Criticism and its Effectiveness (Or Lack Of)

Think of the last time you were criticized for something you did. Maybe it was for missing a pass in a soccer match or making a mistake on your Methods test, or perhaps it was something more subjective, like someone criticizing your personality or body. How did it feel? I'm guessing - and I don't claim to be a psychologist at any rate - that what you felt wasn't good. Perhaps your pride was wounded; you likely would have felt less important. You'd probably resent the person who criticized you. In short - it's not a good feeling. I'd even go so far as to say that 99% of the time, it's never a good feeling. And if the recipient of the criticism doesn't feel good, then why does criticism happen all too often? And what's the point of my blog post?

Criticism, to me, is one of those strange, natural urges and instincts that, when utilized, is often incredibly counterproductive. We criticize for a number of reasons -- to vent our anger at someone; to condemn someone's actions; or to try to influence someone's future behaviour. Parents (in most cases with the best intentions) often criticize their children's personality and activities. They likely fall into the habit of finding fault, and reprimand their children's actions with the presupposition that such criticisms will make their child better fit into the mold of the parent's expectations. Bosses may notice the lack of efficiency or proper following of procedures in their workers, and as a result, dish out the flack in the hopes that it will improve the efficiency of their staff. How many times have we trusted someone to do something for us only to have them fail miserably (well, probably not fail miserably, but not live up to our expectations), and as a result - let me put this as politely as I can - 'discounted their value as a human being'? We criticize for a number of reasons, and the expression of our disapproval is one of those incredibly innate responses that we yield to whenever someone doesn't live up to our expectations.

But we all know how it feels to be criticized. And unless you're the son of God/Allah/Buddha/The Flying Spaghetti Monster/ Chuck Norris, it's not a good feeling. Dale Carnegie, an American writer and lecturer, writes about how, when he was young, he decided to write a letter to a prominent author of the time, and when the reply simply read "Your bad manners are exceeded only by your bad manners", this rebuke ignited a feeling of indignation that stayed with Carnegie for a decade. When we criticize, we play a fine game with the recipient's emotions - their pride, vanity and self-esteem. That's actually an understatement - we actually shoot them down. Condemnation can drive people to give up the things that they love doing, just as it drove Thomas Hardy to give up writing fiction. It can ruin people's moods, cause them to burst into tears, quit jobs, commit suicide. It can ruin a person's self-esteem, destroy their feelings of self-worth and shatter their confidence. I'd vouch that we've all had the experience of being criticized, and it's not at all a fun one.

And just a side note before I finish this off, but I think for many of us, our worst critic is ourselves. Many of us hold such high expectations of ourselves and pass iron-fisted judgement on how we "should" act or behave that when something goes wrong - whether it's in a relationship, in an academic sense, about our appearance, or in other pursuits. Many of us tirelessly condemn ourselves, telling ourselves that we "could have done ____, ___ and ___ so much better", or that we "really shouldn't have done _____", or "you bitch. Why'd you eat that Jumbo Sized Mars Bar?". But what we could benefit from is increasing the amount of compassion we have for ourselves. Many cultures suggest that if we don't constantly criticize ourselves, we're lazy and self-indulgent. Winning is the most important thing - our best just isn't good enough. Even Yoda says that "there is no try". Bastard. (I'm kidding - I love Yoda). But humour aside, perhaps we could benefit from thinking about how we criticize ourselves, and what effect it has on us.

Anyway, back to wherever I was. So we've established that criticism makes people feel bad (you don't say). Instead of criticism, what can we do? Perhaps we could indulge in compassion and empathy (I hope this doesn't start sounding mushy). Maybe if we come across a chance to criticize, we could bite our tongue and do the metaphorical 'stepping into their shoes', and consider their point of view. It could have been an honest mistake - perhaps they tried their best. If they're doing something wrong, it's possible that they haven't been taught correctly. They might be tired, insecure or affected by some recent disaster. People are likely to justify and rationalize their actions, and as we know, criticism will usually only arouse resentment. Why not try words of encouragement, compassion, and understanding? Yes, being encouraging and compassionate about the downfalls we perceive in others may sound mushy and saccharine, but are we more likely to appreciate the person who appreciates our struggles, or the person who condemns our hardships?

