pain is a feeling. Your feelings are a part of you. Your own reality. If you feel ashamed of them, and hide them, you're letting society destroy your reality. You should stand up for your right to feel your pain.” To unpack Morrison’s quote here are some additional questions to consider: How often are you afraid of your own feelings? How often has love hurt you? Have you allowed pain to wake you up? When do you try to hide your pain? Have you garnered strength from your pain? Have you recognized how your pain is part of your reality? Do you hide your feelings to distort your sense of reality? How do you carry your pain? The storms of pain people encounter as they navigate the chaos have been studied closely. One such researcher is Geoff MacDonald, who observed: "We do ourselves a disservice when we try to ignore the pain and our emotions, or make them go away, rather than sitting and listening to them. These negative emotions are part of an adaptive response and healing process. If you love someone so much it hurts, take time to sit with that. Try to understand why the need is so great. There's something going on here that's bigger than this particular relationship." Just as you can’t run between the raindrops in a downpour, you cannot avoid the storm of pain life places in your path. In her November 14, 2015, Psychology Today article Amy Morin echoed MacDonald’s research and remarked: “the biggest misconception about happiness is the path to achieving it involves avoiding pain. But pain is a necessary part of happiness.” This necessary pain is synonymous with what best-selling Japanese author Haruki Murakami labeled ‘the storm.” Murakami wrote “The storm isn’t something that blew in from far away, something that has nothing to do with you. This storm is you. Something inside of you. So. all you can do is give in to it, step right inside the storm and once the storm is over, you won’t remember how you made it through, how you managed to survive. You won’t even be sure whether the storm is really over. But one thing is certain. When you come out of the storm, you won’t be the same person who walked in. That’s what this storm’s all about.” Kio Briggs wrote about storms in Meditations on Freedom and noted “I believe it is supposed to get difficult - your belief in your dream life is supposed to be tested. Remember, just beyond the storm is the island; if you really want to get there then fight for it and stay the course.” But few people fight to stay the course. As Briggs wrote: “We sometimes see the storm in the distance and believe that the difficulty of going through it is not worth it; we believe that our canoe cannot make it through the storm, so we never even try to. Some begin the journey then turn around when the canoe starts swaying a bit. Oftentimes we get into a storm and begin to question if the journey is even worth it; we stop believing the island on the other side exists. Some even get as far as the midst of the storm and turn around they have almost passed it - along the way it is easy to stop believing that the island truly exists. Only a few people fight for it and truly believe that it exists, as such, they never stop moving towards it until they eventually make it.” Do you see the storm in the distance and believe it is too difficult to even start? Do you begin the journey to the storm but turn around when it gets too challenging? Do you travel into the storm only to turn around just before the calm was to appear? Are you one of the few who fight through the storm and navigate the chaos to the other side? How often do you ignore your pain? How often do you find yourself trying to avoid the rain instead of allowing yourself to feel it? How often do you embrace the storms of life and use them as points of reflection to learn, to grow, and to increase your self-awareness? How often do allow yourself to feel pain and let the storm change you?

Today is May 21 and the Navigate the Chaos question to consider is “how often do you adapt to stay relevant and succeed?” History is littered with quotes about the need to adapt to succeed from those who navigated the chaos. Some examples are: “The measure of intelligence is the ability to change” by Albert Einstein “Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything” by George Bernard Shaw "All failure is failure to adapt, all success is successful adaptation” by British consultant Max McKeown “If you don’t like change, you’re going to like irrelevance even less.” By Eric Shinseki Best-selling author and Dilbert creator Scott Adams understood the value of adapting to succeed. Adams believes that you are what you learn. “If all you know is how to be a gang member, that’s what you’ll be, at least until you learn something else. If you become a marine, you’ll learn to control fear. If you go to law school, you’ll see the world as a competition. If you study engineering, you’ll start to see the world as a complicated machine that needs tweaking.” Adams wrote “It’s easy to feel trapped in your own life. Circumstances can sometimes feel as if they form a jail around you. But there’s almost nothing you can’t learn your way out of. If you don’t like who you are, you have the option of learning until you become someone else. Life is like a jail with an unlocked, heavy door. You’re free the minute you realize the door will open if you simply lean into it.” Adams should know as he himself learned how to be a cartoonist; something he wanted to do since his childhood. For six years, Adams learned how to balance his day job with the publication of his Dilbert cartoon. From 1989 until 1995, he created Dilbert during mornings, evenings, and weekends while maintaining his full-time job. Much like Adams, Olympian James Francis Thorpe learned to adapt to succeed. Thorpe was a member of the Sac and Fox Nation and became the first Native American to medal for the United States. Considered one of the most versatile athletes of modern sports, he won Olympic gold medals in the 1912 pentathlon and decathlon. Since the pentathlon had five events and the decathlon ten, Thorpe would compete in a remarkable 15 different Olympic events. Thorpe began the Olympics by crushing the field in the now-defunct pentathlon, which consisted of five events in a single day. He placed first in four of them, dusting his competition in the 1,500-meter run by almost five seconds. As Sally Jenkins wrote in the Smithsonian Magazine “A week later the three-day decathlon competition began in pouring rain. Thorpe opened the event by splashing down the track in the 100-meter dash in 11.2 seconds—a time not equaled at the Olympics until 1948. On the second day, Thorpe’s shoes were missing. His coach Pop Warner hastily put together a mismatched pair in time for the high jump, which Thorpe won. Later that afternoon came one of his favorite events, the 110-meter hurdles. Thorpe blistered the track in 15.6 seconds, again quicker than Bob Mathias would run it in 1948.” On the final day of competition, Thorpe placed third and fourth in the events in which he was most inexperienced, the pole vault and javelin. Then came the very last event, the 1,500-meter run. The metric mile was a leg-burning monster that came after nine other events over two days. And he was still in mismatched shoes.Thorpe left cinders in the faces of his