Enlightened Conflict

thought viruses & future librarians

October 19th, 2017

 

thoughts people stand up i will be defined

==========

 

“I call it a thought virus, because really what they want to do is they just want to replicate their way of thinking to other people.”

 

—-

Len Pozner

 

=====

 

Definition of a thought virus:

 

 “majority illusion, where many people appear to believe something ….which makes that thing more credible.”

 

—–

Clayton A. Davis at Indiana University

 

==================

 

 

“Nature has planted in our minds an insatiable longing to see the truth.”

 

 Cicero

 

=================

 

    “Book store owners and record store owners used to be oracles, in that way; you’d go in this dusty old place and they might point you toward something that would change your life.

All that’s gone.”

 

———-

Tom Waits

 

===========

 

trust learn unlearn information literacy thoughts librariansBoy oh boy.

 

If there is one insatiable desire the entire 7 billion people on this earth of ours shares, it would be for truth.

 

Let’s just say … from that point on it is all downhill for truth.

 

Let me tell you what I am going to tell you.

 

There is an enemy in this story — the thought virus.

 

There is an unexpected doctor in this story — the future librarian.

 

============

 

“This is the look of the truth: layered and elusive.”

—-

Anne Carson

============

 

That said.

 

I have written dozens of times about the challenges Truth faces in today’s world.

 

I have also written several times, in rebuttal to the overall dismay & despair & hand wringing of the older generations, that I believe the younger generations will solve this. They will solve it because they will find a lack of truth certainty untenable and … well … do what generations do – innovate a solution to an existing issue.

 

The issue, to me, is fairly simple to articulate <and I don’t think I am the sharpest knife in the drawer>. To articulate it I go to the 80/20 rule.

 

truth certainty doubt past present

 

 

In the past we were presented with a fact, or a truth <which is most typically a coalescing of facts> and we accepted it was most likely 80% true … and that was good enough. We figured the 20% wouldn’t change the core truth. That 20% also permitted us some space for unlearning or some adaptability to absorb an additional fact to course correct our thinking. But that factoid, because it was mentally residing in the 20%, needed some gravitas to shift the 80%. That 20% also gave some room for the doubters and conspiracy theorists and misguided contrarians to dabble.

 

In today’s world truth has flipped … we are presented with a fact, or a truth <which is most typically a coalescing of facts> and we accept it is most likely 20% true … and then we rummage around in the 80% <if we are curious> to coalesce some additional things <some facts and some conjecture>.

But, suffice it to say, a shitload of people wander around on a daily basis having beliefs grounded in a 20% fact foundation. This means they either quadruple down on their 20% <to create the 80% in their heads> or they are constantly unsure of what is truth and hat is not being buffeted about by the winds of whatever information is in the air that day.

 

This shift damns truth to a wretched game of truth or consequences because truth demands a certain amount of certainty – which we have ceded in today’s world.

 

Regardless.

 

Let me offer two words to everyone – information literacy.

 

I believe it is a commonly used term within the hallowed halls of librarianism <in other words … librarians use the term a lot>.

 

information literacy components library

 

============

Information Literacy

Information literacy is a crucial skill in the pursuit of knowledge.  It involves recognizing when information is needed and being able to efficiently locate, accurately evaluate, effectively use, and clearly communicate information in various formats.  It refers to the ability to navigate the rapidly growing information environment, which encompasses an increasing number of information suppliers as well as the amount supplied, and includes bodies of professional literature, popular media, libraries, the Internet, and much more.  Increasingly, information is available in unfiltered formats, raising questions about its authenticity, validity, and reliability.  This abundance of information is of little help to those who have not learned how to use it effectively.

To become lifelong learners, we need to know not just how to learn, but how to teach ourselves.  We must acquire the skills necessary to be independent, self-directed learners.

 

———–

Derived from the Association of College and Research Libraries’ Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education

====================

 

Information literacy is the superweapon to permit truth to battle on the field of doubts, lies and conspiracies.

I also believe we will create a new career in our battle over truth – information literacists. Let’s call them our future librarian superheroes <information literacists>.

 

=============

 

“We don’t become better because we acquire new information. We become better because we acquire better loves. We don’t become what we know. Education is a process of love formation. When you go to a school, it should offer you new things to love. “

 

David Brooks

 

==============

 

Look.

 

the day the librarians disappeared

We talk a lot about how bookstores have suffered and libraries have suffered but they are just places of learning and, in my eyes, we should be focused on deliverers of knowledge <which enables the learning>.

 

I would love future librarians to be ‘book slingers’ but I think their future specialness resides in information literacy <”truth” as it were>.

 

And that, my friends, is the future librarian.

 

The one who steps into the library and offers us the rediscovery of specialness.

 

Specialness?

 

I believe libraries should be less about the books and more about a place for the mind. My gut tells me they will need to wrestle that mantle away from the perceived ‘place of the mind’ – the internet. This shouldn’t be that difficult. The internet does NOT have a monopoly on knowledge … it has a monopoly on information. Some good information, some bad information, some false information and some true information. In today’s world there is no “judge.”

And while I would shift the character f the library to more of a place of congregation combining coffee shop, book exchange, art gallery, museum and … well … enlightened conflict <human exchange of ideas> I think the library of the future needs “information therapists” who engage in mind therapy.

 

Superheroes of the mind lording over information libraries.

 

I see libraries as havens of truth self-improvement.

I see libraries as islands of shared intellectual heritage.

I see libraries as raucous spaces of learning reverence.

I see libraries as arenas where all are victors in the battle for truth.

 

Libraries need to find a new reason for existing, a new role and a new way of working and I believe the librarian is the catalyst for the makeover.

 

hero-time-isFrankly, we do need superheroes and less “community gathering places.”

 

I am not opposed to community but … geez … truth desperately needs bold superheroes and not revered spaces of whispered knowledge among few.

 

I feel strongly about this because … well … 3 things.

 

  • My sister is an ‘information literacist.’ I have seen the power of librarians up close & personal. For years we have seen them as quiet servants of books behind some desk and now they should be encouraged to step forward and champion not just books, and literature, but knowledge. In fact … I would begin recruiting those who DO want to actively engage.

If not them, then who?

 

 

  • Society, led by some fairly vocal ‘truth benders’, are leading the charge against truth by standing up and basically saying nothing we say means anything, we’ll do what we want to do and tell you what truth is afterwards. I say that because books, and knowledge, cannot fight unless someone holds them forth as the torch is held forth on the statue of liberty. Truth, whether we like it or not, demands hand-to-hand combat. I believe we need superheroes on the side of truth.

 

 

  • Truth, more often than not, is complex. Philosophically, truth is simply the idea that ‘facts’, viewed from a human perspective, end up being nuanced and create a complex multidimensional slightly flawed diamond. Not everyone can handle truth … it most likely demands superheroes.

 

To be clear.

 

I don’t believe we should be sending these new superhero librarians out without some allies and tools.

 

Personally I believe we <including me>, who care about communicating truth and having truth reestablished, need to go back to the drawing board with regard to ‘learning’ and unlearning and … well … reintroducing truth to society.

 

I also believe Google should be stepping up to the plate.

 

===================

<about Google> This is the equivalent of going into a library and asking a librarian about Judaism and being handed 10 books of hate

 

—–

Danny Sullivan

 

===========================

 

Google needs to get their ‘truth compass’ heads out of their asses and start librarian original search enginethinking about some technology voodoo they can create, and implement, that assists in filtering out ‘the fake.’

 

Ah.

 

Fake.

 

‘Fake news’ is nothing more than purposeful disinformation using some actual fake-information – this is a thought virus.

 

Fake news is NOT opinions.

Fake news, or disinformation, is often information disseminated as ‘whole fact’ and, yet, it is a splinter <at best> of a fact.

Fake news is deliberately false and misleading information published in social media and elsewhere online.

 

But fake news … at its core … is about lies and lying.

 

But fake news … at its core … resides in some alternative universe where what you & I know <and is basic corroborated truth> does not exist. It doesn’t even have a heartbeat in that universe.

 

In that universe its citizens discard the usual rules of evidence flippantly dismissing actual eyewitness testimony as lies, actual confessions of someone who was guilty are waved away as ‘they said what they had to say’ and documented information  is scoffed at as flawed, paid for by some elite cabal, some academia gibberish … or a simple forgery.

 

In this alternative universe real information, truth as it were, is simply what someone believes <sometimes under the guise of common sense> … and they conflate “believe” with “know.”

 

======================

 

“Of course, disinformation,” Quinn said. “I can do that.

I’ll leave out critical events, then I’ll put in false information and twist everything that has happened around into a vague, shadowy history that obscures what really took place.”