Until I was thirteen, I thought my name was shut up.- Joe Namath

Till next time,
Eric.

More information on improving self-compassion :)

Stress and Giving Up

If you're a student studying in high school and reading this, then it's very likely that sometime during the last couple of months, weeks or even days you have had the mountains of homework and associated stress that comes along with it. Schooling and education takes up a major part of our student lives, and the amount of pressure that many of us may feel can sometimes take its toll on all aspects of our life, from our health, wealth and relationships, and at times we can feel like giving it all up.

Not to start sounding like the 'Student Wellbeing' section of your school newsletter or anything, but I thought I might document my thoughts on student stress and motivation. As students, we're told to study, but never how to study. Some rudimentary advice may be offered from our educational institutions, such as 'study x amount of hours a day', or 'organize your study schedule in a manner similar to the one shown in table 2.5', etc, but this advice is often incredibly basic and many do not get much practical benefit from it. Life as a student may seem incredibly chaotic, as we attempt to balance all the factors influencing how we spend our time - our motivation, the workload, the stresses, the pressures, our short-term and long-term goals, and so on, by ourselves. With so little official advice, how do most of us ever survive?

The simple answer is most likely this: we don't. An ideal reality would likely have most students follow a very mechanical, business-like notion that if we improve our time-management skills drastically, we can become incredible productivity machines. Productivity machines that could get home at a set time, work on one subject or another for a set time, take a __ minute break, then go straight back to work, before finishing with _ minutes of leisure. Ideally, study would be effective if we were to arrive home, and then work solidly for however long, have our leisure and sleep at an appropriate time. And I have no doubt that some people do achieve this, but I'm not one of them, and neither are many of the people I know.

Instead, many of us may arrive at our homes with the perfectly legitimate intention of following a meticulously thought out schedule, just to realize that you haven't done a thing and it's 11pm. Or we realize that there's some project or assessment task that's due in a couple of days, and that we've got time from now until then, and that it would make a great deal of logical sense to complete it in the next couple of days.... but the moment you try to begin, there's a sinking feeling in your stomach, a sensation of dread shivers up your body, and we realize that we just don't want to do the work. In cases like these, where we have the desire and intention to have the work completed, but can't seem to get into the right state of mind to actually get it done, I think that there's more to 'it' than the logical considerations that we take - in only mechanically considering our workload, we're neglecting the emotional, physical and mental aspects that coincide with any task we set ourselves to do.

Stephen Covey talks about how tasks can be separated into urgent and non urgent, and important and unimportant. He notes that the tasks we always seem to occupy ourselves with are the urgent tasks (both important and unimportant), whilst the tasks that we should be doing, but never get around to are the important, but not urgent ones. An assessment task that's due in a couple of days is important, but not urgent enough to provoke an adrenaline response that forces us into action. Instead, many of us sometimes linger about, with a level of longing that makes us want the work to be done, but not enough to motivate us to actually sit down and start. Or if we do start, we're disliking the work. This study is important enough for us to want to do it, but it isn't urgent for us to have to do it. "We still have time", we can still procrastinate...

A Time Management book that I read once stated that there are three main reasons to procrastination: You don't know enough about the task at hand, there's not enough interest in the task as it is is boring/unimportant, or you don't know where to begin. Addressing the first issue, the book suggests that we attempt to learn about the task bit-by-bit, by breaking the larger project into small, manageable chunks. It suggests that if we find a task boring or unimportant, we attempt to see how it relates to the larger scheme of things, and asks us to identify what value the particular project can bring to us, or to drop the task entirely if it is of no objective value at all; and when we don't know where to begin, we should just jump straight in and correct our mistakes afterwards. It's far easier to go back and edit something, than to sit around thinking of the perfect first sentence.

I've tried that advice, and some of it worked for me, and some of it didn't. Advice always seems to sound good on paper (or on your computer screen, in this case), but sometimes when you're sitting there with a blank document open, the logicality of advice can conflict with the emotions that you feel against working. When you get down to it, procrastination and student stress is an emotional phenomenon. We don't sit down and think "hey, I think lack sufficient knowledge of Trotsky's vision of the Russian Revolution to successfully write a 3,000 word essay describing my thoughts on it, so I'll just sit here, and in my intense fear of being judged negatively for the sub-par work I might do, I have officially decided to procrastinate and Facebook chat that cute girl I met last week". Instead, we get this sinking feeling in our bodies that 'stops' us from starting what we wish was completed.

