Reference: kcls.org


  1. Get personal and be authentic. Don't try to be someone you are not. Admissions officers want to get to know the real you so use your essay to show what makes you unique. 
  2. Choose a topic that matters to you and will allow you to highlight your strengths. An easy way to do this is to start by choosing one word that best describes you. Next, identify at least three of your strongest attributes and at least two significant events or experiences that have helped define who you are.  Finally, pick a topic that allows you to show your best qualities and tell your story.
  3. Be original.  You are a unique person so make your essay unique and different.
  4. Show don't tell and remember: details, details, details! You want to bring the reader into your experience by using specific examples and details that show your reader what you were doing, thinking and feeling instead of just stating facts.
  5. Proofread. This doesn't mean just using Spell Check. Have a teacher or parent proofread to catch any mistakes you may have missed.


I am not a self-made man.

Every time I give a speech at a business conference, or speak to college students, or do a Reddit AMA, someone says it.

“Governor/Governator/Arnold/Arnie/Schwarzie/Schnitzel (depending on where I am), as a self-made man, what’s your blueprint for success?”

They’re always shocked when I thank them for the compliment but say, “I am not a self-made man. I got a lot of help.”

It is true that I grew up in Austria without plumbing. It is true that I moved to America alone with just a gym bag. And it is true that I worked as a bricklayer and invested in real estate to become a millionaire before I ever swung the sword in Conan the Barbarian.

But it is not true that I am self-made. Like everyone, to get to where I am, I stood on the shoulders of giants.

My life was built on a foundation of parents, coaches, and teachers; of kind souls who lent couches or gym back rooms where I could sleep; of mentors who shared wisdom and advice; of idols who motivated me from the pages of magazines (and, as my life grew, from personal interaction).

I had a big vision, and I had fire in my belly. But I would never have gotten anywhere without my mother helping me with my homework (and smacking me when I wasn’t ready to study), without my father telling me to “be useful,” without teachers who explained how to sell, or without coaches who taught me the fundamentals of weight lifting.

If I had never seen a magazine with Reg Park on the cover and read about his transition from Mr. Universe to playing Hercules on the big screen, I might still be yodeling in the Austrian Alps. I knew I wanted to leave Austria, and I knew that America was exactly where I belonged, but Reg put fuel on the fire and gave me my blueprint.

Joe Weider brought me to America and took me under his wing, promoting my bodybuilding career and teaching me about business. Lucille Ball took a huge chance and called me to guest star in a special that was my first big break in Hollywood. And in 2003, without the help of 4,206,284 Californians, I would never have been elected Governor of the great state of California.

So how can I ever claim to be self-made? To accept that mantle discounts every person and every piece of advice that got me here. And it gives the wrong impression—that you can do it alone.

I couldn’t. And odds are, you can’t either.

We all need fuel. Without the assistance, advice, and inspiration of others, the gears of our mind grind to a halt, and we’re stuck with nowhere to go.

I have been blessed to find mentors and idols at every step of my life, and I’ve been lucky to meet many of them. From Joe Weider to Nelson Mandela, from Mikhail Gorbachev to Muhammad Ali, from Andy Warhol to George H.W. Bush, I have never been shy about seeking wisdom from others to pour fuel on my fire.

You have probably listened to Tim’s podcasts. (I particularly recommend the one with the charming bodybuilder with the Austrian accent.) He has used his platform to bring you the wisdom of a diverse cast of characters in business, entertainment, and sports. I bet you’ve learned something from them—and oftentimes, I bet you picked up something you didn’t expect.

Whether it’s a morning routine, or a philosophy or training tip, or just motivation to get through your day, there isn’t a person on this planet who doesn’t benefit from a little outside help.

I’ve always treated the world as my classroom, soaking up lessons and stories to fuel my path forward. I hope you do the same. The worst thing you can ever do is think that you know enough.

Never stop learning. Ever.

That’s why you bought this book. You know that wherever you are in life, there will be moments when you need outside motivation and insight. There will be times when you don’t have the answer, or the drive, and you’re forced to look beyond yourself.

You can admit that you can’t do it alone. I certainly can’t. No one can.

Now, turn the page and learn something.