 

Terry Goodkind

 

============

 

This alternative universe ends up being created from some complex inconvenient truth reassuring lie complexcombination of lies & truth which are undermining the very idea of facts, history and truth. In fact, they turn truth and facts on their heads therefore making any evidence of the actual truth & reality bogus <in this alternative universe> … uhm … which means nothing can be proven and truth becomes … uhm … “thoughtful opinions.” Ultimately this creates that 80% doubt which swallows up the facts & truth like quicksand.  In that quicksand facts become a conspiracy, a legend, a hoax, or some active effort to circumvent truth.

 

In other words … In this bizarre world truth becomes lies and lies become truth.

 

While this seems bizarre, it is dangerous:

 

============

 

“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.”

 

——

Hannah Arendt

 

===========

 

I say all of this long thought piece to state – this is a problem which demands a superhero.

 

I say all this long thought piece to state that these new librarian superheroes, our doctors against thought viruses, needs to be a defined career. It needs a career path, training and … well … I guess certifications or degrees or some shit like that.

 

Why?

 

It is suprising tricky to debunk and compete against “fake.” It is surprisingly <and disturbingly> incredibly difficult to debate with a liar. You would think that you could simply point out what is a lie … but it is not easy when dealing with a good liar. Yeah. There are ‘good liars.’

They justify what they say by saying “but its true” and defending the fraction of the whole they used against the more truthful ‘whole story.’ They thrive in the 80% doubt & uncertainty space in the information literacy world.

 

By the way … this 80% ‘uncertain truth world’ has been in the works for a while <it has just found some influential enablers of ate>:

 

————————-

This has been a long time coming. Edelman, the world’s largest public relations firm and my previous employer, issues an annual study into the state of trust around the world. Over the past few years that study has pointed to a clear trend: the erosion of trust in authority figures and the rise of trust in “people like me.” We called that the inversion of the pyramid of influence. It means that your neighbor is just as much a source of insightful analysis on the nuances of U.S. foreign policy towards Iran as regional scholars, arms control experts, or journalists covering the State Department.

————————

 

And maybe that is my point on the librarian superheroes and thought viruses … the inversion of the pyramid of influence. If that is true <and I believe it to be so> the battle for truth almost demands a new type of expert that people can actually trust. We need truth to be championed by someone other than “Joe my neighbor,”

 

Anyway.

 

Like any good <bad> virus … it is here to stay and a motherfucker to kill.axis truth direction compass tattoo

 

Truth is too important to let the current battle be fought without some superheroes on its side. The truth is the axis munid, the dead center of the earth … when it’s out of place nothing is right; everyone is in the wrong place.

 

Society, and our future, demands librarians to venture out from behind the desk and becoe information literacy superheroes.

 

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

That’s just what I think.

 

But I have to tell you a truth … truth is getting the living shit kicked out of it in today’s world and we better come up with a solution soon , therefore, my idea is as good as anything out there yet.

 

================

 

“The person who pretends to not see the truth is committing something much worse than a mortal sin, which can only ruin one’s soul – but instead committing us all to lifetimes of pain.

The truth is not just something we bring to light to amuse ourselves; the truth is the axis munid, the dead center of the earth. When it’s out of place nothing is right; everyone is in the wrong place; no light can penetrate. Happiness evades us and we spread pain and misery wherever we go. Each person, above all others, has an obligation to recognize the truth and stand by it.”

———-

Jacque Silette.

=============================

“I prefer nothing, unless it is true.”

Socrates

==========

 

messiness & enlightened conflict

October 18th, 2017

enlightened conflict think============

“Nothing is perfect.

Life is messy.

Relationships are complex.

Outcomes are uncertain.

People are irrational.”

 

=

Hugh Mackay

 

——————–

 

 

“The most successful organizations in the world are the ones who work together, play together, and get messy together.”

 

=

Jeanne Malnati

 

——————–

 

 

Well.

 

This may sound a little wacky but 98.2% of successful businesses are successful truth and conflictbecause, uhm, there is some conflict <note: I made up the 98.2% but you get the point>.

Suffice it to say … conflict, in and of itself, doesn’t make them successful … it is that the conflict tends to create the positive friction which sparks better thinking, better ideas and a better company — a more enlightened organization.

 

I often argue that conflict within an organization is natural … and healthy.

Conflict is natural because … well … while organizations try and create some ‘tidiness’ to the institution itself … the people within are messy. Inherent in this messiness is  a clashing of certainty & uncertainty, known & unknown, learning & unlearning and all the messy things thinking people do when all are aimed toward a greater vision, purpose & objective.

 

We often like to talk about business as ‘rational’ but … c’mon … Life itself is pretty messy … outcomes may be uncertain and people, particularly in business, can certainly be irrational <at times>.

In addition … truth is messy.

And if there is one thing every business seeks in their pursuit of success it is ‘truth’ with regard to “what do we need to do.”

 

Regardless.

 

It is quite possible the messiest part of any business is just the simple objective of getting good shit done.

 

It’s mostly messy because … well … people are messy.

 

Messy in terms of how we interact.

Messy in terms of not knowing what we are good at … and sometimes not standing up for what we really are good at.

Messy in terms of inconsistent communication.

Messy in terms of selective listening.

 

Messy in terms of … well … our attempts to avoiding conflict <we can turn ourselves into pretzels trying to keep things as smooth as possible>.

 

saved thoughts think dark messy self

Now.

 

That may sound like a shitload of messiness … but people, once again, naturally make business messy.

 

Oh.

Even people with good intentions are messy.

 

Yes.

Even good people.

 

Throughout my business career:

 

I have enjoyed a “force of nature” person who has forced enlightenment for the force of good.

 

 

I have endured a force of nature person with good intentions …with less than good behavior … who has forced us to face enlightenment.

 

 

I have encountered an essential force of good within a business … who doesn’t have the ‘nature’ part of the ‘force’ DNA … but is still an essential undercurrent force with which the business prospers by enabling enlightenment.

 

And the entire experience has emboldened me with a sense that even good organizations with good products and good people and a good idea … can be messy AND enlightenment … and be a force of good.

 

Yeah.

 

Sure.

I have also seen how messiness can negatively encroach into the good fiber of a business.

 

But … the one thing I can guarantee is messiness will lead to enlightenment. It is just that I cannot guarantee whether it will be enlightenment used for the force of good or enlightenment used for the force of … well … something less than good.

 

Regardless.

 

All this messiness leads to Enlightened conflict.

 

Enlightened Conflict is a term I often use <heck … it is the name of my site>. To me it has multiple dimensions of relevance to … well … not only to what I believe & what I believe should be done … but to creating a smarter thinking individual <and individuals>.

 

So.

 

recurring issues thinking-dialectic-crisisA lot of people push back on the “conflict” part.

Here’s the basic idea.

 

The more someone understands <or is less ignorant>  the more respectful the “conflict” will be.

Conflict can be debate, discussion … simply when two people have different points of view on things. It’s the basic thesis being challenged, navigating a crisis <the conflict>, antithesis all ultimately arriving at some synthesis.

 

Its not a novel idea nor a contentious idea. But it IS an idea which empowers a business.

 

 

Anyway.

 

The positive side of enlightened conflict resides in the sharing of information so that people just … well … know more. And I would hope <and actually believe> they use that additional “know more” <knowledge of some type> so they can make better informed choices.

 

ideas conflict and falureConversely … I could suggest that the enemy of ignorance is enlightened conflict. I often suggest people think about that because I could argue <and i do> that one of the biggest obstacles to any progress, in business & in Life, is ignorance.

 

Enlightened conflict aggressively attacks ignorance.

 

Therefore, any business with a future with enlightened conflict will inevitably have smarter discussions, more respectful competition between employees <and better teamwork>, become more informed and, ultimately, create better decisions.

 

And, maybe best of all, in their own way the business organization becomes more enlightened.

 

Look.

 

When I speak of enlightened conflict with businesses I am relentless with regard to my belief that little actions can make a big difference. I do that because I believe as long as you empower individuals to embrace enlightened conflict, and respectful conflict, you empower everyone to believe they are all architects of life … and fate.

 

All that said.

 

I admit.

I love a great debate and I typically feast on partially ignorant point of views. I am not that smart but I can spot a generalization or a sweeping judgment a mile away.

 

I am kind of like a vulture lurking over ignorance seeking to swoop down for dizzy the vulturethe debate.

 

It also helps that I am a curious vulture.

 

I like to think and lurk over a variety of topics. On a separate note … I am biased in that I believe businesses, and society, would be a better version of its current form if there were more curious vultures.

 

Well … at least I have admitted being a vulture.

Don’t let that stop you from loving the idea of Enlightened Conflict.

 

patriotism & enforcing conformity

October 13th, 2017

constitution american-flag-all-rights-reserved-by-jade-leyva

 

Today I discuss mandating standing for the national anthem <as President Donald J Trump appears to be advocating>.