So what can we do to change this? I imagine that a life without stress would be very desirable to many people, and the main way that I personally attempt to attack the tendency to procrastinate my work is through ... sleep and exercise. Yup. Uh huh. Let me explain my non-scientific, non-psychological and unproven technique to battle procrastination. Stress, motivation and the tendency to procrastinate are all emotions. You feel stressed. You feel motivated. You feel anxious. Generally speaking, our actions as human beings are guided by our emotions - if we feel anxious, stressed and procrastinate-y, we're not likely going to begin to start our work. But on the flip side, if we feel wonderful, motivated and happy, then getting through work may very well be a breeze. I personally find that a 30 minute power-nap before starting study, and some exercise during the day really helps fight off any negative emotions I might be feeling towards the workload I have - and for me, this works.

The real key is to find out what works for you - what sort of environment do you work best in? Some people can't work with mess, some prefer the intimacy of a messy workplace. Are there any idiosyncrasies that you have to entertain in order to keep yourself happy? (personally, I hate when my keyboard is sticky) But the main point is to see what puts you in the mood to work, and then from there what tools and techniques you can use to get your work done. If sleep and exercise work for you, then go ahead and use it. If breaking a task into small chunks work for you, then use that.

Here's a tip though: I'd encourage you to write down what you're trying before you try it, and then afterwards go back and see whether it worked. If not, then try something else, and before long, when you find something that works, you could be writing long, wonderful rambling pieces of prose like the one you're reading right now.

Take Care,
Eric

Self Image: Beauty Is More Than Skin Deep

You might not know, but this baby
seal is considering breast enlargement
surgery. Oh... crap. It's giving me the
baby-seal look. Shouldn't have told you that!

Self Image and Beauty have always been interesting ideas, especially among the teenagers of modern society, but that is not to say that it doesn't affect all of us. Why is it that some people, despite possessing a figure or looks which others may deem sub-par, can feel great, have constant companionship and enjoy life, whilst others who look the same or have the same, undesirable body figure feel incredibly lonely and depressed, and rationalize that their physical appearance is the cause of their troubles?

As you've probably guessed from the title, the answer is a person's self image. Your self image is basically your conception of what sort of person you are. It's the culmination of all your beliefs about yourself, what you can and can't do and how you think that others will or should react to you. What I've noticed with many people is the results that they get from whatever endeavours they attempt will usually be in line with their self image. At the same time, your self image very often dictates how you feel about yourself.

Take the example of cosmetic plastic surgery. Maxwell Maltz, author and plastic surgeon, describes in his book Psycho-Cybernetics the importance and impact of one's self image. When he was working in cosmetic surgery, he would notice how a portion of his clients, after having surgery, would feel great about themselves. They would have a drastic change in their demeanour, becoming more energetic, happy and charismatic - it seemed that the surgery had removed some physical defect that was deeply linked to their emotional state. However, if someone's feelings of happiness came just from how their face looked, then why was it that another portion of Maltz's clients, who had similar enhancement surgery, had little improvement in their feelings of happiness or satisfaction after their procedure? Why did Maltz hear statements along the lines of 'I know it's gone, but I still look bad'? If a person's happiness really comes from physical beauty, then every one who gets cosmetically should, theoretically speaking, come out feeling like a rock star (even though many rock stars have pretty unhappy lives).

The thing is, sometimes they don't. The missing link is the relationship between the person's physical characteristics and their inner self image. Very often, your physical characteristics are tied quite deeply to the beliefs about yourself. You may suggest that the mole on your nose 'makes' you ugly, or that the strange shape of your ears 'makes' you look like a loser, and so on. Imagine if you were to go under the knife and get that utterly horrific mole removed. If the change in your physical features also resulted in a change in the beliefs that build up your self-image, then you would walk out feeling far better about yourself, and the belief that you're ugly could potentially be gone. But what if your beliefs of ugliness go far beyond your physical features? What if your self-image of physical unpleasantness wasn't changed? What if you walk out of the operating theatre still utterly convinced of your undesirability or lack of beauty? Shit's going down.