 

—Arnold Schwarzenegger

ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS



Reference: brightside.me

  1. Don't be silent about your decision for too long.
  2. If you've no intention of getting back together, try to avoid contact with your ex.
  3. Break the news to your partner in person.
  4. Don't blame your partner for the failed relationship.
  5. Speak directly about your feelings.
  6. Don't blackmail your partner, and don't give in to blackmail.
  7. If you've decided to leave for good, don't talk about a temporary separation.
  8. Show your gratitude.
  9. Think the conversation through in advance. Try to anticipate your partner's reaction.
  10. Right after the breakup, try not to showcase your private life.
  11. If you decide to break up, then break up for good. Giving a once-broken relationship a second chance leads to nothing but frustration.


If you get on with your colleagues, are you more likely to be distracted or does it make you work harder?

By Nadira Faber, University of Oxford From The Conversation
27 October 2017

Reference: bbc.com

We routinely work together with other people. Often, we try to achieve shared goals in groups, whether as a team of firefighters or in a scientific collaboration. When working together, many people – naturally – would prefer doing so with others who are their friends. But, as much as we like spending time with our friends, is working with them in a group really good for our performance?

People have different personal opinions about this question. Some think working in a group of friends makes you more productive, because knowing and liking each other makes you more efficient. Others think it makes you less productive, because you spend too much time recapping your adventures from last weekend rather than focusing on work. So who is right?

Over the last 35 years, several studies have investigated the performance of groups consisting of friends. The performance of these groups was directly compared to those consisting of acquaintances, that is people who – in contrast to friends – have no meaningful joint past, no intimate knowledge about each other, and are rather neutral in their feelings towards each other.

A recent meta-analysis, published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, combines the results of these studies. Although the number of integrated studies is comparatively low (26), and the effects found are mostly small in size, the overall message is clear.


Good news for those who like working with friends

The meta-analysis shows that groups of friends perform better than groups of acquaintances. They achieve more when they do physical work like moving heavy objects, but also when doing cognitive work like making joint decisions. This competitive advantage holds in situations where friends depend on each other to achieve high performance, like when sharing their knowledge is required.

Perhaps surprisingly, the positive effect of friendship groups also holds when people have to work relatively independently towards a joint goal, like when each team member tries to sell as many goods as possible to achieve an impressive sales score for the team. Even though all of these tasks can be achieved by working with acquaintances, it seems that working with friends has the edge.

Friends have a competitive advantage when working in a group, according to a recent analysis of several studies 


Why does being friends foster group performance?

While the new meta-analysis can only tell us that it helps, but not why, previously published individual studies give us some clues. Put simply, friends are better at coordinating their actions. And people are more motivated to perform when they work in a group of friends.

This motivation boost can explain why it depends on the specific task as to how much working with friends can help performance. Friendship groups are particularly successful when it comes to tasks where they need to be quick, or to get a lot done. In work of this kind – think, for example, of collecting as much money for charity as possible – being persistent matters a lot. In tasks that are less about motivation than about having the right skills – for example when a team has to come up with the solution for a mathematical puzzle – friendship does not help group performance. But it doesn’t hurt it either.


The take-home message

When we want to perform well as a group, working with friends helps in many cases and is harmless in others. So, this is one of the rewarding cases where scientific findings match personal experience: both as a group researcher and as someone whose favourite collaborators are also friends, I can give the same recommendation as many managers do. Given the benefits that being around your friends has for well-being – and as we now know also for performance – work in a group together with your friends if you can. Or perhaps, try to become friends with your colleagues.

Charismatic people have mastered a complex set of communication skills which give them considerable advantage in work and life.

By Tiffanie Wen
27 October 2017

Reference: bbc.com


What do Bill Clinton, Steve Jobs and Tony Blair have in common? Love ‘em or loathe ‘em, they all oozed charisma. Charismatic leaders can inspire followers to be more loyal and work harder. But are there different ways in which leaders can be charismatic?


While BBC Capital has previously examined how being charming can help influence people in the workplace, charisma involves a rather different set of skills. Researchers have shown that charisma involves communicating (whether verbally or in written text) using powerful metaphors and anecdotes, using expressions and body language that successfully convey emotions that back up your message while displaying confidence, among other traits

Charm involves making eye contact with individuals and flashing them a smile, getting people to talk about themselves, asking personal questions and making empathic statements, whereas charismatic leaders don’t necessarily have to interact directly with the people they influence at all – they can do it from afar. So, while charmers are popular, charismatic people don’t have to be. 

