Enlightened Conflict

leaf without a tree

March 4th, 2013

So.

Studying history, and using what you have learned, is a tricky challenge. Often we study history, and the past, so that we can “not make the same mistakes.” Well. The attempt is one of valor <and good intentions> but most actions using historical learning are misused <as they are misguided>.

“If you don’t know history, you don’t know anything. You’re a leaf that doesn’t know it’s part of a tree.” – Michael Crichton

—-

“History is not, of course, a cookbook offering pretested recipes. It teaches by analogy, not by maxims.” - Henry Kissinger

—–

Henry <or Hank to his friends> also said …

“The study of history offers no manual of instructions that can be applied automatically: history teaches by analogy, shedding light on likely consequences of comparable situations. But each generation must determine for itself which circumstances are in fact comparable.”

Now.

Studying history is always good <that is a Bruce postulate>.

How you use what you learned studying history is always a challenge <that is a Life truth and an ongoing Life debate>.

Too often people want to use historical “learning” as a literal guide for what to do now <or in the future>.

You cannot.

Sorry.

But you can’t.

I do not care if we are talking about business, life or economics.

You cannot .

Hank, discussing Foreign Policy, actually walks us through a nice way to think about this.

Intellectuals analyze systems & situations while statesmen build them.

And therein lays a vast difference between the analyst and the statesman. The analyst can choose what problem he wishes to study whereas the statesman’s problems are imposed upon him. The analyst can allot whatever time is necessary to come to a clear conclusion while the overwhelming challenge of a statesman is time. The analysts runs no, or little, risk. If the conclusions prove wrong he can rewrite and reanalyze. The statesman is permitted only one guess and his mistakes are irretrievable.

Sure. Typically the future is simply a version of the past. But what makes it challenging is that what appear to be superficial changes, that sometimes make it easily recognizable, are the things that transform situations into unrecognizable changed situations. In addition … we tend to ignore the ‘collection of people’ variable .

In the end? We wonder what happened <and why we didn’t learn from history>.

Well.

As Kissinger states … history teaches by analogy, not identity.

Unfortunately this means that the lessons of history are never automatic.

That they can be apprehended only by a standard which admits the significance of a range of experience, that the answers we obtain will never be better than the questions we pose.

Now.

I do believe no significant decisions are possible without at least an awareness of the historical context.

For everything exists in time more than they do in a moment in time. What I mean by that is an explanation of ‘context.’ You may not be able to completely replicate the exact time, place, situation and experiences of any & all affecting what you are studying <or even replicate a majority of those variables> however you can gain a sense of choices that were available and choices made. This is contextual learning.

Because people forget that what they are studying is a given moment which is simply a situation where it is not only a reflection of a collection of individuals <and their experiences> but that situation also achieves a unique identity through the consciousness of a common history <those individuals are studying that particular moment colored by,or driven, by perceptions of beliefs of that time>.

The only possibility of learning is studying history within the collective memory.

It is not often that we actually learn something from the past. And it is even rarer that we draw the correct conclusions from it.

Why?

The lessons of history <and Life experiences also> are contingent.

That means they teach the consequences of certain actions … but they cannot force a recognition of comparable situations.

Well.

That is a BIG thought right there.

One that many of us should think about more often.

Let me translate <for my own pea like brain>.

History is contingent upon a series of factors … and to make it exponentially more difficult … contingent upon a continuum <horizontally> as well as simultaneously <vertically>.

Yikes.

That means exactly replicating the situation in which you are ‘learning from’ is … well … pretty much impossible.

The variations and variables almost seem limitless <try pointing that out in your next business meeting when someone says “what did we learn from past experience”>.

And … well … gosh … doesn’t that kind of make you rethink every business book you have ever read?

Regardless.

History is just that … history. A series of factors & variables all aligned for one moment in time <vertically & horizontally>.

Therefore … change is not only the constant but it also possibly represents the only legitimate path to progress.

I say that to suggest that change may actually freedom from the past.

And to suggest that history, when one decides to live it and not learn from it, can cage you.

I know.

Learning to break free from the history that holds no value <or decreases value> is difficult. It is easier to simply use it as a handbook of ‘what to do.’

If we truly seek to learn <and teach> we cannot be subjugated to history.

If we truly seek to be better than what we already are … we cannot do simply as history ‘dictates.’

But all we really feel most comfortable with is remaking things in the image of historical learning.

Well.

I guess that means to remake things better we have to be … oops … uncomfortable.

I believe what I just wrote will make a boatload of people very uncomfortable <assuming anyone understands what I wrote>. Why? Well. This kind of thinking can drive you crazy … particularly if you want to simply study and create conclusions <rather than hypotheses>.

So. The how do most people, and businesses, get around this type of thinking?

They suggest that they have isolated the most important variables … and can draw a correlation to the current situation … draw some conclusive conclusions … and isolate the best plan of action.

Well. They are nuts <if not crackpots or liars>. I do not doubt 99% of the intent of these people but they are still wrong. History provides context not analogy. Now people <in general> do not like that. It makes them feel uncomfortable. They want to know unequivocally that they will not be ‘making the mistakes of the past.’ Sorry. Can’t happen. You may be able to reduce the odds but cannot unequivocally guarantee it. Oops. Big trouble in the working world if you say shit like that.

But it is Truth. Truth in a business world. Truth in Life.

Another truth? <and something that most people will also feel uncomfortable with>

Studying history will make the in-the-moment decision better. I did not say “using history to make the decision” but rather “people who have studied history will better be able to CREATE a unique decision in the moment.” Yup. I used the dreaded ‘unique’ word. Most decisions are discreet <unique to the moment>. That makes people feel very very <very> uncomfortable.

Regardless. It is a Life truth.

In the end?

“Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought.” – Basho

Well.