Though I believe in people having the freedom to choose the things that they want to do in their life, without being hampered or impeded by the opinions of others, let me offer a suggestion. Instead of altering your external outcomes, consider trying to change your self image. By external outcomes, I not only mean physical features, but almost any other pursuit, such as better grades or an improved social life.

All of your actions, feelings, behaviours and abilities are always consistent with your self image. If you have the self image of yourself as someone who is incredibly ugly and never has any friends, then you may act in ways that possibly ward people away from you, and you may feel miserable. If you have the self image of someone who is horrible in one particular subject (eg. Maths or English), then no matter how hard you try, your test results will very likely reflect it.

But what if you have the self image of yourself as someone who is beautiful in their unique way? You may begin to convince yourself of your own beauty, and begin to feel great. Perhaps you'll begin to act in ways that draw people to you, and you may find that you interpret things in a way that reinforces your belief that you're beautiful.

My main point is that much of the time, when we look to find solutions to problems, we may be looking in the wrong place. There is a brilliant story of how a person was out one night and saw an old man on the floor next to a street lamp. When asked what he was doing, the old man replied that he was trying to find his house key. The narrator decides to help the man, but after an hour of fruitless searching, asks the man whether he was sure he lost it here. The man replies that he lost it at his house, but was searching out here because there was more light.

Make sure that when you're looking for solutions to your problems, such as a lack of beliefs in your physical appearance, you're looking in the right place, and focusing on what really matters.

"If you knew how powerful your thoughts are, you'd never think a negative thought" - Peace Pilgrim

The Nature of Personal Reality

Beautiful art by my friend Claire

Why is it so that it sometimes seems difficult to get the world around us to work the way we want it to? If we are poor, many of us would much rather wealth. Those of us who are lonely may seek friends, and those who are under the grasp of illness most likely would desire health. But our desires are very often not represented in reality. Many of us who want to be rich simply aren't. Plenty of us desire that perfect body figure, or that new watch, or more happiness, a better social life, more time, better grades, etc, and a question that a lot of people may ask is 'why?'. Why aren't I rich? Why am I failing in ______? Why does everyone else seem better than me? But if we're looking for change, then 'why' is the wrong question to ask.


Instead we should be asking ourselves 'how'. How can I improve? How can I get better at singing so that my friends don't label my voice as 'unpitched percussion'? How do I convince my rich uncle to drink the delicious drink that I've brewed up for him? Although the question 'why' is useful for finding out what caused something or what the consequences/ relationship between two events were, it often invites a lot of blame and puts the power of your results in the hands of other people. That's not to say that we can't learn from whys, just that when we say that 'I'm ___ because of ____' it makes it incredibly easy to blame something and leave it up to them to fix your problems. And that rarely works.


Asking yourself how you can go about getting the outcome that you want is much more effective for change. Hows give us ideas on steps that we can take to consciously improv, gain or develop what it is that we want. How can I improve my drama skills? Take acting classes, comedy classes, sign up for Soapboxes, etc. How can I become more healthy? Get a gym membership. Go running. Change your diet. But I don't want to make this too much of a 'go do this' post. Instead, I want to consider a theory behind what a person experiences in life.


I've recently been reading a book on the nature of personal reality, which is aptly called 'The Nature of Personal Reality'. The book is allegedly a channeled work and the ideas within them originate from a multidimensional personality known as 'Seth'. What the book talks about, however, has an utmost relevance to our daily lives.


What The Nature of Personal Reality explores is the idea that you create your own reality through your beliefs and your actions. It sounds like common sense, but sometimes the most obvious things are the most elusive. Seth suggests that:

a) You Create Your Reality and
b) The Point of Power is Now


You Create Your Reality
What does this mean? First of all, think about everything that you do as being a choice.Even if you choose to do nothing, you've still made a choice, even if it may not be a conscious one. Our choices about everything in life, from where we sit, what drink we take, what we do when we are around new people, how we spend our money, what we decide to learn, etc. all bring about results and outcomes. Whether your outcomes are favourable (eg. finding a new friend) or not so favourable (eg. having a toast with yourself before you sip on your tears) are dependent on the choices you make in your life. 