“You can be charismatic without being likeable,” says Olivia Fox Cabane, an executive coach and author of The Charisma Myth.  She uses Steve Jobs as an example, someone who was deeply disliked by some of his employees but still considered to be incredibly charismatic. 

Fox Cabane demarcates several types of charisma: difficult-to-acquire ‘star power’ charisma, exemplified by Marilyn Monroe, who loved performing for the camera; ‘focus’ charisma, which involves listening attentively; and ‘kindness’ charisma, displayed by the Dalai Lama, which can be learned. 


The charisma effect 

It turns out, there are a lot of quantifiable benefits to using charismatic behaviourFor instance, when the values a leader stands for overlap with those of the people he or she is trying to influence, a ‘charismatic effect’ can occur. “People will identify with you more, they will want to be more like you, they will be more willing to follow you,” says John Antonakis, professor of organisational behaviour at the University of Lausanne.

In one 2015 study, Antonakis and his colleague found that temporary workers at a fundraising campaign increased their output by 17% after watching a charismatic pre-recorded motivational speech versus a standard speech. 

“Independent of how attractive you are, if you’re more charismatic in a short clip competing for venture capital funding, you’re more likely to get backed,” Antonakis says. “For people who give TED Talks, you’ll get more views and your talks will be considered more inspiring if you deliver the talk in a more charismatic manner.” 

Charisma can even increase people’s willingness to cooperate. Antonakis did an experiment where participants were shown a video of an actor trying to persuade them in a charismatic way to cooperate in a game that mimics financial decisions. Players were more likely to contribute to the collective benefit rather than enjoy a ‘free ride’. “Charisma can help people by not only affecting their preferences but their beliefs about what they think other people will do,” Antonakis says. 

Why do these effects occur? Research suggests it comes down to trust. A study from 2016 found charismatic leaders were more likely to be trusted by their employees, who in turn were more willing to help colleagues, show concern about the future of the team or display commitment to the company beyond their contractual obligations in other ways. 

Bjorn Michaelis, a professor of management and organisation at Kühne Logistics University in Germany and one of the authors of the study, says charismatic leaders show employees they have high ability by generating new ideas and integrity by taking personal risks for the good of the organisation. Think of CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg, who famously makes a salary of $1 and Elon Musk, who has never accepted a salary from Tesla.


Can you train yourself to be more charismatic? 

For those wanting to be more charismatic, there is evidence that it is not such a magical, or imperceptible quality as it might first seem. 

Most of it stems from the way we use words and how points are conveyed. For example, in one set of studies, Antonakis trained middle managers at a German company and MBA students to be perceived as more charismatic by using what he calls charismatic leadership tactics.

These are made up of nine core verbal tactics including metaphors, stories and anecdotes, contrasts, lists and rhetorical questions. Speakers should demonstrate moral conviction, share the sentiments of the audience they are targeting, set high expectations for themselves, and communicate confidence. Managers trained to use these tactics were rated as more competent, more trusted and able to influence others. MBA students who analysed recordings of themselves giving speeches, with these tactics in mind, ultimately gave new speeches that were rated as more charismatic. 

“Margaret Thatcher was unbelievably charismatic because of her rhetoric and use of these tactics,” Antonakis says. Analysis of a speech the UK Prime Minister delivered to the Conservative Party Conference in 1980, known as ‘The lady’s not for turning’, highlighted her extensive use of many of these verbal tricks. Her speech was packed with metaphors, rhetorical questions, stories, contrasts, lists, and references to ambitious goals.

But it’s not just how you use words that is important. Body language, gestures, facial expressions and tone of voice contribute to emotional signaling too and should match the message you want to convey. “What you need to convey [is] the appropriate emotion to what you’re saying. You need to look credible so people will trust you, ” says Antonakis. 

This is likely one of the factors that makes Hillary Clinton less charismatic than Bill, he adds. “In comparison to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton came across as a tad cold [during her run for the Presidency]; she did not convey a warm and folksy sort of image like her husband did.” He adds that her gestures, facial expressions and tones didn’t emotionally reinforce her message, making her “sound scripted.” 

