Monthly Archives: August 2010

Lessons and Impressions from Indonesia

I recently spent 1.5 weeks in Indonesia. I traveled all over the country (Jakarta, Semarang, Surabaya, Batam, though not Bali) and met some 2,500 students, businesspeople, journalists, and academics. In addition to sharing some of my own views and experiences with local audiences, I learned quite a bit about the country and its people. Below are my key lessons and impressions.

1. Size and scale. Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in world (220 million), an archipelago of more than 17,000 islands. It is the third largest democracy in the world behind India and the United States.

2. A moderate Muslim country. It is home to the largest Muslim population in the world (88% of 220 million). The government is secular and the Islam that is practiced is moderate. State law rules, not Islamic law. As just one small but telling example, there are many Muslim women who do not wear headscarves (though the majority do) and I did not see many men wearing a peci.  Religious freedom flourishes: look at Hindu-dominated Bali, the Christian population, and the various interfaith dialogues and groups. I remember noticing two women sitting next to each other in the audience once: one wore a headscarf, the other had a Christian cross draped around her neck. Contrast this to Saudi Arabia. There, women must always wear full body hijabs (covering head to toe with small slits for the eyes); if you’re seen with a person of the opposite sex in public you can be arrested; if you are caught carrying a Bible (or any other non-Muslim religious item) it’s grounds for punishment. So it’s easy to see why the United States, among other nations, holds up Indonesia as a shining beacon of tolerance and diversity in the Muslim world.

3. Optimism of the People. I surveyed many folks and the vast majority ID’d as optimistic. They think Indonesia will be a center of gravity in the future. They believe tomorrow will be better than today. The 21st century is the century of Asia.

4. Heat and Humidity. It’s impossible to walk outside for more than a few minutes without sweating your balls off. I love air conditioning, but I would not want my existence to be defined by it. Plus, humidity is the worst. In Arizona, when I walk outside it takes some time for the oven to heat my body to the point of sweating. In humid climates, when I walk outside I begin sweating almost instantly. While I’m undoubtedly more sensitive to it than locals who grew up there, I’m not that much different: Indonesian social life, I was told, is concentrated in fancy malls, which are safe, full-service, and most of all, air conditioned!

5. Hospitality, Formality, Status. Per my post on being introduced three times, there is a broader culture of hospitality that’s impressive and at times annoying.

6. Big Cities in Developing Countries. A general rule of thumb for poor countries is that the big capital cities are sprawling chaotic messes with traffic, pollution, and overpopulation, while the countryside tends to be calm and more interesting culturally. In Indonesia this is totally true. Jakarta is not very livable. I asked probably 10 people who live(d) in Jakarta whether they liked it, and none said yes. The unpredictable traffic. The humidity. The relative danger. Surabaya, the second largest city in the country, seemed far more livable — still a big city with all the amenities (4 million people) but no traffic and plenty of open space.

7. Politics and Economy. The current president was elected with overwhelming support, despite the huge amounts of corruption that plagues the government. Democracy’s recent introduction to the country seems to have more or less taken hold, though there are still aspects of democracy beyond voting that seem fragile. Discussion of internet censorship by the government is, for example, a topic of discussion, and I encountered some odd web site failures during my time there. The Indonesian economy is the big gorilla of the region. It runs mostly on light manufacturing. Rice is big here, and mostly sold within the country. Apparently this large internal market insulated the country a bit from the global financial crisis. Several American friends do furniture manufacturing in Surabaya; the chairs and TV stands you buy at Crate & Barrel or Cost Plus were probably made in Indonesia. Side point of interest: Chile had the “Chicago Boys,” Indonesia had the “Berkeley Mafia” — economists who studied there and brought back liberal economic reform.

8. Suharto Regime. You cannot understand politics in Indonesia without first realizing that the 65-year Suharto dictatorship ended only 11 years ago. Here is more on Suharto. It makes you appreciate Indonesia’s political progress.

9. Ramadan. My visit coincided with the holy month of Ramadan, a time when Muslims fast from sunup to sundown. In many places in the Middle East, I’m told all restaurants would be closed during the day. In Indonesia, many restaurants remained open, another sign of its religious diversity. It surprised me to see that when my Muslim hosts broke the fast at sundown after 9-10 hours of no food or drink they did so with a small piece of bread and drink, and then gradually amped up to real food. I’ve never fasted; in fact, I’ve never gone more than a few hours without food or drink. Especially given the heat, I was amazed at the restraint and discipline shown by my Muslim hosts.

