Skip to main content

Kings will fall

Us wannabe-managers get flooded by offers for management-courses all the time. There are wonderful things to be learned: how to manage your time (hey, do you actually have any time left, that you would like to manage? What kind of manager are you?).They teach you negotiation skills (if you don't have them, the guy on the other side of the table will always outsmart you - minutes before you even get a chance to have a glance at your cheat-sheet, because as they say 'either you are at the table or you are on the menu'). Oh, and yes, team-building skills (just accept, that nobody wants to be in your team anyway, let alone have you as the leader, if you are not male, extremly handsome, witty, generous, nonchalant and self-confident). There are hundreds such training-camps every year, every place. And they all promise to help you. The more expensive the better.
But they don't. The best they can do, is open your eyes for your weaknesses, tell you some tricks, give you a brush-up at excel-sheet managment of your work life and hand you a box with nifty rules for pretending to be in control.
One thing you have to master before you even start thinking about leading a team, heading an institute, commanding the world: control your temper. If you can't switch your adrenaline-level on and off at will, you are the wrong person.
And there is no better way learning that than playing chess. Playing chess after a round of boxing, that is. Imagine opening a game of chess with an equally smart mate, interrupt that after two minutes for a round of boxing, get back at the chess board, boxing ring, chess board... until one runs out of time or is set check-mate (in chess) or get's knocked out (in the ring). You will have to switch from cold calculations to fiery bouts and back to an all focused brain again and again.
This sport does exist and it is on the rise. It is called chessboxing and it increasingly draws excited crowds all over the world. Started as a form of art by the Berlin based dutch artist Iepe Rubingh it now is in a phase of professionalization through its World Chessboxing Organization. Iepes goal is to have it as part of the Olympic games 2016. All looks like this is absolutely doable. 
But very short term, the film-maker David Bitton hopes to get the first documentary out. He has filmed a shipload of unique material and has the most comprehensive insider view on the competing Chess-Boxing organizations, the development of which is a thriller by its own. Problem is: he needs funding, fast. So please check out his kickstarter campaign. And contribute madly!
Now.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Academics should be blogging? No.

"blogging is quite simply, one of the most important things that an academic should be doing right now" The London School of Economics and Political Science states in one of their, yes, Blogs . It is wrong. The arguments just seem so right: "faster communication of scientific results", "rapid interaction with colleagues" "responsibility to give back results to the public". All nice, all cuddly and warm, all good. But wrong. It might be true for scientoid babble. But this is not how science works.  Scientists usually follow scientific methods to obtain results. They devise, for example, experiments to measure a quantity while keeping the boundary-conditions in a defined range. They do discuss their aims, problems, techniques, preliminary results with colleagues - they talk about deviations and errors, successes and failures. But they don't do that wikipedia-style by asking anybody for an opinion . Scientific discussion needs a set

My guinea pig wants beer!

Rather involuntary train rides (especially long ones, going to boring places for a boring event) are good for updates on some thoughts lingering in the lower levels of the brain-at-ease. My latest trip (from Berlin to Bonn) unearthed the never-ending squabble about the elusive 'free will'. Neuroscientists make headlines proving with alacrity the absence of free will by experimenting with brain-signals that precede the apparent willful act - by as much as seven seconds! Measuring brain-activity way before the human guinea pig actually presses a button with whatever hand or finger he desires, they predict with breathtaking reproducibility the choice to be made. So what? Is that the end of free will? I am afraid that those neuroscientists would accept only non-predictability as a definite sign of free will. But non-predictability results from two possible scenarios: a) a random event (without a cause) b) an event triggered by something outside of the system (but caused).

No theory - no money!

A neuroscientist I was talking to recently complained that the Higgs-research,even the Neutrino-fluke at CERN is getting humungous funding while neuroscience is struggling for support at a much more modest level. This, despite the undisputed fact that understanding our brain, and ultimately ourselves, is the most exciting challenge around. Henry Markram of EPFL in Switzerland   is one of the guys aiming for big, big funding to simulate the complete brain. After founding the brain institute and developing methods to analyze and then reconstruct elements of the brain in a supercomputer he now applies for 1.5 Billion Euro in EU-funding for the 'flagship-projects' of Blue Brain -and many believe his project is simply too big to fail. Some call the project daring, others audacious. It is one of the so very few really expensive life-science endeavours. Why aren't there more like that around? Why do we seem to accept the bills for monstrous physics experiments more easily? Is