competitors. He ran it in 4 minutes 40.1 seconds. Thorpe would rely upon his drive, dedication, and hustle to carve out a variety of career paths following the Olympics. He would go on and become a major-league baseball player, co-founder of the National Football League and even pro basketball player—before winding up a stunt performer and Hollywood character actor. He died there of heart failure in 1953 at age 64. An unfortunate footnote in Thorpe’s incredible life story is the fact that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) stripped him of his medals after it was found he had been paid for playing two seasons of semi-professional baseball before competing in the Olympics, thus violating the amateurism rules that were then in place. While some researchers might note that in 1983 the IOC restored his Olympic medals. But that is not the complete story. As Jenkins wrote “It’s commonly believed that Thorpe at last received Olympic justice in October of 1982 when the IOC bowed to years of public pressure and delivered two replica medals to his family, announcing, ‘The name of James Thorpe will be added to the list of athletes who were crowned Olympic champions at the 1912 Games.’ What’s less commonly known is that the IOC appended this small, mean sentence: ‘However, the official report for these Games will not be modified.’” The prolific English author Agatha Christie wrote “There is no telling what a human character is. Until the test comes. A man is confronted quite soon with the necessity to stand on his own feet, to face dangers and difficulties and to take his own line of dealing with them.” Thorpe was tested time and again during the 1912 Olympics. In 15 different events at the highest level of competition he proved that he was the greatest athlete of his time. Not bad for an athlete who needed to compete with mismatched shoes. Thorpe navigated the chaos by exemplifying McKeown’s axiom that all ‘success is successful adaptation.’ Netflix is another example of a company that adapted to stay relevant. In 2000, it was an unprofitable startup offering DVD rentals via postal mail, challenging Blockbuster, whose ubiquitous stores were then a fixture of American life. In an April 2023 interview Marc Randolph, who cofounded Netflix with Reed Hastings in 1997, recalled a key moment when the company launched its website. In 2000, the two tried to sell their startup to Blockbuster for $50 million. Blockbuster executives “laughed us out of the room,” Randolph recalled. But now, “the company that once had 9,000 stores, is down to a single one,” he noted. Looking back more than two decades later, Randolph writes: “I think the more important lesson—a lesson that Blockbuster learned too late—is simply this: ‘If you are unwilling to disrupt yourself, there will always be someone willing to disrupt your business for you.’” How often do you adapt to stay relevant and succeed? How often do you measure your ability to change? How often do you change your mind? How often do you consider that all success is successful adaptation? How often do you disrupt yourself?

Today is May 20 and the Navigate the Chaos question to consider is “how often do you dare to fail greatly?” Translating dreams into action is synonymous with daring to fail greatly. It would be difficult to find someone who navigated the chaos and leveraged their mind, body, and spirit who never dared to fail greatly. For many people daring to fail greatly became a lifetime pursuit. Doing so allowed them to build up a character able to withstand even the strongest of storms. Have you dared to fail greatly in love? Have you dared to fail greatly in your education? Have you dared to fail greatly in your physical pursuits? Have you dared to fail greatly in publishing that book you wanted to write? Have you dared to fail greatly in writing poetry? Have you dared at all? Abraham Lincoln is one such example of someone who dared to fail greatly. Below is a summary of his failures: 1832 lost job 1832 defeated for legislature 1833 failed in business 1834 elected to legislature 1835 sweetheart (Ann Rutledge) died 1836 had nervous breakdown 1838 defeated for speaker 1843 defeated for nomination for Congress 1846 elected to congress 1848 lost re-nomination 1849 rejected for land officer 1854 defeated for senate 1856 defeated for nomination for vice-president 1858 again defeated for senate 1860 elected President Twenty-eight years. That’s how long Lincoln dared to fail greatly. And here you are worried about dealing with 28 hours, days, or months. Try daring to fail greatly for 28 years; and doing so without any guarantee of success. Much like Lincoln a century before, Italian-born American molecular geneticist Mario Renato Capecchi dared to fail greatly and in doing so achieved greatness. Capecchi was the only child of an abusive father and a caring mother. When Capecchi was around three years of age, German officers arrested his mother and sent her to a concentration camp, leaving Capecchi to fend for himself. For a time, he lived with a family friend but when money ran out to support him, young Capecchi wandered around the streets of wartime Italy for several years. He “survived on scraps, joined gangs and drifted in and out of orphanages, and eventually had to be hospitalized for a year probably due to typhoid.” After five six years of being apart, Capecchi was reunited with his mother. With the help of relatives, they moved to the United States where Capecchi enrolled a Quaker boarding school. He would eventually graduate from Antioch College and then enroll in MIT’s graduate program to study physics and mathematics. While at MIT he became interested in molecular biology and transferred to Harvard to join the lab of James D. Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. Capecchi received his PhD in biophysics in 1967 and until 1973 held various faculty positions at Harvard but grew increasingly alarmed at its results-driven environment. Despite objections from Watson, who once quipped, “Capecchi accomplished more as a graduate student than most scientists accomplish in a life time and that he would be fucking crazy to pursue his studies anywhere other than in the cutting-edge intellectual atmosphere of Harvard.” Capecchi left Harvard to join a new department at the University of Utah in 1973. He believed that the short-term gratification environment at Harvard limited his ability to breathe if he was to do great work. Robert Kennedy noted “only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.” Capecchi dared greatly and would go on to win the Nobel Prize and become a distinguished professor of human genetics and biology at the University of Utah School of Medicine. Both Lincoln and Capeechi learned to navigate the chaos of life and practice the art of living well by daring to fail greatly. As American spiritual teacher Ram Dass noted “Without remaining open to change, we cannot remain open to life.” Lincoln and Capeechi dared to fail, remained open to change, and remained open to life. How often do you dare to fail greatly? What, or who, is holding you back from daring to fail greatly? What are you afraid of if you fail? How often do you remain open to change? Do you realize that by not being open to change you are limiting your ability to develop your future self?