10. Terrorism. Last year, terrorists released bombs in the Mariott hotel in Jakarta. The more famous 2002 bombing in Bali killed more than 200 people. The size and remoteness of certain parts of the country make it seem likely that radical groups will have the space to band together for some time to come. Nevertheless, the Indonesian government has been effective at capturing radical Islamist terrorist leaders. Just the other week a key radical cleric was arrested for having helped organized terrorist training camps.

I didn’t feel particularly unsafe anywhere in Indonesia. Note, at the big hotels, every time you enter you have to submit to a metal detector and car-search. But like in so many places, if you’re white, you can walk right through and nobody searches you or scans for metal. When will the terrorists figure out that being / appearing white is the way to evade all security in third world countries?

11. Reading. I took three inter-country flights and observed very few people reading either on the planes or in the airport. I tend to use this as a litmus test….for something.

12. Asian Neighbors and Immigrants. They don’t like the Malaysian people. I heard stories about Malaysia’s actively racist government policies that punish non-Malays. Not sure how accurate it is, but the Indonesians I spoke to see themselves as a more enlightened society. On the immigration front, Chinese Indonesians have been there for a long time and though they represent only 1% of the population they are power brokers in business. The nice business hotels in the country are full of Chinese Indonesian businesspeople.

13. Inexpensive. It’s a super cheap country across the board. India is dirt cheap but expensive as far as hotels go. Indonesia is cheap in everything. True 5 star hotels for US $100 night.

14. Israel. At one event the host at the school announced that (paragraphed) “We are to love all people, Jews, Christians, Hindus, everybody.” I was told that it was most unusual to specifically mention, let alone start with, Jews. The anti-Israel sentiment in Indonesia is just political. People don’t think Israelis should have set up a new state in Palestinian territory, and so they resent the state, the people, and of course the country that’s backed Israel since the beginning: America. Before Obama (who spent time in Indonesia growing up), most Indonesians had an unfavorable view of the U.S., mostly because of Israel, I was told.

15. Entrepreneurial Culture.  I did meet many very energetic and talented young entrepreneurs, and there is a big push within the country to seriously amplify the focus on entrepreneurship. The limiting factor, as it is almost everywhere, is culture. Not a huge acceptance of risk-taking or failure, overbearing parents, etc etc. Same old story. BTW, on the broader business culture, I found it cool that a man can wear either a suit and tie for a formal occasion, or a local batik — a brightly colored shirt that looks like a Hawaiian short sleeves shirt. Both are considered equally formal.

Bottom Line: Indonesia is a diverse country of rising geo-political interest with very kind people. For these reasons it’s worth a visit. The weather is a deal breaker for me in terms of longer stays, and that goes for all ultra-humid tropical climates.

I thank my various friends and hosts, and to Daniel Phelps for helping me think through the political and economic situation of Indonesia more specifically. (These views are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. government.)

The Origins of “Think Different”

My sixth grade technology teacher changed my life.

He taught an early-morning elective class on computer repair in which we learned how to fix Macintosh computers. The curriculum covered how to take apart hard drives, how to re-install system software ("C is for CD and that's good enough for me" was the jingle to remember to hold the C key when starting a computer from system software), re-build desktops, run Disk Utility the right way, partition hard drives, and much more. In exchange for the free 7:00 AM class I had to periodically do maintenance and repair work on the school's computers. It was a hell of a deal: the skills I picked up continue to serve me well, and that class facilitated my burgeoning interest in software and the internet (with which I would soon become obsessed).

But the biggest gift from that class and teacher had nothing to do with the nitty gritty of computer repair. Rather, it was the introduction of a certain kind of life philosophy. He forced all of us to memorize the text of the Apple "Think Different" television campaign. We had to recite the ad back to him word-for-word in order to pass the class. It was a profoundly inspiring message.

On our last day, he wrote each of us a personal letter, continuing the theme of the advertisement. Mine read: "If you continue to work hard and do well, you can acquire the skills needed to change the world. With education one can make great scientific or technological breakthroughs, curb world hunger and child labor, prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, promote peace, and have the power to bring about great change in the world. With education, you have the power to do nearly anything. If you don't change the world, who will?" Then, as a postscript, he added: "Be sure to back up your hard drive."