 

While I will share my views and while I doubt Mr. Trump has ever looked at the Constitution or googled “Supreme Court decisions with regard to enforcing patriotic compulsory routines” I will share what the US Supreme Court HAS said about this:

 

===================

 

“To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.”

 

——

US Supreme Court 1943

 

==============================

 

To be clear.

 

normalizing america bad behavior values phoenixI stand for the national anthem.

 

I don’t burn flags.

 

I believe people should do the former and the latter.

 

That said.

 

I could give a shit if people stand, place their hand on their heart or sing along. It’s a ridiculous empty faux act of patriotism to simply do something because <a> you have to or <b> you do it because everyone else is doing it.

 

I respect the flag and the country but if you truly want to respect those who served, well, try not acting like an asshole to those who have served.

 

I respect the flag and the country but if you truly want to respect those who served, well, try conducting yourself in ways that make this country look like it’s less full of shitheads and more like a country whose military teaches dignity, honor & integrity.

 

I respect the flag and the country but if you truly want to respect those who served, well, try and act like we are not at war or our freedom is under attack from some outside enemy and recognize that the only attack we are under are from dickheads like Trump who claim to value freedom and independence but espouse conformity & hollow patriotism.

 

Beyond all of that, and whatever constitutional freedom of speech stuff you want to attach to this discussion, there is an additional fairly basic business management aspect – building an organizational culture is never about enforced conformity.

 

===========================

 

“Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.”america-red-white-and-blue

 

John F. Kennedy

 

=============

 

“The opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice, it’s conformity.”

 

Rollo May

================================

 

Yeah.

 

I admit.

 

I hate codes of conduct <in general>.

 

I have never been a fan of conformity in general … and absolutely hate forced conformity.

 

I hate dress codes.

 

I hate office rules.

 

I hate meeting rules.

 

Yeah.

 

all-of-you-aligned-self-normal-accountableI say that tied to the thought of how some people are discussing creating laws, or establishing rules, for standing for the national anthem.

 

I say that because this entire discussion isn’t just about being patriotic, and being a ‘patriot’… but enforcing conformity or specific behavior.

 

We try and do that shit in business all the time.

 

Well.

 

Leaders who do not understand how to build a strong self-sustaining organizational culture try this shit all the time.

 

To be clear.

90% of the time, enforced behavior, fails miserably.

 

What do I mean>?

 

90% of the time the desired behavior, which you have always forced & enforced, stops when you stop looking and stop enforcing.

 

At the core of ‘enforced’ is that it isn’t something people want to do, or maybe it isn’t something they naturally inherently do, and they do it because they have to do it.

 

At the core of ‘enforced’ is failure. People, in general, don’t like to be told to be honest, do things certain way and how to think. Trying to enforce organizational attitudes & behaviors works just as well as forced changes of behavior in personal Life <diets, quitting smoking, chewing on your fingernails, etc> — it does not work

 

By the way.

Here is the other weird thing about ‘enforced conformity.’

 

Failure even happens with the shit that <a> people really don’t mind doing and <b> people kind of know is the right thing to do.

 

It’s just that people do not like to be forced to do things … even things they kind of want to do anyway.

 

—————————-america fix myself

Seek to impose your will, and more men will kneel (if they’re permitted), and when they rise, it will be with resentment in their hearts.

Embrace liberty, and more men will rise, and they’ll do so with joy.

I want those players to stand.

I want to see their hands over their hearts.

But I want to see that happen out of love, not fear, and so long as the fear remains, a decision to stand means nothing but an empty victory in a culture war that will tear this nation apart.
———————————

 

Look.

 

We would love it in business if everyone did what you wanted them to do.

We would love it if everyone in a society did things the way they were supposed to do.

 

But you cannot enforce conformity and, in fact, just as the Supreme Court suggested with the national anthem in 1943 … you really do not want to force behavior. You want behavior to come from within the individual and not enforced from ‘without.’

 

Oh.

This is where the role of “social norms” can come into play.

Different from enforcement, that promotes top-down direction, administration and monitoring, encouraging social norms can spur, and inspire … uhm … conformity.

 

It is conformity by choice.

It is having the freedom to conform … and choosing to do so.

 

This is a powerful conformity.

 

Anyway.

 

The Supreme Court got it right back in 1943 when a small group of Jehovah’s Witnesses declined to salute the flag. They were patriots but their beliefs wouldn’t allow them to demonstrate reverence for a flag <a symbol>. The Supreme Court rendered its verdict — with words that should be etched into the minds of anyone who truly cares about who and what America is:

 

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

Those are the most famous words of Supreme Court case West Virginia v. Barnette, but it is these words which any true patriot, or leader, should ponder:

 

—————

Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.

——————-

 

In other words, the power of the symbolism & patriotism lies with the choice to honor & dignify the symbolism of a fag & an anthem.

 

In other words, compelled patriotism … the effort to force a person to say or do what they do not believe … doesn’t touch upon the true spirit of what the country stands for.

 

In other words, if I have to compel someone to be patriotic, or do acts which imply patriotism, the American Idea isn’t working.

 

In other words, mandatory patriotism isn’t patriotism at all.

 

In other words, the government cannot force someone to violate their conscience and they shouldn’t bully private businesses into doing what a government cannot legally dictate.

 

I will say this over and over and over again until the day I die — the cure for bad speech is better speech, the cure for bad behavior is better behavior and the cure for dealing with any ‘the American ideal (and idea)’ doubts is not bad enforced conformity.

 

We should inform, educate, and recommend policies, ideas & behavior that improve America but allow its citizens their freedom of choice.

 

For the best compliance, don’t just enforce the rules, establish the norms.

 

Yeah.

 

compromise life good want you theyI am sure some NFL owners will attempt some behavior-shaping constraints <fines, suspensions, etc.>. And they have that right as a business owner managing their own business & culture.

 

But I will tell them a secret <and I am hoping President Trump, who has never managed a business which demanded building a culture, is listening in> … that will not shape behavior but it will certainly shape attitudes <unfortunately, most likely not the attitudes truly desired>.

 

Forcing functional behavior is not always the best approach to shaping behavior.

 

Here is what any business leader who has ever run a business knows:

 

It takes your own to govern your own.

Not rules of conduct.

Not enforced conformity.

 

Lastly.

Just to conclude this piece.

 

Trump the asshat.

He has no fucking clue how to build a company culture. To him culture is having all the women wear their hair the same way, everyone wear a certain type of clothes that appeal to him and wear name tags with the Trump brand on it.

 

How do I know he has no clue how to build a culture without ‘enforcing conformity’?

 

The one people skill he has exhibited to date – it seems like Trump has this unique capability of bringing out the worst of people on actually the best of things.

 

Huh?

 

By using patriotism and pride in country <good> he encourages … well … wrong thinking, wrong thoughts and wrong behavior.

 

What he has done is bring out the worst in people who actually believe in a good thing.

 

What an asshat.

 

I would remind President Asshat what every god business leader knows about their employees and their culture … both good and evil lies within the hearts of most men (Alexander Solzhenitsyn) .

Most of us have the capacity to do great and good things … uhm … do very bad and evil things.

good bad person trust reliable

Leaders have a choice.

 

Either bring the best of the good out of people or bring the worst of the bad out of people.

 

You cannot bring out ‘good’ from within through some type of enforcement nor should you be seeking to try to ‘conform’ good.

 

Good has to be encouraged, not enforced <someone should print that off and put it on Trump’s mirror so he can see it every morning>.

In the battlefield of ideas (gerrymandering version)

October 10th, 2017

 maze-sledge-hammer-idea-thinking-business-light-bulb-breaking-thru-eos

======

 

Richard Lugar <Indiana senator for 35 years>

 

It takes courage to declare dozens or even hundreds of positions and stand for office, knowing that with each position, you are displeasing some group of voters. But we do our country a disservice if we mistake the act of taking positions for governance.

They are not the same thing. Governance requires adaptation to shifting circumstances. It often requires finding common ground with Americans who have a different vision than your own.

 

======

 

So.

 

This is a followup to my battlefield of ideas society version — on gerrymandering.

 

Gerrymandering is being discussed at the Supreme Court level in the United States.

 

Here is the one thing I have not heard discussed, yet, when debating gerrymandering – a desire to create battlefields of ideas.

 

Let me explain.

 

Inherent to gerrymandering is a lack of conflicting ideas to debate. When there is no ideology to compete against the one which will … well … win … then the only ideas which are discussed are the ones that people already deem to be worthy already <this is an ideology discussion and not a battle of ideas>.ideas trapped trapped politics life change business

 

This creates an environment in which a citizenry gets trapped in the same doom loop of existing ideas and ideology never to be freed to view new ideas <or unearn the ones they currently have>.