Fox Cabane, who trains executives to be charismatic, especially when dealing with the public via speeches or interviews, says the strategy you use to increase the trait depends on what kind of charisma you want to exude

“Authority charisma is useful when the house is on fire and you need to get everyone out,” says Fox Cabane. “While you don’t care much about how much people like you, you do care about being obeyed.” She says the best way to improve authority charisma is to improve your self-confidence. She often sends clients to martial arts classes and emphasizes the benefits of taking up physical space, pointing to Amy Cuddy’s research on power poses. 

“Standing as if you are a big gorilla intimating a rival off the territory really does work,” she says. 

Fox Cabane describes Steve Jobs as a quintessential example of someone who learned what she calls “visionary charisma” over the course of his career. She has analysed clips of his speeches over the years. 

“In his first presentation in 1984, you can see he’s a nerd,” she says. “He’s depending on the product to sell itself. He displays no power nor presence, and certainly no warmth. “But what you see gradually through the early 2000s, is Jobs gaining the elements of charisma. He displays presence first – he looks at his audience and focuses on them rather than the product. He learns power second, gradually taking up more of the stage, and projecting his voice.”

There's another tried and tested way in which well-known figures will ultimately increase their charisma. Research suggests we often romanticise people after their death and perceive them to have been more charismatic. In a study from 2016, participants read a story about the career of an American scientist who created a vaccination for a specific bacterium. When the article emphasised that the scientist had died from a disease originating from the bacterium in question, people rated him as more connected to America, and more charismatic. 

The study also looked at newspaper references to heads of state who died in office between 2000 and 2013, and found leaders were more likely to be regarded as charismatic post-mortem

This last one may be an effective method, but we don’t recommend it.


A genderless style of dress for the workplace of the future

Reference: bbc.com

Canadian-Jordanian designer Rad Hourani creates outfits that both men and women can wear. Could this be the future of workplace fashion?


Androgynous clothing and style are nothing new. But as growing recognition and understanding of non-binary genders continues to change perceptions of identity – nowhere more so than in the workplace – is it time to rethink workwear and office dress codes to reflect this shift?

It may make sense for some companies to be more receptive to unisex or non-gendered clothing, not only given shifts in perceptions about gender identity but also given today's tendency for workers to blur the lines between officewear and fitness clothing.

Rad Hourani is one designer at the forefront of this movement. He has never understood why women dress differently from men.

“If we look back to the time of Louis XIV, men were dressing in a way we would today consider feminine, so this notion that men have to be masculine and women have to wear heels seemed strange to me," he says.

Despite having no formal education in fashion design, at 25 he started creating unisex clothes out of dissatisfaction with what was being offered on the market.

Driven by the belief that a world free of gender labels would be less divisive and more encouraging of people to be "limitless" in all aspects of their lives, he designs clothes and accessories that resist the categories ingrained in workplace dress codes.

Click play above to see how he’d create a genderless style of dress for the workplace of the future.

How is Earth's Age Calculated?

By 

When asked for your age, it's likely you won't slip (with the exception of a recent birthday mistake). But for the sprawling sphere we call home, age is a much trickier matter.

This week, Cherry Lewis of the University of Bristol presented a talk about the history of dating the Earth as part of the BA Festival of Science in York, England.

Before so-called radiometric dating, Earth's age was anybody's guess. Our planet was pegged at a youthful few thousand years old by Bible readers (by counting all the "begats" since Adam) as late as the end of the 19th century, with physicist Lord Kelvin providing another nascent estimate of 100 million years. Kelvin defended this calculation throughout his life, even disputing Darwin's explanations of evolution as impossible in that time period.

In 1898, Marie Curie discovered the phenomenon of radioactivity, in which unstable atoms lose energy, or decay, by emitting radiation in the form of particles or electromagnetic waves. By 1904 physicist Ernest Rutherford showed how this decay process could act as a clock for dating old rocks.

Meanwhile, Arthur Holmes (1890-1964) was finishing up a geology degree at the Imperial College of Science in London where he developed the technique of dating rocks using the uranium-lead method. By applying the technique to his oldest rock, Holmes proposed that the Earth was at least 1.6 billion years old.

In a report of his findings published in 1913 in the journal Nature, Holmes expressed the less-than-ecstatic reception his findings received: "The geologist who ten years ago was embarrassed by the shortness of time allowed to him for the evolution of the Earth’s crust, is still more embarrassed with the superabundance with which he is now confronted."