The things that you experience in reality serve as feedback to the thoughts and choices you make. They are the outcomes that arise from the things you do. Say you're unfit and out of shape - that is simply feedback about the choices that you have made prior to right now. Maybe you chose not to work out and decided to try out a couple of the new McDonald's Oreo shakes (they're just a little too bit fancy) instead of downing down protein shakes from your local health store - these choices bring about the reality you experience right now. That's not to say that being out of shape is a bad thing to everyone, but if it is to you, then your choices brought you there.


The Point of Power is Now
This brings me to the second point - that if you want to change anything, then right now is the time to do it. Consider the idea that your current reality is one that has been chosen from the countless probable ones that could have resulted.

Let me say that again - your current reality is simply one chosen from unlimited probable ones.


Think about that. If you did things differently yesterday, how would your life be different today? If you had made a choice to do something different last week, last month or last year, how would your life be different RIGHT NOW? It doesn't even have to be something drastic - if you had chosen the red highlighter instead of the blue highlighter, you'd have a red highlighter instead of a blue highlighter - but what if it was? What if you chose to spend 20 minutes a day reading that book you've always intended to read? Or decided to catch up with people you've never had the time to? Or saved part of your salary every week for the last year? Life is like a Role Playing Game, where the choices you make will lead you to different realities, and if you're anything like me, then the reality that you want to experience is a good one.


The present is the point of power. Let me put that in capitals for you:


THE PRESENT IS THE POINT OF POWER.


You're forming your reality now. What you do RIGHT NOW is going to have an impact on tomorrow. The choices that you make, the thoughts you think, the actions you take all will be reflected in tomorrow's environment. You are very literally choosing your reality as you read this. So choose well.


'You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.' - Abraham Lincoln


Peace,
Eric

Video Games and Schools - Is Banning Necessary?

Is the Banning of Video Games Necessary?

Video games have been the crux of many a school-goer's teachers or parents. Many people hold hostile and negative feelings towards our teenage population playing excessive amounts of video gaming, and, glancing at the content of many of the more popular games today, it is not difficult to discern why. The supposed effects of video gaming on our students have often been described as an adequate reason for the banning of them within school and education settings.


As with the introduction of any new technology into a pre-existing system, there will always be conflict and contention. We as human beings rarely want to embrace change, especially if it involves the unknown. With video gaming, school settings are seeing more and more students deciding to bring their form of leisure to their education environment and attempting to enjoy video games during the times when they are not required at classes.


Considering that many people bring other forms of entertainment to their school recesses, such as cards, balls, books, etc., wouldn't it seem that bringing video games should be a simple affair? If you've attended a high school where you've tried doing that, the answer is most likely a resounding no. But why? I believe there are two (and a half) main reasons behind the conflict between video games and schools:

- The idea that the authority figures in charge do not understand, embrace or wish to understand/embrace something as unknown and seemingly dangerous as video games.


- The notion that the content within, and the playing of video games will have adverse and undesirable effects on the player.


- The notion that since a school is an education setting and things not pertaining to education should be banned.


Let me tackle the first idea. An accepted truth about human nature is the notion that we don't like to change our opinions often. Our egos are often tied to our opinions - when we defend our opinions, we are defending our egos. Also consider that many people commonly form opinions about things they know little about. Have you ever had a friend constantly criticize something that they don't understand or have never tried? If we don't understand something, it is often easy to form misconceptions about the particular thing, and in turn making it easier to dislike it immensely.


Couple this with the common criticism that video games are linked to increased violence, and although an authority figure may not have personally experienced a violent video game, he/she will likely form a preconceived notion about such games. Most likely, this notion is one of a negative nature, which then results in a dislike for video games and, in my experience, a ban on them. 


But is this ban really one that is warranted? The banning of something such as video game use will, without a doubt, prevent users from experience the negative effects that such use may or may not incur, but at the same time, it will completely prevent any positive benefits that playing these games may provide. Do the negatives really outweigh the positives in this matter? 