Today is May 19 and the Navigate the Chaos question to consider is “how often are you open to change?” The word change comes up often in the research, backstories, and historical events involved with the study of how people navigate the chaos. Change has an interesting etymology and offers a different application of the word. Middle English: from Old French change (noun), changer (verb), from late Latin cambiare, from Latin cambire ‘barter.’ Barter. Now that is a word not often associated with change. Referring to the origin of the word allows change to be defined more closely to barter – ‘trading one thing for another.’ The typical definition of change is ‘make or become different.’ Cheryl Strayed, John Grisham and Gal Gadot were all open to change. In 1986, at the age of 17, Strayed graduated from McGregor High School in McGregor, Minnesota, where she was a track and cross-country runner, cheerleader, and homecoming queen. She married Marco Littig in August of 1988, a month before her 20th birthday. In March 1991, when Strayed was a senior in college, her mother died suddenly of lung cancer at the age of 45. Strayed graduated magna cum laude from the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis with a double major in English and Women's Studies. Over time Strayed started using heroin, and eventually she and her husband divorced in 1995. Seeking self-discovery and resolution of her enduring grief and personal challenges, at age 26 Strayed hiked the 1,100-mile Pacific Crest Trail in 1995. She wrote about her adventure and published Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Crest Trail in 2012. Wild intertwines the stories of Strayed's life before and during the journey, describing her physical challenges and spiritual realizations while on the trail. One of the realizations that Strayed made is that "your life will be a great and continuous unfolding.” The book reached No. 1 on The New York Times Best Seller list, and the film adaptation was released in December 2014. After graduating from law school and then practicing for a few years, Grisham was hanging around the courthouse one day in 1984 and overheard a 12-year-old girl tell the jury what had happened to her. Her story intrigued Grisham, and he began watching the trial. He saw how the members of the jury cried as she told them about having been raped and beaten. It was then, Grisham decided to write. It took him three years to complete his first book, A Time to Kill. Finding a publisher was not easy. The book was rejected by 28 publishers before Wynwood Press, an unknown publisher, agreed to give it a modest 5,000-copy printing. It was published in June 1989. The day after Grisham completed A Time to Kill, he began work on his second novel, The Firm that would go on to be a best-seller. When viewing your life, do you consider it a choice or a combination? As Grisham said “I seriously doubt I would ever have written the first story had I not been a lawyer. I never dreamed of being a writer. I wrote only after witnessing a trial.” According to Gadot, “If things had gone according to my plans, I'd be a lawyer. I never dreamt of being an actress. My mother was a teacher; my dad is an engineer. But at 18 I was approached to compete in Miss Israel. I thought it would be a nice experience. I never thought I would win! I was shocked when they crowned me. I made friends with women from all over the world. I started modeling and traveling. It opened my mind to different possibilities.” Following her participation in the competitions, she joined the Israeli Army where, as a citizen of Israel, she completed her two years of mandatory military service. After leaving the army, Gadot studied law. It was when she had completed her first year of school that a casting director called her to audition for the part of Bond girl Camille Montes in the film Quantum of Solace. Although she lost the part to Olga Kurylenko, the same casting director hired Gadot for the role of Gisele in Fast & Furious. In 2010, she had a small role in the action-adventure Knight and Day. Earlier that year, she appeared in the film Date Night as Natanya, the girlfriend of Mark Wahlberg's character. In 2013, Gadot played Gisele again in Fast & Furious 6. Gadot played Wonder Woman in the movie Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) and starred in the 2017 movie Wonder Woman. Gadot remained open to changing her career path and doing so altered the course of her life. In 1997 British author Stephen Batchelor, published Buddhism Without Beliefs and wrote about adapting to change and life’s unfolding: “Did I live? The human world is like a vast musical instrument on which we play our individual part while simultaneously listening to the compositions of others to contribute to the whole. We don't choose whether to engage, only how to; we either harmonize or create dissonance. Our words, our deeds, our very presence create and leave impressions in the minds of others just as a writer makes impressions with their words. Who you are is an unfolding narrative. You came from nothing and will return there eventually. Instead of taking ourselves so seriously all the time, we can discover the playful irony of a story that has never been told in quite this way before.” How often are you open to change? How often do you trade one version of your life for a new one? Have you asked yourself how open you are? Do you allow yourself to understand that who you are is an unfolding narrative? How often do you ‘discover the playful irony of a story that has never been told in quite this way before?’