The Earth's age continued to be hotly debated for decades afterward. Since then, several revisions have been made. In the 1920s, Earth's age crept up toward 3 billion years, making it for a time even older than the universe, which was then estimated to be about 1.8 billion years old.

The best estimate for Earth's age is based on radiometric dating of fragments from the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. From the fragments, scientists calculated the relative abundances of elements that formed as radioactive uranium decayed over billions of years.

"It was not until the 1950s that the age of the universe was finally revised and put safely beyond the age of the Earth, which had at last reached its true age of 4.56 billion years," Lewis said. "Physicists suddenly gained a new respect for geologists."

For the record, the universe is now thought to have debuted, at least in its latest incarnation, about 13.7 billion ago.

Reference: Quartz at work


In certain professions (I’m looking at you, developers and designers) the ability to work from home is a perk regarded above all others, save a paycheck.


Employees, however, should consider their professional goals before gleefully signing on to a commute that ends at their own kitchen table or home office.


The reason is a long-known effect of social psychology called the Proximity Principle, which simply states that we’re more likely to make connections with those who live or work closely to us. While studies tend to contradict one another on whether remote workers are more or less productive, the connections you make in the office are key to your success in two other important areas: your network and your ability to innovate.


First, consider your network. Think about all the ways your professional life is shaped by the people you know. Who would you call for help finding a new job: The guy you’ve called from your living room six times or the person who sat in a cubicle next to yours for a few years and who you ate lunch with on the regular? How about making a good impression on your supervisor for a big promotion: Are you more likely to develop a relationship with a boss who you see every day or one who you only know via email? Both goals are clearly better accomplished with the people you’ve spent time with face-to-face instead of through a screen or on the phone.


Now, think about your ability to innovate. Both individuals and firms are more creative and innovative when colleagues are close. Those impromptu hallway and elevator conversations that come with office life help spur everything from faster learning to better problem solving, writes Dr. John Sullivan, a professor of management at San Francisco State University. Sullivan argues that some productivity will be lost in foregoing remote work, but “you will gain that initial economic loss and much more back over both the short and long term as a result of the dramatic increase in collaboration and innovation.”


Many businesses have figured this out. Google, Apple and Facebook are somewhat notorious for requiring office work. Other firms that were once known for liberal remote work policies are adopting new practices. Marissa Mayer famously ordered Yahoo employees back to the office in 2014 in search of more innovation. Ditto for IBM this year.


While the research focuses on the benefits employers reap when workers are in close proximity to one another, your career will likely see some of the same network and innovation upside, even if it means living in a cubicle (or an open office, which can be even worse) and enduring the many hallway conversations in which those innovation sparks don’t fly.

Jeff Bezos's Guide to life


Reference: TechCrunch

YouTube: Interview: Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos

YouTube: Gala2017: Jeff Bezos Fireside Chat

TechCruch: Inside Summit Series


Here are Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’s tips about inspiration, work-life balance, and how to be an inventor. Oh, and how it felt getting doused with champagne at his rocket landing. The world’s richest person displayed an unprecedented level of candor during an interview at invite-only getaway Summit Series in Los Angeles this weekend.


Why did Jeff get so vulnerable? Because his little brother Mark Bezos was the interviewer. Set against a backdrop of old Bezos family photos at the opulent Orpheum Theater, Jeff revealed his personal philosophy.


The final line of his high school Valedictorian speech: “Space, the final frontier. Meet me there” he said, turning Star Trek’s motto into a call to action.


How he learned resourcefulness: Jeff spent summer from age four to sixteen on an isolated farm owned by his grandfather he called “Pop”. Without access to outside help, Pop had to rely on himself. Jeff said. Pop went as far as making his own needles and doing his own veterinary work like suturing cattle. Jeff spent a summer repairing an old piece of Caterpillar construction equipment Pop had bought for $5000 — a huge discount because it was entirely broken. When the giant mail-order gears for the repair arrived, they were too heavy to move…so Pop built his own miniature crane to lift them. “He would take on major projects he didn’t know how to do, and then he did them” says Jeff.