That is a nice uncomfortable thought to end on.

temporary advantage

January 9th, 2013

“Every advantage is temporary.” ― Katerina Stoykova Klemer

And.

“… the only true advantage is knowledge.” – <someone I cannot find at the moment>

So.

This thought of temporary advantage, and knowledge, is easy for business but it is also relevant to Life.

Let me begin with business <because, frankly, it is easier>.

Businesses are always seeking an advantage.

And they should.

I imagine the point I am going to make <in the end> is that most businesses don’t consider ‘advantage’ as temporary. When it actually happens … they treat it as sustainable and want to ride it all the way into the sunset <or as far as the horse will carry them toward it>.

And ultimately that becomes their downfall.

Couple of thoughts.

First thought.

Most often all energy is invested in developing a distinct product, or service, or some tangible advantage.

In fact gobs of money is spent against this objective.

Definition of gobs? Lots of money & time & intellectual energy. And this typically leads to some type of patent <if you are smart> or, at minimum, something different enough you feel it is … well … different <you may actually convince yourself after eating a pound of M&Ms in focus groups and multiple cocktails staring at your navel that it is “unique”>.

Now. Let me tell you a business truth.

Product advantages are actually fairly easy to attain. In fact … they are a dime a dozen. Yup. Sorry about that.

Here is the other business truth.

The majority of product advantages are indiscernible to anyone but the one who developed it. I call it ‘dancing on the head of a pin’ differentiation.

Frankly? It is all wasted energy <mostly>.

Personally I prefer to aim for a competitive parity product that has enough meaningful benefits that it can compete over time <in other words … it is a sustainable product> … and use knowledge to be an advantage.

Sound crazy? Maybe.

Sound painful to say to management? Yes. Trust me … I have the scars to prove how painful.

But if you can keep your head out of your egotistical ass you actually have a chance to see this idea through to a very profitable, sustainable profitable, conclusion.

This translates into the ability to keep the product competitive but limit the amount of investment you have to invest to update/improve/trash & reinvent.

And use knowledge to sustain advantage because knowledge is a changing environment … never stagnant.

Next.

Second thought.

Sustainable advantage.

Sustainable advantage is really rare.

Extremely rare <unless you define ‘sustainable’ as ‘we did it for a week’>.

And, frankly, many businesses are actually too slow to take advantage of their … well … advantage. The window of advantage does not stay open long.

Businesses work to gain it <the ever elusive ‘advantage’>. They get it. They build plans to take advantage of the advantage. They go and do … and … well … their advantage is not only as advantageous as it used to look … but in many cases it is no longer even the advantage that you thought it was. The window is closed. Oh. Maybe worse? To your dismay you look around the room and another frickin’ window is open.

Damn. Wrong window at the wrong time.

That’s my quick acerbic soundbite for businesses on temporary advantage.

Personally I believe many businesses mismanage ‘advantage.’ Mismanage through incorrect attitude and in incorrect behavior.

Not only do they typically think incorrectly they also implement too slowly … and ultimately they do not know when to ‘abandon ship.’.

Regardless … now that every business person wants to send me a scathing personal email I will move on to the next topic.

Life.

Yup. I will discuss Life and temporary advantages.

We all know Life is challenging. And that is so mainly because it is always changing.

Just when you think you have at least one thing figured out Life moves the thing <hence the term “life sucks” was created>.

To even have a chance to be competitive with Life you have to continuously gain knowledge and adapt. There is no formula for gaining knowledge … sometimes you read something, meet someone or see something that changes your knowledge.

That is self stimulated gathering of knowledge … and it takes some fortitude and self desire to do so.

Therefore thank god for kids (youth in general).

They are a natural incentive to stimulate knowledge growth to maintain advantage. I worry about people like me, who does not have children, as well as those who ignore the knowledge, and stimulus to learn, young people offer. I guess my point is that we should use kids as a knowledge stimulant <rather than ignore them or subjugate them to our past tense type knowledge>.

I thank god I am a reader. It permits me to at least maintain a competitive place in a restless world. Notice I didn’t say competitive advantage.

Just be competitive.

I say that because I fully understand I will never find a competitive advantage against life. Well. Maybe I get a glimmer of an advantage on occasion. But it is fleeting. I keep a constant eye on the fact you gain knowledge to try and keep up. And every once in a while you get really lucky and dash ahead for a second or two.

Two things about that ‘glimmer of the advantage.’

First.

Some silly people delude themselves into believing they have a competitive advantage in life. And, yes, they are delusional. People like this don’t seem to understand that Life is like a river constantly flowing. They quit paddling to rejoice in their ‘advantage’ and … oops … all the crap in life not only feverishly paddles by to get ahead <and lay some traps> but some of Life’s crap may actually slow down and do their best to smack you around a little <because a moving target is harder to hit so when you stop paddling you are easier prey>.

These people confuse ‘glimmer’ with ‘this is my new home.’ That is why they are delusional … because normal people could never get confused by those two things.

Second.

I worry about the people who never even gain one glimpse of the advantage. Because a glimpse gives hope you can win … at least on occasion in life.

No glimmer? No hope? That worries me.

How can anyone, even the strongest of the strongest, keep going on without hope for something better?

I am fairly sure I couldn’t.

I struggle to see how anyone could.

Anyway.

I now envision someone cranking up an email with a thought on “hey, hold on a second, you seem to be suggesting becoming a chameleon … and don’t you always talk about being true to yourself at all times?!?” <please notice I used a rare exclamation point just for emphasis>

Despite the fact I will give that someone cranking up an email major points because that means someone actually has read some of my drivel in the past … I will quickly go to this quote:

“Adaptability is not imitation. It means power of resistance and assimilation.” – Mahatma Gandhi

And then I would answer this way … in business and in life … the core is the core.