Today is May 18 and the Navigate the Chaos question to consider is “how often do you want to win compared to winning the argument?” While navigating the chaos you will come across one argument after another. Topics that generally start arguments center around jobs, money, pursuits, and other personal interests. Some examples include “why would you declare history as a college major?” “Why would you quit a job you hated but made lots of money for one that you loved but made less money?” “Why do you want to push yourself and get a graduate degree; that seems like so much work?” Those who are absolute in their knowledge of all things related to you often lack any substantial evidence of navigating their own chaos. They have the answers but none of the evidence to support what they are saying. They have nothing on the horizon or even in the conceivable future; but they will certainly argue with you. Why on earth would you engage with such people when you are trying to translate a dream into reality? Every moment counts. And the more you allow the absolutists to rent space in your head, the less room you have for your own thoughts and for the lessons learned from those who successfully navigated the chaos. If you study how people navigate the chaos you will find most of them, if not all, never cared about winning the argument. They simply do not have any time for such trivial matters. In fact, most will not even engage in the argument. They simply let the other person talk. As Jeremy E. Sherman wrote in Psychology Today "If you’re dealing with someone who will say anything to win an argument, you shouldn’t keep arguing with them." Now the other person could be a spouse, a family member, a friend, a neighbor, or a co-worker. Someone in your life is going to argue with you as you navigate the chaos. That much is guaranteed. So what? Let them argue. Do you care? Are you going to engage in the argument? Do you want to win the argument or win? Those who navigate the chaos want to win. Let me repeat that. Those who navigate the chaos want to win. Winning an argument? No thank you. Winning a debate? Not interested. Being right all the time and proving to others who smart you are? Those who navigate the chaos have little time for such nonsense. Do you? For those in higher education, winning the argument is sometimes the only thing that matters. In his book Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life, Nassim Nicholas Taleb examines higher education as it applies to this question. Taleb defines the doers of society as the source of all great invention and creativity, while academia remains anchored in a protectionist fashion of their own intelligence. Taleb argues that academics focus their attention on winning an argument rather than winning. Such an observation on higher education, however, has been around for over 70 years and is often known as Sayre’s law named after Wallace Stanley Sayre (1905–1972), U.S. political scientist and professor at Columbia University who noted "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low." Sayre’s observation echoes a formulation noted by Charles Philip Issawi "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake.” Political philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote about arguments in his 1833 essay “Every circumstance which gives a character to the life of a human being, carries with it its peculiar biases; its peculiar facilities for perceiving some things, and for missing or forgetting others. But, from points of view different from his, different things are perceptible; and none are more likely to have seen what he does not see, than those who do not see what he sees. The general opinion of mankind is the average of the conclusions of all minds, stripped indeed of their choicest and most recondite thoughts, but freed from their twists and partialities: a net result, in which everybody's point of view is represented, nobody's predominant. The collective mind does not penetrate below the surface, but it sees all the surface; which profound thinkers, even by reason of their profundity, often fail to do: their intenser view of a thing in some of its aspects diverting their attention from others.” In other words, you will most likely never win an argument so spend your limited time, energy, and resources on translating your dream into reality instead of engaging with someone who only wants to win an argument. How often do you find yourself arguing with others? Why is that? Do you feel a need to win every argument? If so, why is that? Can you let others win an argument and go about your current life situation? Do you realize that the energy you spend on arguing with someone will only detract from your ability to translate one dream after another into reality? Now that you are aware that some people just want to win arguments and never really pursue their dreams, how does that change your relationship with those in your life who merely want to argue? Are you so busy arguing that you are blinded to navigating the chaos and translating your dreams into reality? Are there people in your life who argue with you just to distract you from trying to translate your dreams into reality?

Today is May 17 and the Navigate the Chaos question to consider is “how often do you change your perspective to get over yourself?” For today’s reflection let’s start off with a quick question: is Earth the largest planet in terms of size? Some people may say yes; but they would be wildly incorrect. The order of the planets in terms of size from smallest to largest is Mercury, Mars, Venus, Earth, Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, and Jupiter. Earth is the fourth smallest. They are four planets much bigger than our own. Sad to say, not only are you not the center of the universe, neither is the planet on which you live. Earth is the fourth smallest planet so it is not even the largest. If you think you are the center of the universe, or anyone’s universe for that matter, you may want to reconsider and change your perspective to get over yourself. Navigate the chaos is a platform promoting self-awareness to encourage self-care and nurture self-love. Changing your perspective is often a healthy, productive, and effective way to leverage your mind, body, and spirit as you navigate the chaos. The etymology of the word perspective stems from medieval Latin perspectiva (science of optics), and from perspect (looked at closely). In short, perspective’s original meaning refers back to looking. Those that navigate the chaos and practice the art of living well look around at a problem, issue, or situation. They assess the landscape, ask as many questions as possible, identify various solutions, and then select one to move forward. Navigating the chaos requires one to have as many perspectives as possible. Such an approach allows one to look at a situation from different optical views. Would you really want to approach a situation merely from your limited perspective? And rest assured, your perspective, no matter how important, smart, or successful you are, is indeed limited. But one’s perspective on a topic is incredibly difficult to change because inertia is the path of least resistance. Inertia, or thinking the same way as one always does, require no effort, and people, sadly, are lazy. Changing perspectives, looking at a situation from multiple views, considering the thoughts of others, all requires one to think hard. As discussed in other Navigate the Chaos posts, thinking hard is hard work and that is why so few people engage in the thinking required to translate one dream after another into reality. On the difficulty associated with people changing their perspective, neuroscience researcher Joe Esperanza stated, “We’ve in fact conditioned ourselves to believe all sorts of things that aren’t necessarily true - and many of these things are having a negative impact on our health and happiness.” As Lynn Taylor wrote in a February 6, 2020, Psychology Today article Esperanza suggests people are addicted to their beliefs and emotions of their past. This addiction creates the perspective that “people see their beliefs as truths, not as ideas they can change.” People can, however, change their perspective. In fact, it is strongly encouraged to do so if one wants to practice the art of living well. To that end, researchers Aneta Przepiorka and Malgorzata Sobol-Kwapinska published a 2021 paper entitled “People with Positive Time Perspective are More Grateful and Happier” and found that gratitude mediated the association between time perspective and life satisfaction. The authors found that people have one of three different time orientations: past, present, or future. People with a past time orientation exist in a world of memories and experiences, whether pleasant or traumatic. Those living in the present are consumed by current events, without considering past experiences or future consequences. Meanwhile, future-oriented people often fail to notice present-time pleasures. Przepiorka and Sobol-Kwapinska concluded that a future time perspective, mediated by gratitude, is related to life satisfaction, and being able to set goals, anticipate, and plan ahead is important to achieving a sense of well-being. They point out that a future time perspective has been linked with life satisfaction and subjective health, as well as individual motivation in areas including education, work, and environment. They recognize that a future orientation has the potential to yield many types of beneficial outcomes and also increases happiness through promoting gratefulness for what we expect in the future. How often do you change your perspective? How often does someone encourage you to change your perspective? How often do you recognize the need to change your perspective? How often does someone ask you to help them develop a new perspective? Are you so addicted to your beliefs that you are unable to change them? Are you past, preset, or future oriented? What one thing can you do today to help yourself develop a future orientation so that you can increase your life satisfaction?

