Problem Solvers

We hadn’t spent five minutes in the living room when my dad piped up with a question.

When you hung these pictures on the wall, were you standing up?

Our host— a family friend — acknowledged that she had.

Well, they’re hung too high, my father replied. But don’t worry. I’ll get them fixed.

A few minutes later, my father headed to the restroom to relieve himself. When he re-emerged, he had a quizzical look on his face. He wanted to know how long the toilet handle had been loose.

Our host admitted the handle had been that way for some time. But she insisted it wasn’t a big deal.

Nonsense, my father replied. I’m happy to fix it. In fact, I’ll feel better if I do that.

I stared at my father in disbelief. Here we were enjoying free shelter in the company of a friendly face. And instead of expressing gratitude, my father was exerting control.

But my father didn’t see it that way. He noticed that some problems around the house needed fixing. And in his eyes, gratitude came through the salve.


Every river tells a story.

So goes an old axiom.

Few other features in the natural world are as elaborately complex as river. Mountain ranges rise up to the sky in thick lines. Oceans stretch uniformly to the horizon – and beyond.

But rivers bend and wind through canyons, prairies, and forests. They dart and meander through rugged terrain with a determined ferocity.

The water in those rivers seeks the simplest route downhill to the sea. The path of least resistance.

Those twists and turns are obligatory in achieving this objective.

Much like rivers, we are taught to seek the easiest route forward. To eschew complexity and to keep from flowing uphill.

This is the mandate our family friend was living under when she left her pictures hanging too high and her toilet handle too loose.

But my father saw right through it all. He knew that the path of least resistance was futile. Things had to get fixed, as unpleasant as that work might seem. And he was going to be the one to fix them. 

My father’s resoluteness left an impact on me then. An impact that still resonates now.


Late in my elementary school years, I was asked to read The Odyssey.

The book was thick and bulky. As I brought it to class and back home, it turned my backpack into a rock.

And by the time I’d read about 100 pages, I’d had enough. The story had just begun, but I was in full protest mode.

Why did this work have to be so drawn out, I asked my mother. Couldn’t Odysseus have just made an easy, simple trip home from Troy?

My mother responded that the travails were what made the book stand the test of time. We don’t remember the stories of the warriors who had an easy trip across the Aegean Sea. We remember Odysseus because he went to hell and back on his journey.

That description resonated with me. No longer was the easy path the default path.

I realized I’d eventually be defined by the complexity I navigated, by the problems I solved. I recognized we all would be defined by these characteristics

So, I started embracing the problem solver’s mindset. I started tackling the challenges in my midst head on, instead of trying to avoid them.

This didn’t seem like a big deal at first. But over time, I started to realize how much of a seismic shift it was.

I’d become more engaged in school — fully committed to answering the questions my teachers posed to the class. I felt less helpless when my daily routine got knocked off kilter. And I started — for the first time — to truly consider what I wanted to do with the rest of my life.

Which would become an odyssey in itself.


In our age of modernity, there remains a fascination with Leonardo DaVinci.

The Renaissance figure left this earth more than 500 years ago. But his impact still resonates.

DaVinci was a polymath — a person of a wide range of expertise and interests. And he had a keen desire to express himself in many of these areas.

Much like his contemporaries, DaVinci painted frescos. But when he wasn’t holding a paintbrush, he was seeking answers to the mysteries of the day in botany, biology, physics, and engineering.

DaVinci mocked up contraptions for flying, for mobile warfare, for harnessing the energy of the sun, and for adding numbers together. The airplane, tank, solar panel, and calculator wouldn’t arrive for several more centuries. But all of them owe partial credit to DaVinci’s problem solving expertise.

I’m nowhere near the genius that Leonardo DaVinci was. But when I look at my life’s journey, I still see some parallels.

For my tale has been anything but simple. I’ve moved around the country and across the state of Texas. I’ve shifted careers and nearly gone broke. I’ve fallen headlong into new hobbies and ping-ponged between social circles.

These developments have not been without their fair share of challenges. Meeting the moment meant solving each problem in my midst, one by one, with an unrelenting air of zeal.

I needed to fashion myself as a polymath — much as DaVinci did. And I needed to harness the right mixture curiosity and grit to get difficult things done.

I’ve done that, and I’ve been rewarded for it.

But that’s only part of the story.


The movie Pulp Fiction is full of indelible characters. But the one that stands out to me is The Wolf.

The Wolf is not a costumed vigilante or a brutish thug. He’s Winston Wolf — a middle-aged man in a sharp tuxedo.

The Wolf arrives when two of the film’s main characters find themselves in an unconventional and messy situation. He helps the men get out of a jam by breaking the big dilemma into a series of smaller ones — and then making those dilemmas disappear.

This is The Wolf’s superpower. He’s a professional problem solver. A man who thinks quickly on his feet and takes control of a situation.

These days, I see a lot of The Wolf in myself. I not only have the motivation to solve any problem in my path, but I also have the touch needed to take control of the situation.

I’ve learned the principles of all this from my father, Odysseus, and Leonardo DaVinci. But I’ve learned the application from Winston Wolf.