That core is the “me inside” and that is the sustainable competitive product. And by product I mean a product being a manufactured product or simply you <or me>. Anyway. That competitive core probably doesn’t have any advantage … it is simply able to go on day after day, year after year and … well … continue to ‘be’ … to exist. It <you & I> compete in Life <or with Life> because of a good steady core.

Adaptability through knowledge leverages your core … and means possible temporary advantage.

That’s it.

That’s my point.

1855 and 2012 (or … an Open Letter to My Generation)

September 19th, 2012

Dear My Generation <us older folk>,

Ok. I feel like we need to have a talk. Not just a talk but maybe a ‘talk talk.’ You know what I mean. Now. I am going to avoid the “am I better off today” topic but suggest in an open letter to my generation that we may not be in an economic crisis but rather a cultural crossroads. And I may suggest that we need to quit complaining and/or blaming and step up to the plate. Anyway. It seems like we get so caught up in ‘how bad – we feel/perceive – it is today versus yesterday” we overlook this period in time may simply be an example of painful well-needed progress <oh, isn’t all progress painful?>.

“Progress? The history of all times cries loudly against it.” – Immanuel Kant

Note #1: Versions of this thought were recorded in Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Note #2: The idea that we are bad, and getting worse, feels remarkably comfortable across cultures.

Note #3: My generation seems to be crying loudly at this time.

This thought is also true for each generation’s belief, or nonbelief, with regard to our views on human nature and its prospects. Most cultures have a myth of a golden age from which we are in decline, but in the absence of evidence on whether the state of nature was violent or utopian or truly golden or gold plated.

Note #4 <or rather a question>: so … is much of our current angst about the world simply a reflection of the fact attitudinally we change, progress, is painful … as well as difficult to see while within the moment?

Ok.

What made me think about all of this?

I had some beers the other night with a bunch of guys in my generation <old white guys … I am also an old white guy>. Prior to beer I was fairly optimistic with regard to the world and when I left I had a sense of several of the following:

- Armageddon is upon us <at least the old white guys>

- The world is crumbling around us <and it is mostly Obama’s fault>

- America is a pansy in foreign policy <we should be killing, crushing, smothering someone … yet to be identified but it should have already been done>

- The Islam slur video on youtube is simply an expression of freedom of speech

- Cats & dogs are living together <but cannot be married>

- We are doing nothing but complaining, bickering and blaming someone else

Personally I find it difficult to discuss progress when most people I hear think we are headed to hell <in a hand basket> and want to complain someone should do something about it or just blame someone for it.

Regardless. I am gonna try. Because I need to tell some things that are on my mind to my generation <us older folk>.

The truth is that all times are changing times. Times of moral and mental transformation whether we like it, or want it, or not. When what is viewed as simplicity by looking in a rear view mirror looks like chaos when viewing through the front windshield. What everyone knows is true becomes only wht some people used to think.

In the end? It is unsettling. For all our delight in innovations and impermanence we also long for the unalterable. We cherish old stories for their changelessness.

Oh. And media is doing its part to feed this frenzy. As retired General Wesley Clark said on a Sunday interview … “isolated multiple incidents involving the few being highlighted by the media creates perceptions of overall chaos.”

But the media is a different post for another day.

Now, I am not suggesting we shouldn’t look around with concern … albeit I would rather call it a ‘crossroads’ rather than the more popular ‘C’” word … a crisis. Because, yes, things are changing, but, yes, they are always changing.

That said … I am reminded by Rousseau: “let us begin by setting aside all the facts for they do not affect the questions.”

The question is why we are so certain the world is going into a shithole <or into chaos … or … in a crisis … pick your poison>.

Attitudinally I suggest this is partially what Gregg Easterbrook calls “the progress paradox.”

It suggests that frustrations rise with our expectations, and make us feel worse while we are actually getting better. Political interests, and media, deliberately exaggerate bad things. But it doesn’t explain the joy we seem to gain from seeing our glasses as half empty.

It is difficult to explain but I am not writing to do so … only to make the point that while we gnash our teeth about what is going on today … we have this in common with any culture and any generation you would like to query <you may need a medium and a crystal ball to ask some>. Every age produces prognosticators who declare it is worse than what came before. They might turn out to be true but within the moment it is always difficult to say whether one is declining or progressing.

It is a see saw of challenges and new innovations.

Robert Bork suggested <in an otherwise unreadable book of despair>: “every new generation constitutes a wave of savages who must be civilized.”

Despite being poetic he has a point. We learn from history and we ignore history.

Each generation wants to create a unique identity … which means you begrudgingly assume things from past generations /history. All that said the true thought is there to be found … for moral clarity for each generation we need to conserve the bits of decency left. For it is within a sense of decency we can see the progress within the seeming chaos.

Part of the difficulty in doing so in times like these is that we tend to feel better when we assume the worst.

Huh? Yeah, But It would be too easy to suggest optimists may spend their lives being disappointed while pessimists spend theirs being pleasantly surprised <although I do believe there is an element of this>. Plus. If you buy this then it suggests my generation is simply a generation of pessimists … and I refuse to believe that.