 

Gerrymandering is driven by politics in America which is an eat or be eaten world.  I could, and will, suggest this is not only not healthy for democracy it is also unhelpful to progress.

 

====

 

“The difference between a politician and a statesman is that a politician thinks about the next election while the statesman think about the next generation.”

 

James Freeman Clarke

 

====

 

I would be arguing to the Supreme Court <and most likely would be laughed out of the court> that democracy is about progress and gerrymandering is not about progress. My rationale for that argument is that lacking any real battle of any ideas there is no progress.

 

But, maybe more concerning, is that if you do not battle over ideas the people, the citizenry, become intellectually hollow. I am not suggesting everyone needs to be an intellectual but I do believe people should be more invested in a better understanding of facts, ideas & pragmatic realities versus ideological opinions & perceptions of truth.

 

Look.

Simplistically … I think this is what people want in a candidate from an economic & success standpoint:

 

  1. Correct identification of the actual, major problems.

 

  1. Plausible, workable solutions <ideas>.

 

best worst people think idea do live lifeI am not sure we want Politicians who deal in the pragmatic reality of governing and how it matters to the everyday business & person … but that is what we need.

 

Without a battlefield of ideas, which gerrymandering eliminates, we don’t discuss what we need … we end up discussing what we want.

 

That is bad.

 

I listen to the rantings of politicians who seem far more caught up in ideology and party positioning than they do in honestly meeting the deep challenges of our economy, the needs of our people, and caring for an environment which is capable of sustain our children’s children.

 

I listen to the rantings of politicians discussing what is right and what is wrong <with regard to citizen assistance> and then witness hurricanes, wildfires and poverty destroying lives and property and then begin to question our priorities when we are unable to respond adequately.

 

Gerrymandering should be discussed not as a structural democratic decision but rather a societal “idea debating structure” discussion. We should be discussing that we want a voting construct which actually FORCES a battle of ideas so that we, the people, can be sure we actually GET the best ideas.

 

I want to listen to the rantings of politicians who are caught up in ideas and the battle to articulate their ideas so that … well … we are here because we have a better idea.

 

What would I do?

Back on February 1st 2016 I offered this thought:

 

  • Stop districting voting blocks.

 

Having republican voting blocks <districts> and democrat voting districts is reckless thinker doer idea workcrazy.

Make a politician win the popular vote in the area they will be representing is in that district. All the people.

I don’t want a republican county or a democrat county … I want a ‘people county’ selecting by popular vote a person to represent their county interests.

Oh.

If you do this, it permits you to choose ALL politicians by popular vote <President included>.

In almost every Gallup poll since 1944 only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state <about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided>.

Regardless.

Politicians designed redistricting so that politicians could benefit. This is political reengineering at its crudest and worst.

What bullshit.

If we are truly a Republic <which USA is> than the people should design district policies and idea <so that they encapsulate their needs and wants – schools, taxes, infrastructure, etc.> and then by popular vote select a representative who wins the battlefield of ideas.

Remove districting as a variable.

I don’t want a district predestined to select a specific party.

I want voting districts to become battlefields of ideas not partisanship.

 

—————————

outside the box realism idealism think ideasThat was just a thought.

 

I also believe we should have mandatory voting.

 

If I truly believe I have a societal problem in that people are not invested enough intellectually in the ideas that matter to them and to the country then maybe I should enforce some involvement.

 

Do I believe everyone will be an engaged spectator in the battle field of ideas?

No. Of course not.

 

Do I believe MORE people will be an engaged spectator in the battlefield of ideas?

Yes. I surely do.

 

In the end.

 

What I would like is someone who doesn’t insult me with superficial promises and silly diatribes that stoke fear.

 

What I would like is someone who doesn’t insult the intelligence of any and all people and a political system which not only does NOT encourage this but actually penalizes politicians who pander.

 

What I would like is for political campaigns to become battlefields of ideas.

 

I would also like a leader to … well … lead in this discussion.

And … well … Trump is not that leader. He continues to not want to battle on ideas but rather try and win battles by process & procedure <and pandering and superficial promises>.

Frankly, this does nothing to improve society or true understanding of what is right or wrong.

 

And … well … Obama was that kind of leader. He continued to battle on ideas. He didn’t always win but he battled on ideas. Just as a reminder <because there is some untrue criticism of Obama with regard to Fox News> this is what he said in an interview with Bill O’ Reilly:

 

What Obama actually said about Fox:

 

Asked if he was unfair to Obama, the president responded to O’Reilly: “Of course you are, Bill. But I like you anyway.”

“This list of issues you asked about – they’re defined by you guys in a certain way,” Obama continued. “But this is OK. If you want to be president of the United States, then you know you’re going to be subject to criticism.”

 

 

I bring up the Obama/Trump comparison to state that while I wish we had a ideas break the mold new think conformpresident who would encourage a battlefield of ideas … we do not.

 

Therefore I think the entire gerrymandering discussion takes on a completely different hue. It shouldn’t be about who wins from a political party perspective but rather who wins on the battlefield of ideas.

 

The only way I know to do that is to drive debates in a geography which demands some aspects of centrist-type ideas and , inevitably, to a more centrist position where people begin to understand compromise, the trade offs of ideas and neighbor’s wants & needs and wh0 & what represents a greater good rather than “what I think.”

 

And the only way I know to do that is to eliminate gerrymandering and use whatever basic districting which creates a mish  mash of … well … parties, races, incomes, whatever … and force a battlefield of ideas.

 

in the battlefield of ideas (society version)

October 10th, 2017

 thunder lightning ideas storm dark business

=======

 

 “The appropriate response for horrible language and horrible ideas — the appropriate response is a better idea.

 

We are here because we have a better idea.”

 

—–

Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria

 

===================

 

“It’s no longer the case that technologies of communication merely accelerate the public discourse, they now ensure that every possible public discourse happens simultaneously. It’s not one damned thing after another. It’s every damned thing all the time.

And so in place of a deliberative democracy, in which we as a people could acknowledge, and even tolerate, our differences while working through complex tensions at a pace consistent with social cohesion, we get a no-holds-barred battle royale in which all things are always at stake — in which we’re fighting every culture battle, past, present, and future, right the hell now.”

 

—–

Daniel Foster

 

===============

 

Ok.

 

Hugh's Missing the Point

 

I tend to believe everyone knows that we are in a world in which ideas are getting the shit kicked out of them.  For the majority of people ideas float on the superficial surface of our awareness waiting for us to pick one out when it catches our eye.

What that means is rarely do we do any deeper dive to see what else may lie under the surface.

 

This is happening for a variety of reasons … but the one that bothers me the most is the overall lack of interest in ‘deliberative discussion.’

 

It seems like in the battlefield of ideas it is a kill or be killed world in which we instantaneously shoot one death ray, attempt to deflect the one which was launched at us, and assumes, in this assault, only one walks away alive.

 

Ideas do not fare well in battles like this.

 

The battles in which ideas thrive are the grind it out battles. The ones in which there is an ebb & flow with strategy and strategic maneuvering and there are … well … strategic compromises made in order to win or achieve the objective.

 

As I have said before … to truly win on the battlefield of ideas you actually need ideas communicate media training shrinkingto suffocate bad ideas, suffocate objections and suffocate ignorance not by shouting <which just adds oxygen to a room and an idea> but rather by squeezing the air out of the idea.

 

But in order to do that you need to engage in deliberative discussion and … well … not be a coward.

Battles are for neither the lazy nor the cowardly.

 

 

Deliberative discussion means you just cannot randomly pick up an idea off the superficial surface and walk away.

 

You need to engage … well … deliberately. You need to step onto the battlefield of ideas <either as an engaged spectator or a deliberate contestant>.

 

And maybe this is where I get most grumpy with ‘we the people.’ While we may have a shitload of good excuses it almost seems like the majority of people deliberately resist the invasion of ideas.  This almost takes as much effort & energy as actually deliberately participating in the invasion of ideas.

 

This grumpiness on my part made me revisit something I wrote back in 2016:

 

The conflict of ideas does not have to reside in any open debate. You don’t even need another person. Ideas invade in any number of ways. They plant themselves in boxes you have forgotten you even had. They grow to a point where you cannot ignore them anymore and begin to battle existing ideas you have. It becomes … well … a war between learning and unlearning … new and old … what you knew and what you know.

 

I imagine my point is that we are on the battlefield of ideas whether we choose to deliberately be there or not.

 

In general, I this means we are failing society if we do not deliberately participate in some way.

 

In general, this means we are failing society <and ourselves> if we deliberately  curb the ‘art of the idea battle’ by deliberately deciding to  curb the art of critique & criticism <which is at the core of the deliberate discussion>.