On practicing resilience: Jeff’s Pop once tore the top of his thumb off. He had tried to jump out of his moving truck and unlatch the farm’s gate before the car slid through, but the car slammed into the gate that nearly took off Pop’s finger, which was hanging on by a thread. He was so mad that he tore the top of the thumb off and threw it in the bush, then drove himself to the hospital. Rather than have his thumb stitched to his side to regrow, Pop just had the docs do a quicker skin graft from his butt. Jeff distinctly remembers how from then on “his thumb grew butt hair”. But rather than complain, Pop would just shave his thumb along with his face. “Each time you have a setback, you’re using resilience and resourcefulness, and inventing your way out of a box” says Jeff.


On raising kids: Jeff and his wife let their kids use sharp knives since they were four and soon had them wielding power tools, because if they hurt themselves, they’d learn. Jeff says his wife’s perspective is “I’d much rather have a kid with nine fingers than a resourceless kid.”


On choosing a romantic partner: When Jeff decided he was ready to settle down, his friends set him up on tons of blind dates. He eventually knew he’d found his wife when he met someone truly resourceful. “I wanted a woman who could get me out of a third-world prison” Jeff said. 


How he knew to leave his job and start Amazon: Jeff had been working in finance software engineering on Wall Street. But in 1994, he told his boss he wanted to start an Internet bookstore. His boss told him it was a pretty good idea but that it was “a better idea for someone who didn’t have a good job.” Jeff took a few days, and decided “the best way to think about it was to project my life forward to age 80” and make the decision that “minimized my regrets. You don’t want to be cataloguing your regrets.” And while you might feel remorse for things you did wrong, he said more often regrets stem from the “path not taken” like loving someone but never telling them. “Then it was immediately obvious” that he should leave to start Amazon. “If it failed, I would be very proud when I was 80 that I tried.”


What he’d be doing if he wasn’t ‘Jeff Bezos': “My best guess is I’d be a very happy software engineer” following his interest in machine learning and AI. But he admits “I have this fantasy of being a bartender. I pride myself on my craft cocktails.” But be warned, he says he’s extremely slow. His fantasy bar would have a sign saying “do you want it good or do you want it fast?”


On his personal connection to the news and owning the Washington Post: Jeff says “Pop obsessively watched the Watergate hearings” in 1973. That might have subconsciously influenced how high he values investigative journalism, which he expressed by acquiring the Washington Post in 2013.


On the need for space travel and his rocket company Blue Origin: “We have to go to space to save earth” Jeff says, noting “we kind of have to hurry.” Still, he believes Plan A and Plan B both need to be protecting the environment of Earth to keep it livable. “We’ve sent robotic probes to every planet in our solar system. This one is the best. It’s not even close.”


On space entrepreneurship: The key to opening the opportunities of space is reducing the price of getting objects out of Earth’s gravity. “We have to lower the cost of admission so thousands of entrepreneurs can have startups in space, like we saw with the Internet”, noting how web companies exploded in popularity as infrastructure costs came down.


On phone addiction and multi-tasking: Mark says his brother Jeff is surprisingly present, and rarely distracted by his phone. Jeff explains that “When I have dinner with friends or family, I like to be doing whatever I’m doing. I don’t like to multi-task. If I’m reading my email I want to be reading my email” with his full attention and energy. Jeff exhibited this resistance to multi-tasking early in life. At Montessori school, he’d refuse to move on to the next task as the day progressed, so the teacher would literally pick up him and his chair and move him to the next project. Instead of constantly switching back and forth, Jeff says he sequentially focuses. “I multi-task serially.”


On how to establish work-life balance: “I like the phrase ‘work-life harmony'”, Jeff says. “Balance implies there’s a strict trade-off.” If he feels like he’s adding value and is a productive member of a team at work, “it makes me better at home. If I’m happy at home, it makes me a better employee, a better boss.” Don’t be someone who drains energy out of their co-workers or family. He believes it’s not just about how you allocate hours in the day, but whether you have enough energy to participate with enthusiasm.


On how to be an inventor: Because the world is so complicated, you have to be a “domain expert” to find solutions to problems. “But the danger is that once you’re a domain expert, you can be trapped by that knowledge.” You have to approach things with childlike curiosity. Inventors are the experts with beginners minds, he says.