Optimists or pessimists, good or evil … frustrated or just simply believe “these are the worst of times” I will take a minute to let my generation read two items from the mid 1800’s. I included these thoughts to show some words that I believe resonate today. In fact, take the dates off and they could appear in NY Times next week:

“The dream that this young land, fresh from the hands of its Creator, unpolluted by the stains of time, should be the home of freedom and the race of men so manly that they would lift the earth by the whole breadth of its orbit nearer heaven … has passed away from the most of us , as nothing but a dream. We yield ourselves, instead, to calculation, money making, and moral indifference.” – 1855 magazine writer

“it is an affair of instincts, we did not know we had them: we valued ourselves as cool calculators, we were very fine with our learning and culture, with our science that was o no country and our religion of peace … and now a sentiment mightier than logic, wide as light, strong as gravity, reaches into the college, the bank, the farmhouse, and the church. It is the day of the populace; they are wiser than their teachers. The interlocutions from quiet looking citizens are of an energy of which I had no knowledge. How long men can keep a secret! i will never speak lightly of a crowd. We are wafted into a revolution which, though at first sight a calamity of the human race, finds all men in good heart, in courage, in a generosity of mutual and patriotic support. . We have been homeless, some of us, for some years past … but now we have a country again. This affronting of the common sense of mankind, this defiance and cursing of friends as well as foes, has hurled us, willing or unwilling, into opposition.” Ralph Waldo Emerson 1861

The late 1850’s into the 60’s was a time when the men and women, an extraordinary cast of characters in leadership & influencer roles, find themselves at a crossroad of new ideas–about medicine, commerce, economics, technology and justice. It was a time in the world where proponents of the old ways fiercely battled those with progressive minds.

A time when the intrigue, the ideas, the questioning and tension raise the level of global change.

Sound familiar?

So.

A couple of points here:

Every generation feels like it is worse than it was before.

Every generation struggles to link past analogies to the present <because we inevitably always err on the side of thinking today is significantly different than yesterday because of ‘progress’ innovations>.

All that said let me share some bigger overarching thoughts relevant to the overall angst I believe my generation is feeling … because our beer conversation reminded me of several things:

- In America, in particular, we constantly struggle in the hollow space that lies between a self-interest mission and an idealism mission. Kissinger suggested America will always be tugged in 2 directions with its foreign policy.

1. Domestic ideals: A strong sense of what is best for America (within its boundaries as primary focus and secondarily its actions outside its border).

2. Mission of ideals: A strong belief that part of our mission is to encourage and support our “freedom of choice” ideals (regardless whether there may not be a direct self-interest reward). How about calling this ‘supporting the progress of our ideals internationally.’

A thought for my generation. These two things are not always aligned and yet our actions may still be right. Regardless. We are a country with a strong set of ideals of which are not defined by dollars and cents. The dollars and cents have always been defined by the ideals. Yes. Let me say that again to my generation … the dollars and cents have always been defined by ideals.

There is good well earned money and then there is … well … money. Notice the people who stretched the rules to make their money defend it as “money is money.” They are wrong. It may all look the same but it doesn’t feel the same. I say that because it is up to my generation to remember the ideals … and the fact we are NOT the world’s peacekeeper … we are the world’s ideal protector. Inside and outside our borders we stand up for the little guy <or gal>, the medium sized guy and the big guy wherever and whoever they are to protect the ideals. And I mean wherever and whoever. We refuse to let ideals be bullied.

I am a business guy. So let me try this on for size. If it isn’t about ideals then aren’t we just a commodity? My generation needs to put their wallets and any bias toward some religion in the drawer for a minute or two and check their ideal pulse. Cause if there is no pulse we are doomed.

- We constantly struggle with the perception reality gap of minority actions and majority truths (and I have a longer post coming up on this). Despite how it sometimes feels we are not driven by the lunatic fringe which is in the minority. The minority…the radicals, the psychopaths, the greedy, the morally inept … is just that … a minority. As a subset of the minority/majority paradox we constantly struggle with discerning the lunatic fringe from the voice of progress in the fringe. And the lunatic fringe is often sneaky making it difficult to discern. Think about Ron Paul or even Jesse Ventura. Or almost any radio talk show host (right or left). One moment lucidly insightful next moment loony crackpots.

Regardless I would suggest to my generation that we get our heads out of our collective asses and realize we are smart enough to not be fooled by some sound bite or inflammatory statement as some foolhardy fact but rather think … yes … think. Progress takes work and thinking. Therefore, the foolish voices of rage within some silly minority faction nor the silent majority of the sheep are relevant to us because in thinking our way through it ultimately we will be able to offer a clear voice of reason.

- We constantly struggle with immediacy and patient thoughtfulness. We burst into a desire for immediacy and decisiveness (which we sometimes confuse with immediacy) to right a wrong or to get something done. And yet we are unforgiving in the retrospective “blame game.”. We seek to blame. We seek the quick response. We seek self-interest. We seek hope. We seek dignity and decisiveness in our actions. We want decisive quick leaders in a complex (sometimes confounding in our attempts to unravel it all to find truth).

I would suggest to my generation we are of an age where we have run the gauntlet of hasty foolish decisions and wasted opportunities dithering over this & that. In our wisdom we should realize that while our leaders may be ‘better’ than we in some form or fashion they are also derivatives of us … having run the same gauntlet. We are smart enough to know that some decisions should be made quickly and some should be made patiently and that typically the person who knows the most <which would not be us by the way … it is them> will make the best decision possible. Will it always be right? Of course not. But the blame game is wasted energy … for us & them.

- We constantly struggle, morally, between how to act on what is versus how we believe it ought to be (I have an upcoming post on this called redefining mortal clarity). I am not really sure it was that much better when we were young but I sense things were fairer … people played by the rules more often and people did the ‘right thing’ more often. Regardless of what I sense, or don’t sense, what I do know is the foundation of a moral clarity is “we” … not I. Because at the heart of moral clarity is some decision of self sacrifice, i.e., what I am I willing to sacrifice <a me thing/benefit> in this situation so that I honor the “we” <either in ideal or actual benefit>.

I could have suggested to my generation that the struggle is between I and we but instead I took it to a higher level and suggested we explore our collective moral navels <please remove lint> and decide what we want to be teaching our future generations.

- We constantly struggle with looking backwards and forward progress. We are at an age where it is sometimes simpler to look back than look forward. We assess all the progress that has been done in our lifetimes (and desire to maximize it in some ways) rather than dream of the unseen progress to come.