 

This is almost societal malpractice on our part because criticism has a role in an effective battlefield of ideas in that it tends to hone the point of attack and … well … sharp edges break through ignorance & well-formed opinions.

 

Some would call this “the ability to unlearn.”

 

But ,maybe more importantly, by avoiding this battlefield of ideas we have ceded the ground to not only the cowards but also the assholes. The ones who do not seek to battle over real ideas but rather simply to win an opinion <note: opinions CAN be ideas but real ideas are rarely just opinions>.

 

Look.

 

business i have come to do battle legacy defineI have nothing against my idea winning <in fact … I like it a lot> but I imagine my point is that the bar for acceptable good behavior to win has dropped significantly.

 

Studies show it.

 

Shit.

 

Just watch the people around you or watch some tv and you will actually see it.

 

And this lack of acceptable behavior affects how we battle. And, well, that matters because a battle poorly fought means ideas lose or suffer and opinions <and assholes> increase their odds of winning.

 

Anyway.

 

I think we all know that Life isn’t just solely about winning and losing … and this is even more relevant on the battlefield of ideas.

 

I think we all know that some basic good behavior isn’t something that needs to be dictated but rather it is simply something good for common humanity within a population with a desire to have better things and do better things than we are doing today … and this includes better ideas.

 

I think we all know that behaving well, at least relatively speaking the majority of the time, has a reward that may not always show up in pride, power & pay but rather almost always in dignity, honor & … well … certainty … and this is important in the actual battle of ideas.

 

I would argue that the three things I just outlined matter a shitload because if we do this then we will … uhm … treat ideas more fairly and less divisively … even as we battle over them.

If we do these things,it tends to lead people to an overall belief, and understanding,  that the idea is fairer for the greater good & society, that the institutions <and the people battling the ideas in the institutions> will treat them more fairly and the world, in general, will end up treating them more fairly <because the ideas are fairer and better understood>.

 

Ah.debate feel facts stories battle of ideas

 

Better ideas better understood –that is the outcome of not only behaving better on the battlefield but permitting a real battlefield of ideas.

 

I do believe we are behaving more badly.

Suffice it to say that if everyone took one step back and viewed the battlefield of ideas and the behavior on the battlefield and viewed the wide spectrum of current behavior from good to heinous, well, it just doesn’t paint a pretty picture.

 

Not only are there not a shitload of pretty ideas out there being battled over but how we are battling ain’t so pretty either.

 

Frankly, we are acting more like assholes every day.

 

Even the people who are trying to stand up against the assholes.

 

And in doing so while societal discourse suffers the largest loser in all of this assholishness are the ideas.

 

==================

 

“Only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.”

 

———-

Barak Obama

 

===========

 

Lastly.

 

With all of this assholishness behavior floating around and ideas suffer … you have to hunker down and understand it’s not personal … it’s about ideas.

 

I know. I know.

Conceptually this is a tasty high road we like to offer everyone who sits at the idea table.

Realistically … well … this one is difficult to swallow.

 

On the battlefield of ideas while the ideas can often do some mighty hand to hand combat far too often the messenger gets personally attacked.

 

But.

 

Here’s the deal.

 

I could care less if I turned on the TV and saw Bruce McTague sucks on every channel I went to. Sure. It would sting but, well, at least in the good ole USofA I have the right to speak my ideas and have the opportunity to rationalize my ideas … and others have the right to criticize … me & my ideas.

 

It’s not personal.

 

At least it’s not if you believe it is a battlefield of ideas and not a battlefield of people ideas think light business‘messengers’ or personalities.

 

We need a battlefield of ideas. And we need this battle to be fought every week, every day, every hour and possibly every minute.

 

Why?

 

The appropriate response for horrible language and horrible ideas — the appropriate response is a better idea. We are here because we have a better idea.

 

We deserve not only better ideas but the best ideas. And the only way I know to get the best ideas is … well … to have a battlefield of ideas. The world, and society, would be a much better place if we actually stopped battling over meaningless things and battled more over the truly meaningful things — ideas.

 

truth resounds & 59 squared

October 3rd, 2017

real thing false world truth subtle

=============

 

But resounding with the truth of things prophesied,

But of things with truth resounds

 

 

Но    вещей    правдою  звучат

No v’eshchej   pravdoju   zvuchat

 

 

 

Its lips are covered with blood!

Lips covered with blood

Уста, запекшиеся  кровью!

Usta, zap’vekshi’esa krovju!

 

———-

Ophelia’s Song: Alexander Bok

=================

 

“Beyond a doubt truth bears the same relation to falsehood as light to darkness.”

 

Leonardo da Vinci

 

=================

 

 

infinte world of possibilities touch

59squared.

3,481.

 

3481 squared.

12,117,361.

 

12,117,361 squared.

1.5 billion.

 

That’s three degrees and I am at almost 1/5th of the entire world.

 

Yeah.

 

The numbers are really not that neat but you get the point.

 

With a single event, a single death, one person can set off a chain of events that will affect hundreds of thousands, millions and even billions of people.

 

Some people call this “6 degrees of separation” <although I showed it to you as only 3>.

 

I didn’t make up the squared concept … in some form or fashion it reflects the truth of the internet of things and connectedness. And … sadly … it shows the likelihood that the majority of us have some connection to the 59 people who died, the 500+ injured, in the Las Vegas shooting.

 

I say this because it makes it personal. Shit. This IS personal.

 

The main point here is that a person now has access and is aware of more people <true friends as well as web based friends> and can have more frequent communication due to the ‘digital revolution’.

 

Yet.

 

Social media is simply the fact that the traditional benefits of an acquaintance network <personal or professional> and friendships can be more expansively thinkers lotsrealized than before.

 

This means that truth resounds more quickly & clearly & bluntly than ever before.

 

The other truth is that our own experiences, and Life, can then be at the mercy of crowds of friends & acquaintances — crowds providing unsolicited input & feedback & experiences all influencing hordes of additional people’s thoughts on a daily basis. This means whether you are present in one place or not you can be impacted in the present place you stand. You are a nomad in which the world remains your home.

 

Our world is now one large network consisting of two basic things – people and connections.

 

And while many times we look at this as some forced or constructed network <Facebook, twitter, etc. provides hubs and constructs> the reality is that most people networks & connections are organically constructed. So while we like to draw out nice symmetrical shapes to define how connections work and networks are constructed the reality is that networks are more often not symmetrical.

 

The unique patterns in the connections determine the shapes. We reach out in asymmetrical ways to places, events and thoughts and bring them near in seconds.

 

In addition the ties between the connections can be complicated – spanning from intense or passive.

 

In the business world we try to characterize networks and connections in a variety of ways. The trouble is that people are not that orderly and certainly not stagnant and they actively reshape their connections, interests and networks all the time.

 

But I am not here to discuss how the internet can, or cannot, affect personal relationships or a sense of individual isolation but rather this is a thought on how the internet can make things, and Life … well … smaller.

 

ship-home-world-life-is-us-hereOn a day like today, a day after an event like what happened in Las Vegas, this rings true.

 

However .. .on most days the ‘quasi-truth’ that resounds in the echo chambers of what we talk about and ‘think we know’ is that the internet is isolating us … disconnects us from reality and social interaction.

 

So … is it possible that the internet increases connection and decreases connection at exactly the same time?

 

Yup.

 

The Internet connects and it isolates.

 

The usual assumption that most of us make about our computing and communication environment is that we are ‘always’ connected.

 

Indeed, most of us are ‘nomads’ when it comes to computing and communications. We live in a disconnected world much of the time as we travel between our office, home, airport, hotel, car, coffee shop, bedroom, etc.

 

We now recognize that access to computing and communications is necessary not only from one’s `home base’, but also while one is in transit and/or when one reaches one’s destination.

 

It is an anytime, anywhere access world. It is also, paradoxically, a ‘be anywhere at any time’ world.

 

That is the connected aspect which … uhm … creates the whole disconnected aspect.

 

Well.

 

Let’s just say we feel slightly disconnected in a connected way … uhm … until something happens that tightens all the lines of connection.

 

It is within moments like that where the supposed 6 degrees of separation becomes less degrees and more links … all of a sudden the 59squared aspect of connectedness occurs.

....... making "they" smaller ........

 

 

The world gets smaller … in fact … really fucking small.

 

 

We are brought together and something that happens to 59 people, or even 559 people, becomes an experience within our own grasp.

 

Which brings me back to truth and resounding.

 

The majority of our social networking constructs today are on the internet <or have a foundation on the internet>.

Simplistically, we, the people, are connecting via the internet. What this means is that the internet muffles or amplifies our voices, events and truth <as well as lies unfortunately>.

 

What this means is that … well … an event, a moment, a death, an injury, resounds … resounds as in 59squared.

What THAT means is … well … we have to face a truth whether we want to or not.