In the 10 years since, I have not forgotten a word from the advertisement and have recited it hundreds of times (no exaggeration!) to whoever will listen, in various venues. (And the short video series I did last year was called Think Different TV.)

For all these reasons, I was extremely intrigued to watch this six minute clip of a young Steve Jobs discussing the origins of the advertisement in the context of marketing, branding, and values. Highly recommended everyone in business.

(via TechCrunch)

Cultural Values, Power, and Event Protocol

Earlier this week in Indonesia, before I went up to give a speech, I was introduced to the audience exactly three times. Three different Important People of the sponsoring organization went to the podium and read the same bio to the same audience. Three. Times. In a row.

In addition to re-introducing me, each Important Person re-thanked other important people in the room, one-by-one, using their full titles, and then riffed yet again on the goals of the event. There were various other formalities related to these Important People like photographs and staged handshakes. It went beyond typical, lovely Asian hospitality: as the audience sat captive, the Important People were making sure everyone in the room knew they were important.

My worldly Indonesian interpreter told me these time-wasting rituals are left over from the Suharto regime. Interesting! Dictators are in the business of keeping the masses subservient. Beyond killing dissenters, I’d imagine a savvy dictator would try to psychologically disarm the people through the careful manipulation of social situations. Since explicit power plays can be self-defeating, dictators (and entrenched interests in general) might cultivate obedience by introducing small customs that subtly reinforce the power of those who hold it.

In my experience, what happened in Indonesia happens in almost every part of the world. I’ve personally witnessed such over-the-top obsession with titles and power at events in Latin America and Asia. I’m told Africa is the same.

It’s not as intense in Europe it seems, though there is still an emphasis on formal status and on highlighting the differences between people even if those differences are irrelevant to the topic at hand. I remember listening to Martin Wolf being introduced in St. Gallen, Switzerland, and hearing first about his degree from LSE 40 years ago instead of his rich journalistic career. I also remember looking at my friend’s EU passport on that trip and, to my astonishment, seeing that it listed his advanced degrees (PhD, J.D.) next to his name on the main passport ID page, as if academic degrees were as important as gender when crossing a border.

These customs reveal certain underlying values in a society.

In an older post I discussed the cultural ethos of Formality vs. Casualness. Casualness — in attire, in manner of speaking, in the way names are presented on paper — maximizes commonality among people. Formality maximizes difference. A related dichotomy is Past vs. Future. Past emphasizes past accomplishments and titles, your family and cultural history, and gives great deference to elders. Future emphasizes what you are doing today and who you aspire to be tomorrow. Future-oriented cultures, for better or worse, favor the energy of youth over the wisdom of elders. America is a decidedly casual, future-oriented culture, and this is partly what makes it unique.

In any case, it’s interesting that cultural values of this sort can appear so visibly in how events are staged and speakers introduced.

Lectures at Home, Homework at School

More wisdom from Sal Kahn (of the Kahn Academy):

…it makes more sense to have students watch lectures at home and do homework at school as opposed to vice versa.

So true! And revealing of larger structural problems of school.


Robin Hanson's theory of school is that it isn’t about learning material but rather "learning to accept workplace domination and ranking, and tolerating long hours of doing boring stuff exactly when and how you are told." He links to three other possible functions of school:

  • Legitimization: Repeated contacts with the educational system, which seems impersonal and based on reliable criteria, convinces students (and their parents) that they are ending up in an appropriate place in society based on their skills and abilities. Thus, people accept their position in life: they become resigned to it, maybe even considering it appropriate or fair.
  • Acclimatization: The social relationships in the schools encourage certain traits, appropriate to one’s expected economic position, while discouraging others. Thus, certain relationships are considered normal and appropriate. Subordination to authority is a dominant trait enforced for most students.
  • Stratification: Students from different class backgrounds, races, ethnicities, and genders are overwhelmingly exposed to different environments and social relationships and thus are tracked and prepared for different positions in the hierarchy. The different experiences and successes lead each student to see her place as appropriate.

“I Suck”

The striking part in an otherwise ho-hum profile of David Brooks in New York magazine:

Whereas Bobos drew accolades, the response to his 2004 follow-up, On Paradise Drive, and the articles that inspired it, was mixed. Negative reviews gave way to critiques of “Brooksianism” itself….