The content in some video games can be considered objectionable, with many games involving aspects of crime and violence. There have been countless studies performed on the link between playing violent video games and a person's susceptibility to performing violent acts in the future. The interesting thing is that the results of many of the studies constantly contradict each other. David Grossman, a former psychology professor, suggests that First Person Shooters are 'murder simulators', and that such games harden children emotionally to the act of killing. Another study suggests that violent video games are associated with increased aggressive behaviour. However, literary scholars criticize these studies fail to cite results that differed from their views, and that they employ highly selective and misleading information.


Other studies suggest that video games don't have drastic effects on aggression and violence in teenagers. An Australian study finds that only people who are already predisposed to violence will be affected by violent video games; other studies find that although violent video games may have an affect on players, that impact is incredibly small compared to other things. It should also be noted that the crime rate in America has dropped drastically since the 1990s, but the sales of M-Rated video games has skyrocketed.


Those against video games suggest that playing and experiencing violent video games will somehow create the desire in the player's mind to re-enact the scenes they have just virtually experienced. Do we really believe that somehow, a violent video game will drastically alter the mental state of an otherwise normal person and cause them to become a murderous killer? I'd like to suggest that although violent video games may have an effect on people, other factors such as mental stability and the quality of a person's home life would have a stronger effect on someone's likelihood of shooting people at a school. 


Video games are a major part of teen culture today. According to one study, 90% of all teenage boys and 40% of teenage girls play video games. When playing team-based or social video games, studies (yeah, I've used that word six times already!) suggest that players increase their mental health, social and interpersonal skills. Completing objectives in video games can increase the patience, focus and concentration of players. What I find most important is that video games help relieve stress.


The third idea that I've come across for the banning of video games in schools is that video games aren't educational, and because of that they have no place in an educational setting. Many video games aren't educational, but at the same time, the vast majority of activities that students participate in during their recesses aren't of an academic nature. The excuse that video games are not of an educational nature and should be banned is like saying that playing soccer, basketball, cards, pool, or even conversation is not of an educational nature and should be banned. It's absurd.


Video games are an integral part of many teenagers' lives. I would suggest that their ability to increase aggression and antisocial tendencies in players would be minimal compared to the effects of say, a disastrous upbringing. Video games provide many benefits, one of these being the ability to relieve stress. In a school setting, stress-relief can be a liberation of the greatest caliber, but it is something that is often denied.


If some of the people in the education sector looked past initial biases and really analysed their perspective on video gaming, perhaps video games will take a greater hold within our education system.


This is not to say that all of those in the education sector are against video gaming - in many areas video games are being increasingly noted for their educational qualities, and in some situations are being embraced. What I hope is that in the future, more and more schools which traditionally frowned upon video gaming will look to embrace it.

Good Grades, Enough Sleep, or a Social Life... Pick any two.

Facebook 'likes' are the greatest little cold reads. They are little statements that seem like incredibly personal and precise descriptions of the things that happen to us in the world that no-one talks about. They can be general truths that happen to everybody and are described in just a way that makes us think 'I just did this haha' or 'That's what always happens!' or 'I thought I was the only sneaky bitch that did this D:' or 'haha i do this shit all the time' and the list goes on and on.

Good Grades at the expense of
Sleep or your Social Life?

One of my favourites, and one that really interests me is the idea that teenagers can pick two out of:

1. Good Grades

2. Enough Sleep

3. A Social Life

This quote implies that performing well academically and fostering a social circle require so much time that to have any quality in these would be at the detriment to a healthy amount of sleep. At the same time, if you want to have enough sleep, you're going to have to sacrifice either your social life or your academic performance. 

A quick look through the hundreds of comments to this statement easily reveal that the majority of teenagers believe that they can only have two. But I'd like to take a step forward and say that that doesn't have to be the case.

Can you, the person behind the screen reading these words right now, imagine a person who gets enough sleep, does well academically and has a social life? My guess is yes, and I'll even go as far to guess that the picture of this person that you have in your mind is of someone who is (or will be) confident and successful in the world. Even more importantly, and what I really want to talk about, they're going to be someone who has discipline and self-management skills. And what I really think the idea that you can only pick two out of Good Grades, Enough Sleep or A Social Life reveals that the majority of us don't have the self-management skills or discipline to allow us to have all three.