 

In this case … we are touched, connected and affected by one person with weapons of destruction destroying the lives of someone, and someones, which in some way we are connected to.

 

I imagine I thought to say this today because now we will end up entering into the gauntlet of what to do about this to stop events like this in the future or if we can even do something at all.

 

And I fear, in the end, we will do nothing.

happy-sad-optimistic-pessimistic-world-life-news

 

We will remain disconnectedly connected in our little asymmetrical networks of friends & acquaintances.

 

That was a sad sentence to type.

 

At this point, my conclusion, I imagine it may be relevant to remind everyone of 59squared and the fact that I can do one thing, one right thing … or one wrong thing … and it will resound.

Choose your ‘one thing’ wisely.

 

 

====== back in October 2015 I shared my thoughts on what to do =======

What I am NOT for is irresponsible quibbling and inaction after a shooting tragedy. It is a complex issue that demands something more than a pithy simple solution soundbite. A gun, an individual & a society.

 

struggle for the soul of e pluribus unim

September 25th, 2017

 

be-better-exponentially

=======================

 

“Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written.

And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes.

I personally resent it bitterly.”

 

Isaac Asimov

 

===============

 

“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

 

Samuel Johnson

 

=======================

“When tyranny comes to the United States, she will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a bible.”

——

Gore Vidal

 

=============

 

 

Well.

 

Trump is exhausting. I think not only to me but to America. Day after day, week after week, he seems to attack … well … e pluribus unim <out of many, one>.

Trump seems to thrive on dividing and the conflict that arises from dividing.

 

some men just want to watch the world burn leaders managers business told you so

 

I admit.

 

On occasion I sit back and think of Alfred in Batman … some people just want to see the world burn.

 

Anyway.

 

Donald J Trump went to war against professional black athletes this weekend under the guise of patriotism <albeit his attack is blended with that instinctual subconscious racism which Trump seems to invariably inculcate almost everything he does with>.

 

They fought back.

kneeling patriots NFL

 

That said.

 

I just had to explain to someone this weekend that I don’t hate Trump – in fact I don’t believe he is worthy of any emotional energy on my part – but that I hate his inability to lead, to unite and to … well … offer a north star with regard to some fairly important discussions that any country should have and must have … and will have.

 

one person flawed perfect save

I hate that his take on America is not e pluribus unim <out of many, one> but rather unim pluribus e <I made that up> … or … out of one, many.

 

He has done some absurdly horrible leadership things since he has taken office but this weekend, in which he unequivocally used patriotism to suggest that black athletes peacefully protesting what they believe is a social injustice were not only unpatriotic … but should be fired for not showing patriotism, is just … well … horrible. Horribly unpatriotic in fact.

 

Uhm.

 

That last thing said. Like it or not … patriotism is not a prerequisite for citizenship. In fact … I would suggest that on any given day a fairly significant swath of the USA population is relatively disappointed in the America. That doesn’t make them any less patriotic, nor does it make them disrespect America, it is like having a quarrel with a loved one … I still love you but at the moment I am not the happiest person in the world with you.

 

Regardless.

 

It is absurd to make this a patriot versus non-patriot issue <but that is what Trump is doing>.

 

Frankly … it is absurd that some people suggest this is a ‘political’ issue … this is a social issue.

 

And Trump is our head absurdity – he is our scoundrel.

 

untrustworthy scoundrelScoundrels, when challenged, will often use false patriotism in order to shut up their opponents.

 

Scoundrels will use false patriotism to suggest a black athletes who earns more money for their skills than a hard working white American is a lesser ‘American’.

 

Scoundrels will use false patriotism, tweeted or yelled, to attempt to affect the economic realities of an industry or specific individual’s income.

 

Scoundrels will use false patriotism to flirt with some casual racism.

 

Scoundrels will use false patriotism to … well … actually attack what could be construed ‘patriotic freedoms’ <items actually listed in the Constitution>.

 

I don’t find it hard to believe Trump is a scoundrel … and, yet, I continue to be shocked by the numerous things that Trump does to violate the norms of not only the Presidential office but the norms of American freedoms as well as the norms of … well … business.

 

He represents 330 million people and the economic wellbeing of all businesses <which benefit all people> and, yet, he seems to have no problem calling out individuals and individual companies as ‘unpatriotic’ <because they balk at his self defined “america first”>.

 

It’s hard to think of a group President Trump hasn’t offended or attacked as a candidate or in office:

 

Women.

Establishment Republicans.

Democrats.

 

.......... Trump attacking ... well ... everyone ........

………. Trump attacking … well … everyone ……..

Journalists <“sick people … thieves and crooks”>.

TV hosts.

Pollsters.

 

NFL players.

NBA players.

Gold Star parents.

 

POWs <McCain>.

The “Hamilton” cast.

Jews <several times … and, yet, “Israel” is good>.

 

Catholics <Pope Francis criticisms “disgraceful”>.

Muslims.

 

Immigrants.

African Americans.

Latinos.

<never white people … even if they carry Nazi flags and say “Jews will not replace us”>.

 

LGBTQ community.

New Hampshire residents <“a drug-infested den”>.

Mexico.

Belgium.

Germany.

London.

Paris.

<add in another dozen countries>.

 

NATO.

The UN.

 

A variety of individual companies.

A union leader <or two>.

 

Steph Curry.

Snoop Dogg.

 

 

Whew.trump divide america tweet shout nonsense

 

I think the only ones left are nuns, white/straight/Christian men, Putin and Ivanka.

 

I could argue that Trump is offering us the most insidious unpatriotic thought of all … “anyone who does not agree with my self defined version of America First is not patriotic — a true American.”

 

Whew. That’s … well … insidious.

 

But … you know what? All of this means that Trump is demanding we fight not only for the soul of the nation but also make a decision with regard to “e pluibus unim.”

 

Fight?

Out of many, one slips off the tongue easily. We like it … maybe even love it. And it becomes easy to say “well, the flag embodies this.”

It is easy because it is tangible and simplistic.

 

Here is the unfortunate truth we must all face; even our scoundrel of a president, America is an idea. This does not diminish the importance of the flag as emblematic of America as a whole because … well … the flag IS actually emblematic of the whole. By that I mean the military does not have the sole ownership of the flag <and I have the utmost respect for the military with multiple friends in the military> but rather all, the many/pluribus unim, use the flag as representative of ALL the ideas that make up America. Many have died for those ideas … some military and some not.

 

America is an idea lived out by ALL the people.

 

America is an idea lived out by people who embrace the soul of the idea of which America is founded upon.

 

I wrote once a while back that “with our new President I recognize we are now one-just-principle-strength-life-livein a struggle for the soul of America – a struggle for our moral core.” And while I still believe that he has brought an entirely different dimension into this struggle … a struggle over patriotism.

One would think this is a relatively easy discussion but Donnie Two Scoops, in his intellectually hollow way, simplistically has decided that patriotism is defined by “not kneeling” or “not burning the flag” … in other words … ”flag above all”.

 

Look.

 

I would not kneel during the national anthem but I am not black nor have I faced the social injustice that African Americans face day after day. But I would certainly show support, and respect the choice, of anyone who believed they should.

That is patriotic and that is America. Freedom to show protest and freedom to show support in the way I choose.

 

Ah.

Maybe the bigger question is would I kneel if I was so disappointed in America so much that I needed to make a stand? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm … I imagine I would.

I don’t know what the issue is but I could envision it.

 

But this whole NFL/sports/black athlete versus Trump issue is simply one more data point showcasing the ongoing struggle for the soul of our nation AND what ‘e pluribus unim’ really & truly means.

 

I am personally determined to take up this struggle in any way I can … and anywhere. That, to me, is the patriotic thing to do.

 

plan badly oops cornered

……. my little corner of the world ……….

And I will do whatever I can in my little corner of the world. I will fight back by showcasing individual norms which I believe should help guide societal norms & patriotic norms and ‘e pluribus unim’ norms… better than what I believe our current President offers.

 

We need some people to stand up and hold our moral compass up high so that we can rediscover the soul of America and set forth toward the North Star.

 

We need to stand up and recognize how easy it is to overlook false patriotism <because patriotism seems to be something we can all agree on>.

 

Sigh.

 

Day after day this scoundrel sitting in the Oval office does things that remind us that we are now not only in a struggle for the soul of America and a struggle for our moral core … but he is challenging “e pluribus unim.”

 

Let us be clear on one thing.

 

One incredibly important thing.

 

Our President does not appear to have a soul of integrity & dignity only a core of ‘win at all and any costs’ nor does he appear to believe America has a soul other than a platitude of ‘patriotism’ <which he seems to think is made up of solely of military, law & order and power> nor does he appear to be centered on any moral imperative beyond ‘winning’ <and looking impressive & strong>.