Today is May 16 and the Navigate the Chaos question to consider is “how often do you build an open network?” The adage “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know” is true; but there is a caveat. The “who you know” needs to be outside of the circles frequently traveled. Just being connected, or having many LinkedIn contacts, fails to provide the necessary level of engagement often required to succeed in today’s ever-changing global marketplace. You may know hundreds of people, but if they are all working for the same organization, you need to ask yourself if that is the best way to network. For today’s reflection, the short answer is no, it is not. There are two types of networks: open and closed. An open network involves knowing people from outside of your field, industry, or geographical location. The greater the diversity of your contacts, the more open your network is. Conversely, a closed network is where most of your contacts are in your organization, industry, or location. A closed network provides little opportunity to expand your interests, gain a new perspective, or gain first-hand knowledge of new fields. Those who navigate the chaos and practicing the art of living well understand the benefits of identifying, building, and maintaining open networks throughout one’s career. Research from network science shows that being the most connected person is not an effective way to build a network. According to the latest research, simply being in an open network instead of a closed one is the best predictor of career success. Most people spend their careers in closed networks; networks of people who already know each other. The value of open networks has been confirmed through research. For example, in 2013, bestselling author Michael Simmons interviewed Ronald Burt, one of the world’s top network scientists. He asked him about the number one best predictor of career success. Burt's response? An open network. People often stay in the same industry, the same religion, and the same political party. In a closed network, it is easier to get things done because you have built up trust, and you know all the shorthand terms and unspoken rules. It is comfortable because the group converges on the same ways of seeing the world that confirm your own. But is remaining in a closed network for extended periods of time healthy when it comes to understanding difference? Successful people intentionally work on engaging with those they have yet to connect with or those less connected. People with ties to the less connected are more likely to hear about new ideas and can piece together opportunities in ways that less effectively networked colleagues cannot. People who actively build open networks are also exposed to different types of ideas, people, and cultures. Navigating the chaos will probably require you to talk to people from outside your closed network so practice building your open network and create new learning opportunities, experiences, and situations for yourself. By staying in the same network for extended periods of time you risk being exposed to groupthink. If you are exposed to groupthink for too long you jeopardize losing the ability to think for yourself and are often not exposed to diverse perspectives and points of view. As Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam has written, you need to have a balance of both “bonding capital” and “bridging capital” — i.e., relationships based respectively on your commonalities (bonding) and relationships built across differences (bridging). Bonding capital is an absolute necessity in the workplace. People you work with each day need to feel connected to someone to get work done. Often, the stronger the connection, the more that gets done. Maintaining an active commitment to bridging capital, however, allows one the diversity of thought, the multiplicity of views, and the variety of opinions so desperately needed to travel outside of one’s comfort zone. From a business perspective, it is important to note the value of bridging capital as research shows companies with more diverse boards enjoy better financial performance. As Dorie Clark wrote in the article "Starting Networking with People Outside Your Industry, “It’s easy to coast through life only connecting with people like ourselves — but by expending the extra effort to increase our “bridging capital,” we’re gaining access to new insights and creating more ‘career insurance’ for ourselves by broadening the ranks of people who know, like, and respect our work.” For every 100 people you know, how many are outside of your organization, industry, or geographical location? Would you consider yourself having an open or closed network? Do you have a balance of ‘bonding capital’ and ‘bridging capital?’ What have you done lately to expand your open network? What can you do in the near future to expand your open network? How open are you to those from outside your network when they want to connect?

Today is May 15 and the Navigate the Chaos question to consider is “how far would you go to save a life?” There is no doubt today’s strategy to navigate the chaos is extreme. The strategy of saving a life may never come along in your life time. That is true for most people. But there are examples of people who leveraged their mind, body, and spirit to risk their life for someone else. Today’s reflection recognizes Shavarsh Karapetyan and Cameron Lyle, two outstanding individuals who risked their life to save others and in so doing provide us with something to think about regarding today’s question. Shavarsh Karapetyan was a Merited Master of Sports of the USSR and a ten-time World Record-breaker in fin-swimming. On September 16, 1976, after completing a 12-mile run alongside Yerevan Lake with his brother Kamo, the brothers heard the sound of a crash and saw a sinking trolleybus which had gone out of control and fallen from a dam wall. The trolleybus lay 33 feet at the bottom of the reservoir some 80 feet offshore. Karapetyan swam out to the 92 passengers trapped in the sunken trolley and, despite conditions of almost zero visibility, due to the silt rising from the bottom, broke the back window with his legs. Karapetyan started bringing people up from the bottom of the lake to his waiting brother. The combined effect of multiple lacerations from glass shards led to Karapetyan's hospitalization for 45 days, as he developed pneumonia and sepsis. Subsequent lung complications prevented Karapetyan from continuing his sports career. Unfortunately, it took over two years for Karapetyan's achievement to be recognized in his home country. He was eventually awarded the Medal "For the Salvation of the Drowning" and the Order of the Badge of Honor. On October 12, 1982, the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda published the article "The Underwater Battle of the Champion," revealed he was the rescuer and he received 60,000 letters as he became a household name due to his heroic efforts. Cameron Lyle, a Division I college athlete in New Hampshire, provides a second example of someone who demonstrated how far he would go to save a life. When he was a sophomore at the University of New Hampshire he stopped at a table to learn more about bone marrow registry. Since the people at the table told him the odds are most of those who register never receive a phone call to donate bone marrow, he decided to have his mouth swabbed. Fast forward to his senior year, and he received a phone call that most registrants never get. His bone marrow was a match for a young man with leukemia who had six months to live without the bone marrow transplant. Without hesitation Lyle told his coach, girlfriend, and family that he was going to miss senior championship season in the shot put and hammer throw to save the life of someone who did not know. Lyle put things in perspective when he said "It's just a sport. Just because it's Division I college level doesn't make it any more important. Life is a lot more important than that, so it was pretty easy.” For today’s reflection, here are some questions to consider related to both stories. What would have happened if Karapetyan ended his run a few miles earlier or later? What would have happened if Karapetyan changed his route? What would have happened if Karapetyan decided not to run that day? What would have happened if Lyle did not attend the University of New Hampshire? What would have happened if Lyle did not stop at the table to learn about the bone marrow registry? What would have happened if Lyle chose to compete in his senior year? We know the answers to these questions. The people on board the trolley most likely would have perished and the young man suffering from leukemia most likely would have died. Life is so random at times. We have so little control over life. We want to. We want to believe we have control over all that we do. We try to convince ourselves we are in complete control all the time. Being out of control or feeling so makes people uncomfortable. Those on the trolley and the leukemia patient needed the efforts of a complete stranger to save their life. You may get such an opportunity in your life. If so, will you take it? You may need someone to risk their life for you. If that is the case, will they do so? Karapetyan and Lyle are just two of the many examples of those who risked their lives to save others. We should remember their names not solely for what they did, but what they represent. They represent the best of the human experience. They represent hope amidst despair. They represent light in darkness. Have you had the opportunity to save a life? How far would you go to save a life? How often do you represent the best of the human experience? How often do you represent hope amidst despair? How often do you represent light in darkness?