I hope I can carry the torch they lit with honor. In fact, I hope we all can.

For problem solving needn’t be a special skill for special people. It’s available to all of us.

But no one can force us to take up the mantle. The inspiration must come from within.

Let us find that spark and act upon it.

Scope of the Problem

On April 15, 1912, the Titanic sank.

In the dead of the North Atlantic night, the luxury liner hit an iceberg. Less than three hours later, she went under, taking about 1,500 people with her.

The sinking of the Titanic — on her maiden voyage, no less — is one of the most iconic disasters in maritime history. It’s led us to re-evaluate transportation safety protocols. It’s forced us to consider our own mortality. And it’s captivated modern generations, thanks to a blockbuster Hollywood portrayal.

Yet, none of those outcomes are what drew my interest.

My fascination with the Titanic saga comes from what it represents. Namely, the disaster that ensues when we don’t understand the scope of the problem.


Long before the Titanic took sail, icebergs were a source of maritime terror.
Hulking masses of ice could suddenly appear in the seas ahead without warning. Ships — built of wood and powered by the wind — would collide with these ice masses and capsize.

The Titanic did not have this issue. Its crew had the tools to spot water hazards by day and by night, and the ship had the engine power to steer clear of them.

Indeed, the Titanic’s first officer reportedly gave orders to evade the iceberg while the ship was some distance away.

But it was too late. The ship was doomed.

The frozen mass sticking out of the water was only one portion of the iceberg. Much more of the ice lay below the surface water and was undetectable to the naked eye.

That submerged edge of the iceberg was much closer to the ship than anyone realized. Within moments, the ship’s hull smacked into it, causing catastrophic damage.

This unfortunate incident was compounded by further missteps. The crew started an evacuation, but there were not enough lifeboats for all the passengers. Furthermore, the crew had not been briefed on proper evacuation procedures, leading them to launch several half-full lifeboats. And other ships did not respond to the Titanic’s distress signals until after it had already sunk.

At every turn, the crew of the Titanic had failed to grasp the scope of the problem. And these failures cost lives.


It’s been more than a century since the Titanic went down. And yet, we seem to run into more icebergs than ever before.

A modern world, powered by technology, has provided us access to troves of information. Yet, we fail to account for the complexity layered in.

We believe that everything is simple and that the answers to any issue are as clear as day. Our confidence is through the roof, and our brashness is on full display.

Still, much lies beyond our view, just like the submerged portion of an iceberg. And if we don’t know to look for these protruding angles, we risk our own catastrophe.

Understanding the scope of the problem is as critical as ever.


In the fall of 2001, the United States Military set its sights on a faraway land called Afghanistan.

It was a nation I’d first heard of only weeks prior, in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks. A terrorist network had plotted the attack from that land. And now, it seemed like the root of all evil.

The purpose of the military operation seemed clear. Kill or capture the terrorists who attacked our land. And wipe out the Taliban government that supported them.

It didn’t take long to achieve most of this objective. The mastermind of the attacks — Osama bin Laden — escaped to neighboring Pakistan, where he’d evade U.S. intelligence for nearly 10 years. But the Taliban were removed from power, the terrorist cells were scattered, and the days of Afghanistan threatening the United States seemed over.

Into this vacuum came a new mission. The American military would now be tasked with building a western-style society in the far reaches of the Middle East. Troops helped support a democratic government, building roads and infrastructure while standing up a massive Afghan security force.

This work lasted for two decades, with a price tag rising into the billions. Thousands of United States soldiers lost their lives over the course of the operation. Many others were seriously injured.

Eventually, the United States military pulled out of Afghanistan. But before the withdrawal was even complete, the nation had fallen to resurgent Taliban forces, spawning a humanitarian crisis.

The disastrous withdrawal was reminiscent of many of the United States’ exit from the Vietnam War. Suddenly, millions of Americans were sharing their hot takes on the fiasco.

Some said the U.S. had wasted the sacrifices of so many by ceding its post in the region. Others said two decades of conflict were proof enough that those sacrifices had been made in vain.

Both sides made a compelling case. But neither took the full picture into account.

The issue was not solely how long the U.S. stayed in Afghanistan. It was the assumption that Afghans would welcome a shift to Western society.

The U.S. hadn’t accounted for the cultural nuance of the region, much as it hadn’t understood the cultural nuance of Vietnam decades earlier. Our nation had failed to understand the scope of the problem. And because of that, the efforts to solve it came undone.


Wise men say only fools rush in.

Elvis Presley once crooned these words, before abandoning this advice with the song’s next line.

I am not Elvis Presley. I’m not famous. I’m not musically talented.

But I am staying the course.

I’ve made solving problems a core tenet of my life. And yet, I refuse to rush into this endeavor.

Indeed, each time I come across an issue, I try and determine the scope of the problem first. What angles am I missing? Which perspectives can I learn from?

Such determinations take rigor. They run counter to expectations of instant solutions.

But this sacrifice is essential.

We can only hope to find real answers if we can see the whole picture. Anything less and we’re just guessing.

I’m committed to removing this guesswork from my process. I’m determined to reduce my chances of accidentally sparking a catastrophe.

Are you?