Every single person in the entire world has the same amount of time in a day as you, me, and the person standing next to you. Every person has 24 hours in a day and 7 days in a week. Yet some people (whether you know them or can imagine them) have enough time for grades, sleep and a social life, yet you may only have enough time for two. What gives?

My idea is self-management and discipline. You can't manage time, since you can't change or influence it. Every day has 24 hours in it. Every week has seven days in it. No-one's going to change that (but when they do, my DeLorean shall be ready), but everyone can change themselves, and improve their self-management skills.

According to Roy Morgan Research, in an average week, Australians spend 21.8 hours watching TV and 9.5 hours on the Internet. That's about 31.3 hours a week that's spent not getting good grades, not getting enough sleep and not developing your social life (unless you're on Facebook, but I'll talk about that in a moment). So imagine that you're someone who, according to the statement, has good grades, a social life, but not enough sleep. What we don't realize is that it isn't only grades and sleep that compete for our sleeping time, but also our leisure. 

If the average Australian were to give up the hours spent watching TV and browsing the internet, an extra 30 hours a week. That's about 4 extra hours that could be going to sleep, your social life or your grades every day. Think about what this means as a teenager. Perhaps you only get 5 hours sleep a night --> giving up hours and hours of television would mean that you'd get a beautiful nine hours a night. How would 30 extra hours of effort into your latest assessment task reflect on your grades? How would 30 hours of hanging out with your friends deepen your emotional connection with them? 

How much of the time spent flicking through channels on TV, or liking 'likes' on Facebook really is worth it? Undoubtedly there will be some t.v shows that you want to watch, some people that you can only keep in contact with through Facebook, but at the same time, there are a lot of t.v shows we watch just to fill the time. There are games that we play just because we've nothing else to do (or because we're procrastinating), and there are hours of intensive photo-stalking that really don't matter that much, unless you're anything like my uncle, but that's another story. 

What I'm trying to say is that it is indeed possible to have all good grades, enough sleep and a social life at the same time. In order to have them, however, people need the self-management skills and discipline to prioritize their activities and cut out the things that aren't important to make time for the things that are. Watch the t.v shows that interest you, but consider cutting out the channel surfing that doesn't maximize what you want. It's about prioritizing the important things in your life, and then having the discipline to do first things first, without falling back into the routine of spending time on things that aren't as important.

How do do this? Well, I'll talk about what I've personally done to try maximize my time in a future post, but until then, my British telephone booth awaits me.

Luck and Getting into the Games Industry

The size of the E3 Gaming Expo
illustrates the size of the gaming industry

"Don't aim for success if you want it. Just do what you love and believe in, and it will come naturally" - David Frost.

You have to be in the right place in the right time and work damn hard if you want to succeed. Not hard, but damn hard. But as many university students and employers will tell you over and over again, simply working hard isn't a guarantee into getting into the field you want.

The games industry is a massive and rapidly growing, and more and more will we see games becoming an integral part of our daily lives. The esteemed Call of Duty: Black Ops took in over $650 million US dollars in its first five days - breaking a global record for income generated in five days for a game, book or movie. It's no little part of our lives, and as the graduates roll out year after year, the games industry - or 'interactive entertainment' industry as they like to call themselves - is becoming an increasingly more appealing option.

During the seven-day Computer Games Boot Camp event, I've noticed a trend with many of the games presenters there - just about everyone from the camera team, the people from the community television show Level 3, the editors and reviewers of game magazines, game composers and so many more people attributes their involvement in the industry to one of two things. Luck and networking.

Before I go into a little more detail into how luck and networking gets one into an industry, I'd like to talk a little about the idea of a 'success formula'. A Google search of those two words yields a whopping 10.7 million results. The self-help industry was estimated at more than $9 billion US dollars in America in 2006. Considering the size of the personal-development industry, an industry that suggests that success comes from solid principles which can be applied to many specific situations, can we expect that the people who have made it into the games industry to have similar traits and similar stories?