On what defines you: “We all get to choose our life stories. It’s our choices that define us, not our gifts. You can only be proud of your choices” Jeff says. You either choose a life of “ease and comfort”, or of “service and adventure”, and when you’re 80, you’ll be more proud of the latter.


Jeff’s go-to toast: “To adventure and fellowship” he says. He says he chose the ‘fellowship’ instead of just ‘friendship’ because, “for me the word fellowship conjures a vision of traveling down the road together.”


And finally, his most ridiculous quote of the talk: When discussing the tarmac celebration pictured up top after the successful landing of his Blue Origin New Shepard reusable rocket, Jeff said “My cowboy hat still has champagne stains. The best kind of stains.”

Shine Your Shoes Like A Soldier


Reference: The art of manliness


There I was, staring down at my lackluster boots with a sinking feeling in my stomach. It was day two of basic training and we had just been informed that we had one hour to get our boots as shiny as our cadre’s (each looked as if they were covered in glass)…or we weren’t going to like the repercussions. Never in my life had I shined a pair of shoes and now I was under the gun, trying to inconspicuously imitate my roommate who grew up a military brat and had apparently been doing it since he was 5. I learned very quickly how to shine shoes that day…not quickly enough, but that’s another story for another time.

Chances are, unless you join the military, you will never have to face punishment for not having shiny shoes. Nonetheless, it is a great skill to have in your man arsenal. Whether it’s an upcoming wedding, graduation or simply another day at the office, a pair of shiny shoes can set you apart as a man that knows how to take care of himself.


Not only does shining your shoes look good, it is a necessary part of properly caring for and maintaining a nice pair of leather shoes or boots. The polish itself helps moisturize and waterproof the leather, lengthening a shoes lifespan.


How To Shine Your Shoes Like a Soldier

There are a lot of opinions when it comes to the best way to shine a shoe. Everyone has their own unique twist from using spit to using a lighter to burn the top coat of polish (cool, although potentially dangerous). The process below is a simple one that I have used for many years and it has worked fine for me and many of my military peers.


Step 1: Find an old towel or newspaper to spread over the area you will be working on. Shoe polish has an uncanny ability to get smeared everywhere even when you’re being extremely careful…and it’s really hard to get out of carpet.


Step 2: Clean the dust and dirt off your boots with a horsehair shine brush or damp rag. If you must get your boots a little wet to clean them off, allow them time to dry before applying the polish.


Step 3: Cover the entire shoe with a generous amount of polish, using your shoe polish brush. The polish I’m using is black Kiwi Shoe Polish, but be sure to match the color of the polish to your shoe as closely as possible. Make sure you get down in the seams of the shoe and attempt to cover evenly with polish. Allow 15 minutes for the polish to dry.


Step 4: Brush the entire shoe vigorously using the horsehair shine brush. The point of this is to basically brush off all the excess polish, leaving only a small film on the outside of the shoe.


Step 5: Once you feel comfortable that the entire shoe has been covered and brushed it is time to focus on the toe and heel for extra shine. Dip a cotton ball or pad into some water and squeeze out any excess moisture so it is damp, not dripping. Then get a little polish on the damp cotton. Next apply the polish on the toe and heel of the shoe using small circular motions. Sit back, this is going to take a while.


Step 6: Repeat Step 5 until you are satisfied with the level of shine. Remember to use a new piece of cotton each time and to remove all excess polish before applying a new coating. Also, the initial shine is the hardest, it should get a bit easier each time you do it. These boots were fairly new and this was my first time giving them a good shine. From start to finish, it took me approximately 45 minutes to get them to the state shown below. Most of this was spent with the cotton pads shining the toe and heel. If I were to come back in a couple weeks it would take me half the time to do the same job.


Building a Shoe Shine Kit:

Before you try to build one, if you have black shoes you can always just buy the one sold on military bases worldwide…and the one I use. It is basic, cheap and has worked for me for 6 years. Here is the link. If, however, you want a nicer kit, different colors of polish, or just like being independent, here are the items you need:


tin of wax polish

horsehair shine brush

shoe polish brush (applicator)

cotton balls

shine cloth

Extra Thoughts:


For those of you who are really hardcore, you can clean up the edges of the sole by purchasing edge dressing. It’s basically black goop that goes around the edge of the sole and makes it look shiny. I’m not a fan of it, but you may feel the urge at some point.

+ Recent posts