Brooks took the backlash hard. The day Slate ran a takedown, Brooks was on a book tour. “I read it and then went out to perform before 3,000 people and thought, I suck,” Brooks remembers.

I've read similar stories of A-list Hollywood celebrities reading reviews about their movies and taking criticism very hard. I know Truman and Clinton were two presidents consumed by their critics. No matter how successful or famous or self-confident, negative criticism hurts.

It especially hurts when you are an artist producing work individually. If someone criticizes the company you work for, or a project you worked on with others, the impact is diffused. If someone criticizes an essay you wrote, one that has solely your byline at the top in big bold letters — it hurts. Here's one writer's reflection on reading negative reviews. I venture that many wannabe artists never produce because they fear exposing themselves to criticism that will inevitably be felt personally.

Reflecting on the negative feedback that I've received over the years — of the 1.1 million words I've published, there's more than enough crap to arm the haters of the world  — I believe that the process has made me more civil and empathetic when I criticize other people's work. I have some sense of what's going through the other person's head; I feel like I get what Brooks is saying. Despite the stereotype of the blogosphere as a place where civility sits at the lowest order, it's not like this in most corners, and for me anyway, the exercise of writing stuff in public, engaging with critics, etc. has made more thoughtful my argumentative style, online and off, without dulling any of the actual arguments.

Maybe this is the ideal manifestation of empathy: invisible yet effectual.


Here's my more in-depth post on receiving criticism / negative feedback from a year and a half ago. Here's David Brooks' information diet.

Against Occupational Licensing

Matthew Yglesias discusses the follies of occupational licensing, citing the case of whether barbers ought to have licenses to set up shop:

If you just assume optimal implementation of regulation, then regulation always looks good. But as I noted in the initial post the way this works in practice is the boards are dominated by incumbent practitioners looking to limit supply. One result is that in Michigan (and perhaps elsewhere) it’s hard for ex-convicts to get barber licenses which harms the public interest not only by raising the cost of haircuts, but by preventing people from making a legitimate living. States generally don’t grant reciprocity to other states’ licensing boards, which limits supply even though no rational person worries about state-to-state variance in barber licensing when they move to a New Place. In New Jersey, you need to take the straight razor shaving test to cut women’s hair because they’re thinking up arbitrary ways to incrementally raise the barrier to entry.

In principle, you could deal with all these problems piecemeal. But realistically this sort of problem is inevitably going to arise when you pit the concentrated interest of incumbent haircutters against the diffuse interest of consumers. It’s hard enough to make sure that really important regulatory functions related to environmental protection, public safety, and financial stability are done properly.

In the comments section of Marginal Revolution, there's a link to Dan Klein's PowerPoint on occupational licensing. I spent five minutes flipping through the slides and learned a lot about the issue and about how economists think about topics such as this. Highly recommended. I learned, for example:

  • Occupational licensing affects 29% of U.S. workers
  • There are three levels of control: registration (an official list of providers), certification (if you want to use the official title you have to be certified), and licensing (you cannot do business unless you have a license).
  • Popular rationale for licensing includes helping consumers find trustworthy providers because consumer cannot judge quality and safety before and (sometimes) after the fact.
  • Official stance on licensing: protects consumers. Skeptical stance: protects incumbents from competition.
  • Voluntary supply of assurance: certifications, word of mouth, brand names, warranties, etc.
  • Studies consistently support the skeptical stance on OL. Reduces supply, increases prices; no quality difference net net, sometimes even a worse quality among licensed practitioners; depresses wages.
  • Licensing boards made up mostly of existing practitioners in the industry and they spend most of their time prosecution unlicensed practitioners, regardless of quality. In-group ethic is strong.
  • Another example of the persistence of a bad status quo thanks to concentrated benefits, diffused costs.

BTW it's interesting to see Yglesias's liberal readership bash him in the comments section, even though his sensible less regulation idea ahelps (via lower prices) poor people who consume the services and helps the (generally speaking) poorer people who want to start businesses like barber shops. One commenter, after the onslaught of negativity toward Yglesias, writes: "The left once again reveals itself as not pro working class, or pro woman, or pro black, or pro muslim, or pro oppressed group of the day, but merely the voice of the state." A later commenter says the right doesn't even pretend to care about the oppressed. Both sentiments contain a truth. I think a better way to split the political left and right is comparing the Tragic and Utopian View of the World.