I suggest to my generation that no matter how fond you are of some memory or ‘how it was’ or ‘how we did it’ you cannot go back. Ok. You can … but you ain’t gonna get anyone else other than some old folk to join you. Progress is forward. We don’t have to throw out the baby with the bathwater but we need to stop slowing everyone down looking backwards. It’s done. Move on. Help progress or just get the hell out of the way.

Ok.

Interestingly all of what I typed <aspects of it> may be why every generation believes it is not as good as what was before. In reaction we seek the decisions made and not the process that led to it.

So, my generation, we need to take a step back and quit whining for someone to show up and magically clean our house <assuming you actually own one> for us.

We may prefer clean <and clarity> but the world is a messy place. It always has been.

My dear generation … regardless of how you feel on this topic <we are going to hell or every generation has felt like they were going to hell> we ultimately are forced to focus on progress and moving forward. It is inevitable. And all this blaming and dickering silly backwards gilded age gazing is irrelevant. In fact it is wasting not only energy but also what we actually have to offer to progress. We are the Prophet (Idealism) archetype <Straus/Howe archetype> generation of wisdom to future generations.

the caption is not mine but the future is in the picture

Yup. Future generations. Sorry, my generation … but, no matter how narcissistic we may be, our reward, and the inevitableness of progress, is not self-interest.

It is our Children.

Practically speaking children give us a stake in the future <and a desire to see it doesn’t end up in hell>. Whether we want to believe progress is possible … in the end … you cannot possibly raise, or educate, children if you believe it is not possible.

So, my generation, maybe it is time to grow up.

It is time to battle calculation, money making, and moral indifference.

It is time to remember that which we desire … be the home of freedom and the race of men so manly that they would lift the earth by the whole breadth of its orbit nearer heaven.

It is time to insure we do not regress but rather progress.

Please.

Sincerely,

One of the <older folk> Generation.

libre et independante

August 28th, 2012

“La fixité du milieu intérieur est la condition d’une vie libre et indépendante.” – Claude Bernard

translation: “The constancy of the internal environment is the condition for a free and independent life.”

I didn’t know who good ole Claude was until I found this quote … suffice it to say I love this quote <and thought>.

Claude as a scientist. And while he was talking here about science this says a shitload about life and individuality and the fact people, to be at their best, need to have some core consistency (passion, vision, character, whatever) in order to be free enough in the external life to be successful.

What a great thought.

I tend to believe almost everyone has some core consistency that encapsulates their ‘being’ <soul, character, personal brand … I cannot believe i just typed that last one … whatever is that little flame inside you that is always burning … sometimes faintly … sometimes like a flamethrower …>. I also tend to believe most of all those everyones do not actually think about themselves like Claude suggests.

Ok. Let me explain. There are some life/personal dynamics that occur which drive people into buckets when evaluating themselves <which inevitably drives them away from this inner consistency/outer freedom thought>.

First. Passion or personal mission or something along those lines is a tricky concept. What a person may be passionate about at 18 may be different than what it is at 28. In addition it may be similar at a later age but defined more clearly or differently. Identifying passion is challenging … it is hopeful vision and yet, at its best, is reflective. Time permits reflection and, I would argue, clarity. I say this first one because this suggests a constancy of internal environment is tricky. To be successful with this thought you kind of have to be slightly adaptive.

Which leads me to second point.

Most <many?> of the people who focus on ‘constancy of internal’ are anally stubborn with regard to their decision on what constitutes constancy. In other words … they are not particularly good at being adaptive <with regard to their inner constancy>. They find comfort in a more rigid definition of “what I am passionate about” to a point where it becomes a single lane highway. Translation on what I just typed? They sacrifice ‘free and independent life’ because they are so focused on their passion/vision. Hey. I am not suggesting that is a bad thing … it is just simply a reminder that they have traded off something they may not have realized they have sacrificed. and they may be quite content with such a decision. I would actually argue that most of these people do not even recognize they have made that exchange.

Which leads me to the third. The corollary to the second is the people who focus on ‘free and independent life.’ You could simply replace all the comments on ‘constancy’ in the last paragraph with ‘free and independent’ and it will net out to the same conclusion.These people are just as maddening as the constancy people. Maybe even more maddening. They confuse free & independent for unfocused and undirected ability. At least the constancy people are focusing their abilities <albeit sometimes in a misguided fashion>.

These people tend to waste more of their abilities than they ever realize. There will be occasional flashes of brilliance interspersed with incredible waste of energy <under the guise of ‘independence’>. Now. Once again. Some people are incredibly happy with the occasional flashes. I am simply making an observation using the quote.

Because in the end Claude is right. The leveraging of the freedom and independence from some inner constancy, some solid foundation, is most likely to create the most happiness in a person. This is not a simple formula … like a 50/50 split. The formula of importance will vary by person. All I am saying is that the happiest people have both an inner constancy and some form of ‘freedom & independence’ in their lives. And I am also saying it is a worthwhile effort to sit down on occasion with a beer <or swanky mineral water if that is what you like> and think about this.

Why? Well. I think most people are happier when they (a) fully understand what truly burns inside them … that passionate aspect that warms happiness and (b) then they can truly enjoy the free & independent aspect because it will … well … I am not sure this is the right word but … it will have more value more consistently.

In the end I am once again reminded by someone’s smart use of words in a quote that happiness is a very personal thing despite the fact many people want to shove the happiness responsibility onto someone or something else … like “I am happy when I am doing something for someone” or “happy when I know it is helping the environment” … and … well … that is probably a bunch of happy horseshit. It is nice to do unto others … but happiness is derived from some sort of ‘self.’

An inner constancy & how you utilize, or do not utilize, free & independence.

Claude was a smart guy.