Jason O'Callaghan, the face behind the Melbourne-based community television show Level 3, tells me with a laugh that he became a part of the show through pure luck. He was working at a video store when the lead producer of Level 3 approached him and told him that he was making T.V show and needed people. A similar story is described with one of Level 3's reviewers, who was working in a video game store when approached by Level 3. Dale, Level 3's floor manager, was working on community television and radio before discovering that one of his co-workers ran a show, and that this co-worker needed people. These certainly are a testimony to the luck element of entering a business, about being in the right place at the right time. But is there more?

One of the lead hardware reviewers for the hardcore-gaming magazine Atomic describes his pathway into games journalism as being pure luck and networking. His friends were all in the business, which meant an easy foray into the dark and and often inaccessible industry. Liz, an opinion writer for Level 3 notes how industry professionals took an interest in her work and decided to post her writing on their website. One of her friends, who just happened to be part of Level 3, discovered that she was a writer, a discovery that eventually lead to her position in the community show.

The majority of people will tell you that they got into the games industry through luck and networking. But there's more to it than that  - every one of the people who have made it in have had something to offer the industry such as a great skill-set, a portfolio of work, technical knowledge, writing ability and so on. These people have had experience, and even more, they have a passion for what they do. Your skill, passion and experience in what you do is incredibly important - without it, there is no chance of entering any industry. This is not to discount the importance of luck and networking, but to suggest that you have to have skill, expertise and/or experience before these will be of any use to you.

Many successful people talk of making their own luck. Yes, you do have to be at the right place at the right time, but as you develop your skills, your knowledge and increase your experience in a particular field, you're going to find that you'll be at the right place at the right time more and more often. More opportunities will arise, and perhaps you'll find your big break sometime soon. Until then, why not work on something or develop a project?

Level 3 can be found through their website: http://www.level3.org.au/
and Atomic can be found through theirs: http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/

The Mind Behind the Computer Games Boot Camp

Andrew at the Monash University IT Awards Night

It's about doing what other's aren't prepared to do, and taking everything as a learning lesson, says Andrew Owen of Monash University's wildly successful Computer Games Boot Camp. Since its conception in 2009, the event has grown from a five day event with a turnout of around 300 high school students, to a seven day even with presentations and exhibitions from the biggest and most popular gaming and I.T related companies existent on the planet.

When asked about the success of his creation, founder and organizer Andrew Owen notes the importance of initiative, the idea that there's no failure, only feedback and the vitality of persistence. An example that he speaks about is the story behind one of America's greatest politicians of all time, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln suffered from a vast multitudes of failures before ever succeeding in his presidency, such as losing political elections, failing business ventures and having his sweetheart die, but his determination to succeed overcame this failure. Andrew describes how many of the successful people throughout history have had to overcome failure after failure, rejection after rejection before finding the success, and this idea is one that helped the creation of the Computer Games Boot Camp.


A mindset that Andrew employs is that the results you get help you to improve for next time. He is constantly thinking ahead - during the 2011 Boot Camp, he is already thinking of ways to improve and evolve the 2012 event. Every time something goes wrong, it's a lesson for next time and a catalyst for constant improvement. This cycle of utilizing feedback will have been evident for past members of the Computer Games Boot Camp, as a common response from students of the 2010 event was the length and inflexibility of presentations. This has been addressed in this year's event by allowing students to choose the presenter they are most interested in and attend that specific seminar. As a attendee myself, I'm glad to say that this works brilliantly - a testimony to the truth in Andrew's thinking.

Finally, there's the element of "Just doing it'. Owen talks about a celebrity who goes out and just does things for the sake of doing them with the reason that 'no-one else has done it, and now I have'. It was this type of initiative that enabled Andrew to found the Boot Camp. When asked the reason behind starting the event, his response was a hearty "there was nothing else like it". He wanted to give high-school students opportunities that he never had as a student, and present the I.T industry in an environment that didn't include the typical propaganda and promotional material that most I.T related events are full of.

The Computer Games Boot Camp is an annual seven day event showcasing many facades of the Information Technology industry, with presentations from both international companies and passionate students. High school students in years 9-12 will have the opportunity to listen to presenters working in about every aspect of the IT industry. And the sweet thing? It's 100% free.

Check out the website at http://www.infotech.monash.edu.au/promotion/games-boot-camp/
and the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/groups/97161739747?ap=1