Here's my older post on the Case Against Credentialism, which covers similar themes.

Instructions for Life

"My code of life and conduct is simply this: work hard, play to the allowable limit, disregard equally the good and bad opinion of others, never do a friend a dirty trick, eat and drink what you feel like when you feel like, never grow indignant over anything, trust to tobacco for calm and serenity, bathe twice a day . . . learn to play at least one musical instrument and then play it only in private, never allow one's self even a passing thought of death, never contradict anyone or seek to prove anything to anyone unless one gets paid for it in cold, hard coin, live the moment to the utmost of its possibilities, treat one's enemies with polite inconsideration, avoid persons who are chronically in need, and be satisfied with life always but never with one's self."

— George Jean Nathan  (via Josh Newman)

Start-Up Chile: $40k to Live There and Start a Company


Governments round the world are trying to stimulate entrepreneurship. The Chilean government recently announced a bold initiative that stands apart from the usual innovation and start-up handwaving. They are seeking two dozen entrepreneurs who want to move to Santiago for six months to get their company off the ground. The Ministry of Economy will give you US $40,000, take care of your immigration stuff, set you up with local entrepreneurs and mentors, bank accounts, and temporary office space. You do not have to stay in Chile beyond the six months, although their hope is that you do, or at least keep a satellite office or development team in Santiago. In a nutshell: you are being paid to live in Chile for six months to work on your business. All you have to do is apply on the Start-Up Chile web site with info about your background and business idea.

Several people have emailed me about this program. My basic take is that it’s a great deal for young entrepreneurs who need to put their heads down and build a prototype. Beyond the seed funding, you enjoy a lower cost of living — perfect for a bootstrapping coder. Plus, as loyal blog readers know, Santiago is a great city for work and play, replete with enough interesting entrepreneurs and investors to keep you stimulated. Actions speak louder than words: I lived in Santiago for eight months.

The big downside of Start-Up Chile, assuming you’re not targeting Chile or the Latin America market, is you are leaving your customers, partners, and potential investors, whose feedback is especially important in the early days. Skype can only take you so far when it comes to customer development and fundraising. Plus, Chile is as far away as anywhere — SFO-Santiago takes longer than SFO-Tokyo. English print media such as the Economist and the FT do not distribute to Chile. Of course it’s easy to read news online, but this is telling of Chile’s isolation and small population (and even smaller English speaking population). Don’t think you’ll fly back and forth like you would to and from Mexico.

Despite its obvious limits, Start-Up Chile is a terrific opportunity for many high-tech entrepreneurs. It should also be a point of interest for other countries looking to foster innovation — does this rather large investment of taxpayer money actually increase local entrepreneurship in the long-run? Can outsiders effectively infect the culture with their entrepreneurial impulses? Time will tell, but I am not surprised in the least that it is Chile leading the way with this high-risk, high-reward approach.


I recently wrapped up my eight month adventure living in Santiago. I am proud to have fulfilled my goal of living in another country for a meaningful amount of time — a goal first set on my 18th birthday. Although I did not achieve fluency in Spanish (for various reasons to be explained later), I do know probably six or seven thousand words in Spanish, I got around the city fairly easily, and I could read a major newspaper cover to cover.

I experienced three historic events while there. First was the election of Sebastian Piñera, the first president not of the Concertacion political party which had ruled Chile since Pinochet. I remember the campaign, the debate, and the honking in the streets all night after the votes were tallied. Second, the fifth-largest earthquake in history shook the country on the 27th of February. I have distinct memories of that night and the subsequent days. The looting on television, the empty grocery store in my neighborhood, the aftershocks that continued for weeks and weeks, tsunami warnings, and virtually every news report referencing el terremoto del veintisiete de febrero. Third, The Chilean soccer team won two big games in the World Cup for the first time in 50 years. The country was captivated and it was hard not to be swept up in the fervor.

Chile will always carry a special place in my heart. It is a physically beatuiful country and singularly diverse in its various landscapes. The people are hard-working and kind. Its economic success is remarkable. It takes a certain patience and perspective to appreciate a city like Santiago compared to its flashy neighbor, Buenos Aires. But I like its underratedness. Of course there are things I do not miss about being there; it is an imperfect country. The flaws do not outweigh my fundamental fondess and admiration for the place. Un gran abrazo a todos mis amigos en Chile.