Oh. And as with most things … this personal tidbit/point of view is similarly relevant in the business world. This will be a generalization but the organizations which are too slavish to ‘constantcy’ fail because of their lack of ability, or interest, to adapt to changing environment. And organizations, typically the entrepreneurial ones as examples, which are too fond of free & independence <independent and maverick thinking> fail because they lack a core to provide a sustaining aspect.

That’s it.

lack of global elders

August 7th, 2012

“We have a global village but we don’t have any global elders.” – Peter Gabriel

Ok.

There was a show discussing Peter Gabriel’s <with Richard Branson> foundation and, because I like Peter Gabriel’s music, I got sucked in and watched and caught this quote.

And it is an extremely insightful thought.

So often we talk about “the flattening of the world” and the fact the internet has created a global village. And I imagine most of us don’t debate that thought.

Yet.

Here is an interesting thought <if you believe the global village thing>. Who will lead us? Because … well … no one has the experience to guide is … like a village elder.

Ok.

Worse. Who IS leading us? <Let me answer that>

… people who are making it up as they go.

Whoa.

Say what?

Yup. Peter reminds us in the amazing thought of ‘global village’ that we are entering in that we have no global elders with which to sit and talk and learn what they know.

Now that, my friends, is a big thought.

Now that, my friends, is a scary big thought.

Now … I do not doubt that there are a shitload of really smart people telling us what will be, and what to do, but … well … they are making it up. Ok. To be fair … they are conceptualizing what will be and what should be based on what they know.

And I do not doubt that they know a lot about global issues and crap like that.

But. They are not “global elders.” They are simply smart folk who are trying to make sense of what is happening.

Think about that the next time you hear someone, or read some book, discussing the effects of globalization.

Look. I am not trying to suggest they do not know what they are talking about or that we should completely disregard what they say.

I am simply reminding us, as Peter Gabriel <a much more worldly guy than i> has also, that these people are not ‘global elders’ but rather simply smart people trying to make sense of what is happening … and guessing what they believe will happen.

the eccentric

July 27th, 2012

Oh, no, this is not about electricity. This is about eccentricity. And … well … being eccentric.

And while I will have some fun highlighting some of the truly wackjob eccentrics of all time I will end up making a point about non conformity … and the fact that people exhibiting eccentric behavior are happier, less likely to succumb to vices <drinking & drugs> and live longer than ‘normal’ people <research not opinion>.

Anyway.

Here we go. The word ‘eccentric’ has a really broad spectrum … from wacky “makes me feel uncomfortable” to “quirky interesting.” Regardless of where you are on the spectrum we all have a point when a charming eccentric becomes a creepy weirdo <note: it’s usually around the time they start talking to their imaginary friend beside them while talking to you>.

Regardless.

I will admit … from my own little world … a surprisingly large group of the most delightful insightful people are a little quirky and eccentric.

And, no, those delightful ones are the unpretentious eccentric who I don’t think they mean to be so (unlike people who like to be weird just for weird sake) but rather their particular brilliance or their particular contribution/attitude to the world is tinged with some eccentricity.

It makes them charming without diminishing the oddly insightful perspective they seem to bring to bear.

I guess those people are just eccentric but have not attained “wackjob” status.

Anyway.

Before I get to the insightfully thoughtful part … let me discuss the wackjobs.

I almost have to begin with the Brits because for some reason they seem to have a full museum of the highest grade wackjobs we would call true eccentrics.

Here are some of the wackjob highlights:

- Francis Henry Egerton the 8th Earl of Bridgewater who organized banquets for dogs

- John Mytton an English squire who would ride a bear

- Lord Rokeby who wanted to be amphibious

- William John Cavendish Bentinck-Scott the 5th Duke of Portland, who liked to live underground, and preferred not to be seen … oh … and actually built an entire underground mansion, painted it pink, and filled it with brown wigs packed carefully in cardboard boxes <oh boy>.

Ah.

But I won’t let America off the hook.

Emperor Norton I. His “Reign” was unofficially from 1859-1880.

Yup.

In the 19th century, the United States was unofficially “ruled” by Emperor Norton I, a San Francisco native who declared himself “Emperor of the United States” and “Protector of Mexico.” Emperor Norton’s real name was Joshua Abraham Norton. Apparently he had some financial troubles which supposedly lead to him developing a number of eccentricities and delusions of grandeur, and in 1859 he officially declared himself the ruler of America.

Thankfully local newspapers originally published Norton’s claim as a joke.

Ok.

Here is where I begin easing into eccentricity and the occasional glimpses of brilliance.

For example.

Despite the seeming mental issues Norton often demonstrated remarkable foresight.

He proposed that a “League of Nations” be formed years before the U.S. government considered it.

He also decreed that a bridge be built linking Oakland and San Francisco, which also eventually became a reality.

Anyway.

Then there are the truly quirky semi-brilliant eccentrics. These are the eccentrics who get lost in their own little world in which they see shit we don’t see … and we benefit from it.

Some of the really wackjob people I am listing were also part genius.

I found a list of 4 brilliant examples who … seemingly over-revved the neurological engine, who watched as the gearbox and chassis of their brains flew off onto the roadside…and kept on accelerating.

Example 1 – Pythagoras The Genius:

This is the guy who came up with the Pythagorean theorem we all learned in school (“The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides”).

Apart from this pillar of trigonometry, Pythagoras was the first high-profile academic to insist that natural phenomena could be explained mathematically (paving the way for the study of Physics) and was even a major inspiration for Plato’s theories of democracy.

Basically that means we can thank him for maybe half of the good meaningful things ever invented.

Oh. But Pythagoras the nutjob:

Pythagoras founded his own religion. Pythagoras’ religion had two primary tenets: souls are reincarnated, and beans are evil. Not metaphorical beans, or metaphysical beans, but just plain, edible beans. Awesome.