 

To be clear. That is false patriotism based on some incredibly hollow thinking.

 

Regardless.

 

This, simplistically, a false narrative of false patriotism offered to us by a false leader.

 

I believe there is a time to stand with strength, there is a time to be competitive, there are winners and losers and not everyone should get a trophy and that being nice isn’t an imperative with regard to how you play the game or be competitive.

I believe in America, respect for the flag and that patriotism is a powerful energy underlying ‘e pluribus unim.’

 

I can almost 99% guarantee the American Symbolic Chief, or our President, only cares about how you look while you play the game <the ‘trappings as it were> and wraps himself in an American flag without understanding what the flag stands for.

 

Everyone should remember in this struggle that Trump is hollow and in his lack of leadership ‘e pluribus unim’ runs the risk of being driven by platitudes an superficial ‘branding’ exercises rather than true understanding of what makes ‘one out of many.’

And everyone should be thinking that Trump should be the last fucking person to be defining patriotism for us.

 

Sigh.

 

If anyone doubts the patriotism of someone who kneels during the national anthem, I will end with this thought.

 

==============

 

“I got a daughter, she’s going to have to live in this world. I’m going to do whatever I got to do to make sure she can look at her dad and be like, ‘Hey, you did something, you tried to make a change.’”

 

—————

Miami Dolphins player Michael Thomas

 

=============

 

I cannot figure out how that is not patriotic.

 

 

big secrets make small people

September 20th, 2017

 

============

 

“Community is the fact that we work toward the same goal, that we accept our respective roles in order to reach it.

 

Values is the fact we trust each other.

 

And, culture?

 

Culture is as much about what we encourage as what we actually permit. That matters because most people don’t do what we tell them to. They do what we let them get away with.”

 

—-

Fredrick Backman

 

===============

 

“You don’t know what you can get away with until you try.”

 

—–

Colin Powell

=================

 

 

Well.

 

secrets we all haveThe relationship between secrets and culture and community is one which is fraught with contradictions, conflict and humanness.

 

I imagine this conflict is driven by the natural chafing between self-interest and community <I have called this community individualism & Enlightened Individualism in the past>.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

 

We talk a lot about community and team and all of that good stuff. And we talk about it with good intentions. The problem is that true community demands some sacrifice.

 

Therein lies our big secrets.

 

On occasion we decide self-interest is more important than sacrifice.

 

Uhm.

 

This is a version of ‘what you can get away with.’

 

That phrase sounds horribly horrible. It suggests nefarious type behavior. But the truth of it is most of us see what we can get away with on some very personal day-to-day less-than-nefarious type stuff.

 

We cut some corners.

We maybe don’t tell people how we truly feel <or who we truly are>.

We steal some post-it notes.

 

These are our little secrets.

 

We may even have some bigger personal secrets that we decide are just not things we want to share <these are not nefarious … just personal>.

 

 

Regardless.

 

secret own control hide

 

For many of us … our behavior arcs toward what we can get away with. That doesn’t mean it is completely unethical, or some abhorrent behavior, just that while norms set a ‘median’ standard guideline Life is constantly suggesting ‘but this one time you can get away with doing this.”

 

The problem resides with the friction between culture & community and self.

 

What I mean by that is the stronger & more powerful the cultural community norm is the bigger your secret becomes if you avoid the norms.

 

This secret takes on exponential size if you start believing that the norms that are good for you are good … and the ones that don’t match up with what you believe is your self-interest are bad.

 

You only accept the existence of the formal and informal cultural norm structure that constitutes accepted community construct … only as long as that suits your purposes.

Your big secret, therefore, doesn’t have to do with your own behavior but rather in your non-belief ,if not overall disdain> for the community norms.

 

This leads me to hate.

 

hate everythingWhy hate?

 

When you decide to see what you can get away with you have to mentally divide community into “we” and “they.” And in doing so you make ‘we’ good <which suggests what you can get away with is on the side of good> and you make ‘they’ bad.

 

This is a simplistic tactic for attempting to carry the burden of a big secret.

 

Hate is simple.

 

Hate can be an incredibly powerful empowering emotion.

 

Why?

 

In this scenario, using hate, the world becomes much easier to understand and less confusing, in the scheme of things, if you divide everything into friends & enemies, good & evil, right & wrong and a basic we & they.

 

This helps us because the world is strewn with conflict. Not just physical war but of ideas, thoughts, beliefs and attitudes. Cultures, communities and classes are bombarded with conflict after conflict. And maybe because of the sheer amount of conflict one of the first things we do is pick sides. We choose a side to stand on because … well … it is easier. It is easier than thinking or, even more difficult, trying to hold parts of two ideas which appear in conflict in our heads at the same time.

 

And once we have chosen a side we then go out and seek some information, or ‘facts’, to confirm not only what we believe but the side we have chosen – this permits us to maintain the status quo and chug along with Life as ‘normal.’

 

Oh.

 

The last thing we do is demonize, or dehumanize, the other side. We diminish them. Make them, their thoughts & ideas, lesser than.

....... making "they" smaller ........

……. making “they” smaller ……..

 

I would suggest this all just makes you smaller as a person <carrying around a big secret>.

 

Big secrets make small people … yeah … unfortunately all of us become smaller with a big secret.

 

 

And this smallness is compounded by the unfortunate fact that you become even smaller when ‘we’ are the people who others HAVE to keep big secrets from … because they believe, and know, we cannot handle them <or don’t believe in them>.

 

All secrets carry a weight to them.

 

===

 

“To agree to keep a secret is to assume a burden.”

Sam Harris

===

 

In fact … I could argue that all knowledge is a burden. It carries a weight of responsibility with regard to what you do with it … how you act because you have it … as well as how you think about you, and others, with it.

 

Having accepted knowledge you have made an agreement with it. I tend to small to big secrets life people communitybelieve we don’t think about this. We accept knowledge as … well … maybe like income earned – disposable income in fact. We worked for it, we earned it and it is now ours to spend as we choose.

 

But knowledge is actually more like freedom. It is an unalienable right but it is also a privilege … and therefore one assumes a responsibility to it.

 

Uhm.

 

And with responsibility comes burden. Which almost sounds odd in that something with ‘free’ in it also carries such a heavy burden.

Maybe I should just suggest that nothing really comes for free … everything has something attached to it.

 

Knowledge?

 

Responsibility … the burden of responsibility. And that is a weight you carry … one which can be as light or as heavy as you make it. But. It is a weight nonetheless. One which you learn to carry well or carry poorly.

 

Knowledge tests our ability … and our character … with regard to how well we can carry this weight. It tests how strong we are .. once again … in ability an character.

 

Having said that <and most likely having a number of people feeling a little unconfutable thinking about knowledge that way>.

 

Secrets are a completely different level of a knowledge burden.

And secrets are tricky.

 

Some are thrust upon you … unwanted but yet yours nonetheless.

 

Some are gifted you … carefully shared by someone who believes the weight it carries is too much for themselves … alone.

 

Some are just yours … built by you and carried by you.

 

But regardless of how you assume the responsibility of a secret … it is also basement of my brain secret meetingknowledge. And therefore it also carries a burden … a responsibility … and a weight.

 

I don’t have the scale to weigh them but my guess is that a knowledge secret exponentially weighs more than a traditional knowledge.

 

I also don’t have any research but I also tend to believe, just like extra physical weight, as soon as we start feeling the extra weight of a secret … we seek to shed it.

 

Therein lies the true test of character.

Therein lies how big secrets can make small people.

 

All knowledge tests you. Secrets test you even more.

 

Knowledge, and secrets, take a strength of self to carry its weight.

The weight of responsibility of having the knowledge, the weight of freedom knowledge typically gives us … and the weight of character that knowledge either makes you bigger or makes you smaller.

 

Whew.

That is a lot of extra weight we have accepted by taking on these secrets.

 

And this is where I bring in good … as in good people doing good things … as in good versus almost good.

 

That sometimes very thin line can make a massive difference in life. That sometimes very thin line can decide whether your secret makes you bigger or smaller.

 

Look.

 

If you are clever enough, even if you embrace community, you can get away with a shitload of stuff. But cleverness does not eliminate the fact you gain a bigger secret burden with every action.

 

And you know what?

 

The “community” knows we struggle with this a individuals. In fact it has even intent help flaws self bestcreated some ‘auxiliary precautions’ to help us avoid unnecessary secrets.

 

Huh?

 

This is James Madison’s Federalist Paper #51 or “if men were angels” argument:

 

===========

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

=================

 

We are no angels as people.

 

Secrets bear that truth out.

 

And … well … we all carry secrets.

the oversimplification crisis

September 11th, 2017

 

occam economy choice simplify

====================

We miss out on the value of the message itself as a vehicle for driving virality.”