The Wisdom of Mike Tyson

MikeTyson_VArticle In a revealing interview with Details magazine, he displays wisdom and perspective about his former boxing life and about what's really important. Excerpt:

How long were you out of prison before you actually felt free?

Never. Not till now, really. This is the freest I ever felt in my life. And I'm still not free. But it's an awesome feeling. I got no money. I'm not a glamour guy anymore. I got friends who've got money, so it looks like I've got money, but I don't. All the money I had, forget it. I never had anything, never had a stitch on me that felt like freedom. But to have somebody by your side, win, lose, or draw. My wife's lived with me in places I wouldn't take a shit in. I wouldn't be a prostitute in some of the places my wife and I have slept.

He also talks about his obsession to win and how this characterizes all great fighters:

Because every fighter has to have that same will, that same need, that same drive . . . to impose their will on another man.

Every fighter in the history of fighting. But none like me. And, believe me, I'm not being immodest. None like me. I studied every fighter in history, at my manager's house up in Catskill, 'cause he had all the greatest fights on film, he had every last one of them, and I watched them all, every night. They were all so vicious, man. Jake LaMotta, Henry Armstrong, Carmen Basilio. Sugar Ray—God, he was vicious. But Jack Dempsey more than anyone. All these guys let you know they wanted to murder you, and they'd take shots from you, over and over and over, get beat senseless, just so they could get theirs in. Sugar Ray maybe most of all. But Jack Dempsey? He wanted to maim you. He didn't want you dead. He wanted you to suffer. He wanted to shatter your eye socket, destroy your cheeks, your chinbone. That's what I learned from Mr. Dempsey, and I believe I learned it well.

(Speaking of crazy people and obsession with winning, in this interview Ron Artest passes along more anecdotes about Kobe Bryant's legendary drive.)

In the Details interview Tyson uses a tornado metaphor, which is apt. He has a knack for metaphors. One of his most famous quotes on fear deploys pitch perfect metaphor effortlessly:

Fear is your best friend or your worst enemy. It's like fire. If you can control it, it can cook for you; it can heat your house. If you can't control it, it will burn everything around you and destroy you. If you can control your fear, it makes you more alert, like a deer coming across the lawn.

(Hat tip to Andy McKenzie.)

Clayton Christensen’s Purpose-Driven Life

Professor Clayton Christensen, in a recent commencement speech, lays out his life strategy. Excerpt:

For me, having a clear purpose in my life has been essential. But it was something I had to think long and hard about before I understood it. When I was a Rhodes scholar, I was in a very demanding academic program, trying to cram an extra year’s worth of work into my time at Oxford. I decided to spend an hour every night reading, thinking, and praying about why God put me on this earth. That was a very challenging commitment to keep, because every hour I spent doing that, I wasn’t studying applied econometrics. I was conflicted about whether I could really afford to take that time away from my studies, but I stuck with it—and ultimately figured out the purpose of my life.

David Brooks calls Christensen's approach the "Well-Planned Life." Religious people tend to call it the "purpose-driven life." Brooks then contrasts it to what he calls the "Summoned Life":

The person leading the Summoned Life emphasizes the context, and asks, “What are my circumstances asking me to do?” The person leading the Summoned Life starts with a very concrete situation: I’m living in a specific year in a specific place facing specific problems and needs. At this moment in my life, I am confronted with specific job opportunities and specific options. The important questions are: What are these circumstances summoning me to do? What is needed in this place? What is the most useful social role before me?

I don't think Brooks' description quite nails it, and calling it "summoned" is confusing as it actually implies the opposite of what it means. All in all, though, I am more sympathetic to this second approach. I'm skeptical of the notion that each of us as some singular purpose we need to fulfill.

One friend emailed me about the lack of experimentalism in Christensen's purpose-driven philosophy. Using Brooks' language he added a third experimental option to illustrate his point:

Should I climb a mountain?

  • Experiential: Sure, as long as it's not too risky.
  • Summoned: Is this who I really am? Does this fit my goals or where I'm going?
  • Planned: It's not on the list, sorry.

How was the climb?

  • Experiential: Great! or "I hated it."
  • Summoned: It suited my context
  • Planned: Climb? I was busy talking to Jesus about my destiny.