Today is May 14 and the Navigate the Chaos question to consider is “how often do you consider the role of happenstance in your life?” While many people who navigate the chaos and practice the art of living well have well developed plans, they also understand the role happenstance plays in life. For today’s reflection happenstance will be synonymous with luck. Here are just a few of the many examples of those who navigated the chaos through happenstance. Robert H. Frank examined the role of luck in his book Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy. Frank discusses how social scientists have discovered that chance plays a much larger role in important life outcomes than most people imagine. For some luck is a positive experience, while for others very negative. For example, Frank suffered a major sudden cardiac event while playing tennis. If it had not been for an ambulance that merely happened to be nearby due to a car accident he would have died. Best-selling author Michael Lewis just happened to sit next to the wife of a Salomon Brothers banker who convinced her husband to give Lewis a job. That job eventually allowed him to write his first best-selling book Liar’s Poker. Bad luck frowned upon Mike Edwards, formerly a cellist in the British pop band the Electric Light Orchestra. Edwards was driving on a rural road in England in 2010 when a 1,300-pound bale of hay rolled down a steep hillside and landed on his van, crushing him. Steven Lynn Chilcott is one of only two number one picks in the Major League Baseball draft to never make it to the major leagues. In 1967, during his second season in the minor leagues, he injured his shoulder diving back to second base where he dislocated his shoulder and ended his season. He was plagued by injuries for the rest of his baseball career and by 24 years of age had to quit baseball. American author Rita Mae Brown wrote “So much of life is happenstance. It makes me laugh to go to a bookstore and see all those titles about controlling your life. You’re lucky if you can control your bladder.” How often do you consider the role of happenstance in your life? Actor Bruce Willis owes much to happenstance in his career. The 1988 film Die Hard is based on Roderick Thorp's 1979 novel Nothing Lasts Forever, the sequel to 1966's The Detective. The novel was adapted into a 1968 film of the same name starring Frank Sinatra and was a box-office success. When a movie based on Thorp's sequel went into production, the studio was contractually obligated to offer Frank Sinatra the lead role in Die Hard. Sinatra, then in his early 70s, turned down the project. The script was then offered to Arnold Schwarzenegger, Richard Gere, Clint Eastwood, Burt Reynolds, Sylvester Stallone, Harrison Ford, Don Johnson, Nick Nolte, Mel Gibson, and Richard Dean Anderson, all of whom turned it down. Fast running out of options the producers and director John McTiernan offered the role to Willis for a then record-breaking $5 million. Happenstance allowed Willis to be offered the role after ten other actors said no. Sometimes navigating the chaos involves being offered a job that no one else wanted. In saying yes to what so many actors said no to, Willis launched his wildly successful film career merely by happenstance. Happenstance also proved to be genesis of rock band Emerson, Lake and Palmer. Guitarist and singer Greg Lake was a co-founder (with guitarist Robert Fripp) of King Crimson, the influential late ‘60s progressive rock band. After one album and one U.S. tour, King Crimson disbanded while appearing at San Francisco’s Filmore West. On the same bill was another British progressive rock band, The Nice, with keyboardist Keith Emerson. That band was also splitting up, and so was born Emerson, Lake and Palmer, one of the genre’s most successful groups. With nine RIAA-certified gold record albums in the US, and an estimated 48 million records sold worldwide, they were one of the most popular and commercially successful progressive rock bands in the 1970s. Lake told Rolling Stone magazine in 2013 “It’s very weird, but there you go - strange things happen sometimes. Music, and the music business, is sort of very fortuitous. It’s very circumstantial.” Amidst the break-up of two bands an entirely new one was formed. Thanks to serendipity, this new band would go on and make a substantial impact on the music industry and popular culture. How often do you consider the role of happenstance in your life? How often do you allow yourself to see happenstance unfold before your eyes? Are you willing to accept happenstance might open a new door you once thought impossible or perhaps never thought of?