 

Jonah Berger

 

==================

 

“Say something meaningful in an interesting way.”

 

Bruce McTague

<author of “the shortest business book ever written”>

 

===================

 

 

So.

 

 

oversimplification wrongThis is about how we have a simplification crisis.

 

 

Ok.

This is about how we have an oversimplification crisis.

 

This crisis is making us … well … stupid.

 

 

Ok.

This crisis is making us stupider.

 

 

Look.

 

What I mean is that in a world in which we know that everything is complex, and more often than not, more complex than our own pea like brains can handle, we unerringly swerve toward simplistic headline conclusions and oversimplifications and absurd bullet point conclusions.

 

This surface skating intellectualism just makes us stupider.

 

Now.oversimplify assumption risk life business

 

We may convince ourselves we do this simply as a mental survival technique but I would argue, and I do, that it actually is the opposite of a survival technique … it is destructive behavior. It is destructive in that it destroys the overall thinking of what is actually a population quite capable of being intelligent, if not intellectual.

Yeah.

It makes us stupider.

 

I thought about this the other day because I have conversations with some incredibly smart and talented people who know a shitload more about more things than I could ever imagine and this topic came up. I note the smartness of these people to highlight how unusual it is that I can say something that actually can make a group of these people stop, be silent and then go “hmmmmmmmmmm.”

It is a rare thing.

 

And, yet, it happened the other day.

 

After some extensive conversation on North Korea, global trade challenges, Trump <of course> & foreign policy we opened the discussion to “what is the biggest challenge facing us …”

 

My thought drew some <thoughtful> silence.

 

I said “oversimplification.”

 

To me … oversimplification misleads and creates bad decisions and, worse, creates bad thinking <which leads to bad opinions, attitudes and thoughts>.

 

And I offered a couple reasons why I believe this is happening <I did this because if you can identify the issues you can find solutions>:

 

 

We have convinced ourselves we do not have time for complex

 

 

big fat waste of my time business show for itGoing back to the ‘destructive behavior’ thought I shared earlier …  oversimplification is anything but efficient. It actually demands more time in a variety of ways. The two simplest ways it does so is <1> the time we over invest attempting to isolate the simplest version of what is anything but simple and <2> the amount of time & energy we have to invest explain everything beyond the simplistic tripe initially offered, to thwart misguided behavior & reactions to the oversimplified offering & to redefine the oversimplification into bifurcated parts of the oversimplified whole.

 

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves that we all have shorter, and shortened, attention spans.

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves that people best retain “one thing.”

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves in our perceived “never enough time” world we have to topline everything <to fit everything in>.

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves that in a blizzard of nonstop things constantly vying for our attention the only way to capture someone’s attention is in some pithy soundbite.

 

Basically we have convinced ourselves that hollowing out an idea and a thought actually benefits not only the idea and the thought … but us!

 

This is fucking nuts. Absolutely crazy.

 

Unfortunately, and truthfully, some things are just too complex to communicate in a sound bite or in 3 seconds or less.

 

No matter how brief and simple you want to make it … well … it is neither brief nor simple. It is complex and sometimes the opposite of brief.

 

It isn’t just about telling a story.

 

Nor is it just about finding influencers to broker the story.

 

Nor is it just about practical value.

 

Nor is it just about emotion.

 

Unfortunately it is a combination of those things. Yeah. Effective communication is … uhm … complex.

 

 

We have convinced ourselves that simple & simplicity is reflective of common sense.

 

 

time to do it right do it overI admit.

 

I have never been shy about calling bullshit on the simplistic tripe being spewed under the guise of ‘expert advice’ or ‘common sense.’

 

That said.

I will suggest no topic has  been tortured more by common sense than simplicity.

 

 

Common sense suggests the simplest thing is the best.

 

Common sense suggests it is easier for a person to remember one thing and one word.

 

Common sense suggests in a complex world we humans crave simplicity.

 

Common sense suggests in a busy world we only have time for simplicity.

 

Common sense suggests a lot of nonsensical bullshit.

 

I will not argue that making something as simple as it can be is good but … well … simplistically … oversimplification is misleading and ultimately creates bad less-than-informed decision making AND thinking.

 

We have used this common sense simplicity bullshit for one simple reason — it serves us well in challenging the most established legitimate rule of Life & things. And that rule is “the world is complex.”

 

We embrace simplistic solution after simplistic solution, all labeled as ‘common sense ideas’, which are often counter to what an expert would suggest <which is often deemed “too complex”>…  only to find 90% of the time common sense was not only just simply wrong but also made us stupider.

 

I have written about simplicity and the complexity of finding the simplest way to communicate the complex many times and as I do so today I would remind everyone of what Jonah Berger offered us for a nifty sound bite compilation of sound bites to create a sound bite philosophy:

 

Here are his STEPPS for making anything go viral:

 

–          Social Currency: We share things that make us look good (even if that means pictures of our cat).

 

–          Triggers: Easily memorable information means its top of mind and tip of the tongue.

 

–          Emotion: When we care, we share.

 

–          Public: Built to show, built to grow.

 

–          Practical Value: News people can use.

 

–          Stories: People are inherent storytellers, and all great brands also learn to tell stories. Information travels under the guise of idle chatter.

 

And while this is about “making things go viral” it is actually about finding the simplest way to communicate complex shit in a way that it is actually retained in a cognitive way.

 

I would also note that this dos not reflect “one simple thing”, sometimes your total obliviousness blows my mindit does reflect the complexity of reality and the mind and it reflects how to … well … help make us less stupider.

 

Ah.

Cognitive way.

As in “we actually understand what it is we heard, saw or read.”

 

That is an important thing to ponder because over simplification cheats cognitive value as well as the value of whatever it is you have to offer people. Simplicity may be “memorable” but it doesn’t really lodge itself in anyone’s mind & memory in any meaningful way.

 

In fact.

 

The less depth you offer in your oversimplification the more you are at the mercy of the mind that decides to remember you. What I mean by that is if you don’t provide the depth the mind will create some perceptions around whatever it lodges in the pea like brain.

 

Uhm.

 

This means the pea like brain lodges only what is actually the brain’s perceptions of what to remember and not what you <a> know to be true, <b> think it may be important for that mind to know or <c> want the brain to store away in its mind.

 

faulty reasoning oversimplification overlookI imagine what I am talking about is some wacky version of awareness versus engagement but that shit is bullshit too.

 

It’s all bullshit because we should be turning away from simplification and engagement and connection and simply focus on “say what you need to say to persuade someone to think or do what you want them to think or do.”

 

All the other bullshit just confuses things.

 

If I tell someone that ‘being noticed ‘ is the most important thing, than some asshat is gonna come up with some zany oversimplified shit that gets noticed but doesn’t effectively communicate one thing <let alone all the things you may have deemed truly important in the beginning>.

 

I admit … I balk at a lot of the bullshit offered online about simplification <and the importance thereof> because … well … it is an oversimplification which diminishes the importance of ‘communicating depth’ and increases the importance of ‘being noticed.’

I do not like that equation.

 

Effective communication is not a binary choice.

 

Effective communication, as with almost everything, is a complex challenge in communicating a complex thing well – because if you can communicate a couple things well it actually increases the perceived value <which then inevitably creates a stronger “memory stamp” … with value attached!>.

 

Which brings me back to our oversimplification crisis.

 

I could clearly argue that in today’s fragmented messaging world where information multiplies at light speed and a day still remains 24 hours that we humans are constantly honing our “incoming thoughts” filtering mechanisms.

 

I could also argue that our filtering system, as it exists today, sucks.

 

We have dumbed down our communication and thinking behavior to such a hollowed out status the majority of time we skate along the superficial irrelevant surface of reality.

 

If we are lucky, the ice doesn’t crack.

 

But the truth is that oversimplification only offers the thinnest of ice to skate on and inevitably we fall thru the ice … over and over and over again.

 

Uhm.

 

And in the business world falling through the ice is bad. It is, metaphorically, making a bad decision based on shallow thinking and paying for it.

 

Yeah.

I did say the biggest issue we face is oversimplification.

I said that because if I can solve this, if I can have smarter people communicating complex things more smartly and I can have more everyday schmucks understanding that simple solutions are more often like trying to place a square peg in a round hole … well … I think it unravels a shitload of other problems we face in today’s world.

 

I imagine I am arguing that if more people are less stupid and more aware of the reality of things the more effective & efficient we will be in addressing the difficulties reality tends to place in front of us.

 

period end-of-story_design

 

In the end I will go back to where i began … “say something meaningful in an interesting way.”

 

There are no rules nor boundaries in this statement.

 

You use as many words, or as few, as you need to say … to say something meaningful in an interesting way with the intent for it to be understood … and, ultimately, persuade someone to think something.

 

Period.

Enlightened Conflict