Example 2 – Lord Byron The Genius:

Widely considered second only to Shakespeare in English poetry, Lord Byron published his first poetic work at 14 <the age when my most profound thought was that girls might possibly be more awesome than the new aerosmith record>. He was renowned for his wit and writing/thinking versatility. In fact, Byron’s Don Juan remains one of the few poems most guys can name when trying to seduce girls in a bar.

Oh. Byron the nutjob:

It began when Byron arrived at Cambridge, where he was ordered to send his dog back home as keeping one was against school rules. Desperate for a pet, Byron scoured college policies for an animal not expressly forbidden. He found no reference to bears.

The bear stayed with Byron in his dorm room. Being a responsible pet owner, Byron took it on regular leashed walks through the university, terrifying fellow students and lecturers. When asked by administration what purpose the bear served on campus, the poet tried in vain to get his beast a fellowship. And where most people mellow out after they leave school, Byron decided to take his crazy to a whole new level. We’ll let this quote from one of his friends tell the story:

“Lord B’s establishment consists, besides servants, of ten horses, eight enormous dogs, three monkeys, five cats, an eagle, a crow, and a falcon; and all of these, except the horses, walk about the house, which every now and then resounds with their unarbitrated quarrels, as if they were the masters of it.”

(later)

“…I find that my enumeration of the animals in this Circean Palace was defective, and that in a material point. I have just met on the grand staircase five peacocks, two guinea hens, and an Egyptian Crane” – Percy Shelley (poet and husband of Frankenstein author Mary Shelley).

Nuff said.

Example 3 – Tesla The Genius:

Nikola Tesla offered an astonishing number of contributions to science. Labeled by Robert Lomas as “the man who invented the 20th century”, Nikola Tesla played a major part in the discovery of:

-Radio

-A/C Electricity

-Computers

-Robotics

-Radar

-Ballistics

-Nuclear Physics

This guy was truly brilliant. And an innovative brilliant guy.

Oh. But. Tesla the nutjob:

Tesla suffered from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. So, for instance, where Michelangelo’s personal hygiene was appallingly bad, Tesla’s was appallingly good–cripplingly so. Tesla was a severe germophobe and refused to touch anything bearing the slightest hint of dirt.

Oh. In addition.

Tesla also refused to touch anything round, which makes some quite obvious hurdles for an engineer. Apart from dodging germs and round objects, Tesla’s OCD manifested itself in threes. Before entering a building, he would walk three times around the block. When staying in hotels, he insisted on a room number divisible by three. At each meal, he would use 18 napkins: three stacks of six.

<whew>

Example 4 – Empedocles The Genius:

Empedocles may have been among the most renowned geniuses in history if not for the fact that his stunning contributions to science are offset by his even more stunning contributions to eccentric absurdity.

Some 450 years before year one <sometimes called ‘the B.C. years> Empedocles discovered:

-That light travels at a speed

-That Earth is a sphere

-Centrifugal force

-That air is a substance, not an absence of substance.

-An (admittedly very crude) theory of evolution

-The Italian school of medicine

The dude was clearly ahead of his time mentally. Brilliant thinker.

Oh. Empedocles the nutjob:

Empedocles believed he was a god.

Ok. Not in a guitar rock band sense or the guy who can achieve some insane level of Doom in mere minutes sense, but in the literal thunderbolts-from-the-sky and immortality sense. To prove his immortality to his understandably skeptical peers, Empedocles announced that he would jump into a volcano <Mt Etna if you care> and pop back out unscathed.

Note: at least he wasn’t nutty enough to actually do it.

Anyway.

Some genius. Some crazy. All eccentric.

Moving on <although it is fun to write about the wacky stuff>.

Let’s get to the quirkiness and the value some eccentricity offers us (and society).

While I often joke about the fact there have been studies on some relatively absurd topics … there has been astonishingly little research on eccentrics and eccentricity.

In fact.

I could find the only person to have looked into eccentricity … David Weeks, an Edinburgh psychiatrist and co-author of the 1995 book Eccentrics: A Study of Sanity and Strangeness.

What he discovered during a ten-year study of 1,000 peculiar people < including a Chippewa Indian who walked everywhere backwards and two Californians who hypnotized frogs … no … I did not make that up> might surprise you.

While I believe popular wisdom suggests more extreme eccentricity is not far from mental disorder. But, in fact, Weeks’s subjects suffered less from mental illnesses such as depression than the majority of the population. Results information:

Fewer than 30 had ever been drug or alcohol abusers.

He also found that eccentrics visit the doctor 20 times less often than most of us and, on average, live slightly longer.

The study conclusion?

People benefited from non-conformity.

Simply put, those who don’t repress their inner nature in the struggle to conform suffer less stress. Consequently, they are happier and their immune systems work more efficiently.

Overall, Weeks found that eccentrics tend to be optimistic people with a highly developed, mischievous sense of humor, childlike curiosity and a drive to make the world a better place.

Well.

Kind of maybe makes you start thinking about envying eccentric people rather than laughing about them, huh?

Anyway.

Beyond happiness I tend to believe most of us think of eccentrics as also being highly creative.

I already brought up Tesla (an innovative creative) and Oscar Wilde … but how about Prince, who has been known to conduct interviews with a bag on his head, or the delectable fruitcakeyness of Kate Bush.

But I don’t believe eccentricity doesn’t have shit to do with smartness or creativity.

Because while history is chock full of insane geniuses it is more about people who mentally put the pedal to the metal <albeit sometimes through the floor>.

I believe eccentrics are the people who tend to see problems <and life> from new and unexpected angles. Their slightly odd, off kilter, perspective allows them to conjure up innovative solutions.

They are the visionaries, even within smaller individual life moments, who make giant imaginative leaps.