Today is May 13 and the Navigate the Chaos question to consider is “how often do you ask yourself if you are carrying or climbing mountains?” How often do you feel as though ‘the weight of the world is on your shoulders?’ Or perhaps you have said aloud to someone ‘I am carrying too much right now.’ The question for today challenges you to decide between two options. You cannot climb a mountain while carrying it; and likewise, if you are carrying the mountain you are then unable to climb it. The choice is yours. Navigating the chaos and leveraging your mind, body, and spirit involves climbing mountains, not carrying them. Andrea F. Polard, author of A Unified Theory of Happiness: An East-Meets-West Approach to Fully Loving Your Life, believes there is nothing wrong with wanting to transcend the status quo and attempt to become the best person we can be. The pursuit of personal growth or professional development is healthy for many reasons. Unfortunately, many people overdo it and beat themselves up for everything. In this age of ubiquitous social media, it is easy to be overwhelmed with images of perceived perfection. For Polard, being too hard on yourself could potentially illustrate that you are withdrawing love from yourself. If you wish to navigate the chaos and put in the daily grind required to translate one dream after another into reality, withdrawing love from yourself is certainly not a strategy to employ. Polard also highlighted that the crux of the matter is “We are prone to seek perfection in a world that suggests that perfection is possible. We look up to high ideals; unreachable role models from Jesus to Buddha; moralistic and religious stories; fairy tales that split the good from the bad and the Beauty from the Beast; and last, but certainly in the U.S. not least, the advertisement industry that bombards us with must-have products that elevate and perfect us, wiping off any flaws from our faces, masking our lines, offering anti-aging therapy to turn us back into the beautiful people we never felt we were.” When you increase your self-awareness and nurture self-love to engage in self-care, this pursuit of perfection becomes unnecessary since you allow yourself to find comfort with who you are. Lebanese Canadian educator Najwa Zebian wrote “These mountains that you are carrying, you were only supposed to climb.” This is perhaps one of the most impactful statements of self-compassion to remember. Psychology professor Dr. Kristin Neff noted “Research shows that the No. 1 barrier to self-compassion is fear of being complacent and losing your edge; the research shows that’s not true. It’s just the opposite.” Several studies have shown that self-compassion led to greater personal improvement, in part, through heightened acceptance, and that focusing on self-compassion spurs positive adjustment in the face of regrets. If you find yourself struggling to engage in self-compassion so that you may climb mountains instead of carrying them, be sure to gauge how much time you are spending on social media. According to research published January 2020 in the journal Personality and Individual Differences a team of researchers led by Alyssa Saiphoo of Ryerson University in Toronto analyzed the cumulative results of 121 studies to see if they could come to a consensus regarding the relationship between social media use and self-esteem. Their results suggest that social media use likely causes more harm than good and could illustrate how people are trading strong and supportive real-life relationships for more tenuous virtual relationships. The researchers also suggest that people with lower self-esteem may be drawn to social media use to avoid uncomfortable and awkward real-life experiences. They write: "Individuals with lower self-esteem may develop more online relationships because they tend to be more sensitive to interpersonal relations and more dependent on others for approval. This may be related to feelings of awkwardness in face-to-face social situations, and thus, communicating online via social networking sites might be an effective way of socializing for them." So, if you find yourself carrying mountains be sure to engage in the self-reflection required to measure your self-compassion. In doing so, assess your social media time and ask yourself if your virtual relationships are causing you more harm than good. If so, perhaps it’s time to get the weight of social media off your shoulders so you can begin climbing those mountains again. How often do you allow the perceived perfection of others impact how you think about How often do you ‘feel the weight of the world on your shoulders?’ Do you tell everyone you encounter you are carrying such weight? Does feeling like a martyr make you feel good about yourself or perhaps better than others? Do you feel a need to punish yourself? Is that why you carry mountains? What would happen if you dropped those mountains you were carrying? Are you carrying mountains to avoid climbing them? Is it easier to complain about life instead of putting in the effort required to translate your dreams into reality? What small step can you take today to drop those mountains you are carrying so you can give yourself the freedom necessary to climb?

Today is May 12 and the Navigate the Chaos question to consider is “how often do you reflect upon the paradox of life?” Paradox is defined as “a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.” The etymology of the word stems from the Greek para (distinct from) and doxa (opinion) - so its original meaning was a statement contrary to accepted opinion. Identifying a paradox requires deep, intentional, and persistent thought. Several of the Navigate the Chaos posts focus on thinking. Afterall, thinking is required to translate dreams into reality, achieve goals, and answer life’s questions. But thinking is hard work, and a lack thereof is a common theme found among those who fail to navigate the chaos. Throughout the centuries writers and poets have provided us with essays, books, and poems to help readers reflect upon the paradox of life. One such poet was T.S. Eliot who spent a great deal of time reflecting upon the paradox of life and much of his writings focus on it as well. One such poem was “East Coker,” the second one in his Four Quartets. Published in 1940 the title refers to a small community that was directly connected to Eliot's ancestry and was home to a church that would later house his ashes. Eliot wrote: To arrive where you are, to get from where you are not, You must go by a way wherein there is no ecstasy. In order to arrive at what you do not know You must go by a way which is the way of ignorance. In order to possess what you do not possess You must go by the way of dispossession. In order to arrive at what you are not You must go through the way in which you are not. And what you do not know is the only thing you know And what you own is what you do not own And where you are is where you are not. In T.S. Eliot Annual No. 1 Shyamal Bagchee wrote “The argument is paradoxical though its logic is simple. If you own or where you are is not what you own or where you are, then the only way to obtain true possession and position would be to begin by renouncing the false or limited possession and position you currently maintain. If ‘what is present is at the same time concealment of presence,’ then the only way to achieve true presence would be to deny what is present-at-hand.” This, then, is life’s paradox: the only way to achieve true presence would be to deny what is present-at-hand. To be who you want to be you must first reject who you are. If you who are is no longer who you wish to be, then you are reflecting upon life’s paradox. This indeed is hard work. Eliot continued: Old men ought to be explorers Here or there does not matter We must be still and still moving Into another intensity For a further union, a deeper communion Through the dark cold and the empty desolation, The wave cry, the wind cry, the vast waters Of the petrel and the porpoise. In my end is my beginning. Earlier in his career, in 1916 Eliot argued “every experience is a paradox in that it means to be absolute, and yet is relative; in that is somehow always goes beyond itself and yet never escapes itself.” How often do you think about the paradox of life? How often do you remind yourself to be exploring and that it does not matter where you do so? How often do you realize your end is your beginning? Do you ever think about how every experience is both absolute and relative? Do you ever think about how every experience is trapped somewhere between going beyond itself and never escaping itself? Are there experiences in your life that you can identify as both absolute and relative? Are there experiences in your life that “goes beyond itself and yet never escapes itself?” How challenging is it for you to contemplate the paradox of life? Why do you think people lack to ability to leverage their mind, body, and spirit to consider the paradox of life?

Today is May 11 and the Navigate the Chaos question to consider is “how often do you take responsibility to get back up?” Almost everyone who has ever accomplished a goal, translated a dream into reality, or created the life they envisioned has fallen and needed to get back up. Those who navigate the chaos understand they are responsible to get back up. Blaming anyone but yourself for being unable to get back up is a good sign you will never accomplish a goal. Wally Amos knows a thing or two about being knocked down. In 1975, a friend suggested to Amos that he set up a store to sell his cookies, and in March of that year, the first "Famous Amos" cookie store opened in Los Angeles, California. He started the business with the help of a $25,000 loan from Marvin Gaye and Helen Reddy, celebrity friends he knew from his days as a talent agent. The company sold $300,000 in cookies that year, and by 1982, revenue reached $12 million. Mr. Amos was a rising star. His hat and shirt were added to the Smithsonian Institution's advertising collection. In 1986, President Reagan presented him with one of the first Awards of Entrepreneurial Excellence. Such a trajectory would be envious for most entrepreneurs. But then things started to go downhill quickly. As Dana Canedy wrote in a July 3, 1999, New York Times profile about Amos: “the heady times would soon end. A high school dropout who eventually earned a general equivalency diploma (GED), Mr. Amos knew little about business basics and failed to hire managers who did. By 1985, the year before America's free-market President was hailing him as a hero, his company lost $300,000 as revenue slipped to $10 million. Several investors stepped in, but Mr. Amos said they took more of his equity stake each time and never stayed long enough to turn the company around. In 1988 the company lost $2.5 million, and the Shansby Group purchased it for $3 million. Mr. Amos became a paid spokesman but left in frustration the next year.” Amos lost everything he had built. Because the name "Famous Amos" was trademarked by his former company, he had to use "The Uncle Noname's Cookie Company" when he got back up from being knocked down and launched his new company. A Famous Amos distributor at the time, Lou Avignone, heard Amos on a local radio talk show and inspired by Amos' story of his early business success with Famous Amos and his indomitable spirit, contacted Amos with the idea for starting a new business. In 1994, the two became partners and subsequently launched "Uncle Noname Gourmet Muffins." The company focused on fat-free, nutritious muffins at that time. Uncle Noname ultimately became Uncle Wally's Muffin Company in 1999. The muffins are sold in more than 3,500 stores nationwide. Because of his ability to get back up he has written ten books, many of which have a self-help theme, including The Cookie Never Crumbles and The Power in You. As Amos noted: ''If you sit around starting to feel sorry for yourself, and blaming everyone else for your position in life, it is like being in quicksand. In quicksand, if you start flailing all about and panicking with each movement you go in deeper, but if you just stay calm and look about, chances are you'll see a twig or something you can reach to pull yourself out. Or, if you stay there long enough someone will come and rescue you. You may not be responsible for getting knocked down. But you’re certainly responsible for getting back up.” Professional baseball player Matt Bush was ‘flailing all about’ and then allowed someone to ‘come and rescue him.’ Bush alienated his father, almost killed a man, and spent 12 years battling demons before he would eventually make his debut in Major League Baseball (MLB). Between the time he was drafted number one on June 7, 2004, and when he pitched for the Texas Rangers on May 13, 2016, Bush experienced one problem after another. He was arrested after a physical confrontation with bar security. He underwent Tommy John surgery and missed the entire 2008 season. Three teams (Padres, Blue Jays and Rays) all released him. He was arrested for DUI and on March 22, 2012, was involved in a near-deadly crash with a motorcyclist. He left the scene and was later arrested for DUI with a blood-alcohol level more than twice the legal limit. Bush accepted a plea bargain and pleaded no contest to one count of DUI with great bodily injury. He was sentenced to 51 months in prison. Roy Silver knew Bush and decided to visit him at his work release job at a Golden Corral restaurant. Silver was the Texas Rangers player development assistant who helped another baseball player, Josh Hamilton, deal with his own substance abuse. They started to throw a baseball in the restaurant’s parking lot since Bush was required to remain on the grounds. Silver decided to give Bush another chance and on December 18, 2015, the Ranger signed Bush to a minor league contract, two months after his release from prison. Bush was placed on a zero-tolerance policy and his father accompanied him to games and lived with him. On May 13, 2016, Bush was called up to the major leagues. He worked the ninth inning against the Toronto Blue Jays that night, retiring the heart of the Jays lineup. He would continue to battle injuries missing the entire 2019-2020 season but as of May 11, 2022, landed a spot back on the bullpen roster for the Texas Rangers. Amos and Bush took responsibility to get back up; how often do you? How often do you remind yourself to look around to see who in your life is extending a helping hand? How often do you feel sorry for yourself when you are down on your luck? When is the last time you leveraged your mind, body, or spirit to get back up? If you are down now, what are you waiting for to get back up?