Weeks, in his study write up, suggested maybe that like the occasional mutations that drive evolution, eccentrics may provide the unusual, untried ideas that allow human societies to progress.

Awesome thought for all those folk who are very often dismissed as cranks and crazies and nutjobs.

Oh.

The bad news is that only about one person in every 5-10,000 is a “classic, full-time eccentric” and most are marked out at an early age as ‘off.’

Ok.

That was fun to write about.

But. All that fun stuff said.

Here is what I worry about in today’s business world.

Most large companies have abolished any type of eccentricity <or individuality>.

HR policies, which tend to dictate behaviors, and job expectations/competencies are designed to promote the rise of the ‘accepted’ corporate employee.

Think about that.

One can be fairly sure that you won’t find too many Teslas surfacing in the next few years as they are weeded out early by the application of standardized policies designed to produce standardized human beings.

When I was younger it seemed like businesses had their share of quirky slightly nutjob people … and they added color to the office. They added a dimension to the work, and workplace, which sometimes made a tough day better and a tough assignment less challenging. Not always but at minimum it made the experience more interesting by far.

I worry because it is a terrible time to want to have fun in the office.

And it is always tough, in the office and outside the office, to be ‘different’.

Anyway.

The point.

Look. I am not suggesting more people be eccentric … but maybe possibly less people find conforming as important as they do. That’s it. If for no other reason than a research study suggests you may be happier.

intellectual advance

July 24th, 2012

“Intellectual advance consists of the displacement of one paradigm which has become increasingly incapable of explaining new or newly discovered facts, by a new paradigm that accounts for all those facts in a more satisfactory fashion.”

Ok. That is the first part of the quote. I love the simplicity and its ability to showcase how thinking advances.

But.The second part of the quote. The important part of the quote:

“To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted, it only must seem better than its competition.” – The structure of Scientific Revolutions: Thomas Kuhn

Paradigm is one of those words that implies bigness. All you have to do is to even suggest a paradigm shift and people … well … start shifting in their seats .

People like it <the idea they could be involved in such a thing>.

And people hate it <the idea they could be associated in such a thing>.

All at exactly the same time.

What that typically means is that everyone gets excited initially by the bigness of the idea and as time goes on the idea gets chewed up by all the ants who are scrambling around hating it <fearing it>.

So.

Before you start killing the next idea that sounds like a really really good idea by slicing it up with a thousand small cuts under the guise of “but what abouts?” and fear of change <or the work t really takes to make it come yo life> remember this:

“When people think seriously, they think abstractly; they conjure up simplified pictures of reality called concepts, theories, models, paradigms.” – Samuel Huntington

Maybe Sam reminds me why I dislike the term ‘big idea.’ I don’t care if it is big, medium or small (or even venti or grande) … all I care is that it is a serious thought.

Not flippant but a well thought out abstract thought.

Simplistically? Serious.

And in that we would need to accept that it is abstract … that not all the facts are explained. Unfortunately, for some reason, the business world seems to struggle with that last thought.

We love the idea.

We kill it in detail.

Its unfortunate.

For paradigm shifts … which are important in terms of shifting behavior and attitudes … are concepts. Therefore when we kill them in detail we miss huge opportunity for shifts in attitudes & behaviors.

Nuff said.

That last sentence alone says it all.

do your best

July 19th, 2012

(alternative title: making use of what is not)

So.

This one was trickier to write and share thoughts on than I thought it would be.

Why?

Well. Mainly because I wanted to write something hopeful … but I didn’t want to compromise my beliefs on responsibility <and responsibility of actions>.

And the balancing act was trickier than I thought.

Ok. That said.

I imagine most of us probably feel like we are ‘doing’ somewhere between okay and good in most areas of life. We are, in our minds, doing a decent job day to day. Some days better than others but overall decent.

But doing your best?

Whew. I don’t think so.

Maybe at moments … but all the time in life?

Well. Ok. The key point, or issue, comes down to ‘definition of best.’

Because unless maybe ‘best’ is simply another way of saying ‘doing enough’ (or “doing what I can with what I have”) most of us are really not factually doing our best.

See. This is where it got tricky for me.

Does suggesting “doing your best” become just another way of condoning mediocrity?

Is ‘decent job’ the same as ‘doing your best’?

Is it instead simply used to make someone work harder for goals?

Or maybe it only reminds you that you can’t be perfect and to take it easier on yourself.

Anyway.

I began writing this because … well … we <or at least I> seem to hear “just do your best” all the frickin’ time.

Just do your best at work.

Just do your best as parents and your kids should turn out okay.

Just do your best in school.

Just do your best on this project.

‘Do your best’ … bla bla bla.

Me?

Say what? I get confused.
Simplistically … one would think that “do your best” should be … well … our best.

No ifs, and or buts. Bottom line … the absolute best you can do.

Unfortunately it is not that simple.

It seems often <too often in fact> “just do your best” often ends up meaning “just do something” <or maybe, to be kind, ‘I did the best I could given what I had’, what the situation was and/or whatever you want to add here>.

So.

Under the harshest spotlight you would never truly, in your heart of hearts, judge this as really your best.

It is a caveated best.

A derivative of best as it were.

And because ‘best’ has been watered down so much I think people begin using the phrase to mean “don’t overdo everything and exhaust yourself trying to meet everyone’s expectations.”

Wow. Is that what it’s supposed to mean?

Or maybe it is actually “decide for yourself what ‘your best’ is and strive to meet that goal.”

<reprise> Wow. Is that what it’s supposed to mean?

I am not sure which is worse.

Well.

Actually.

Neither is particularly bad … it is just neither really has anything to do with ‘best’ and yet they are both associated in some form or fashion with ‘best.’

Ok.

And this next thought I know I am guilty of …

We are very quick to suggest … “you are doing the best that you can.”

And, in actuality, we are not.

You know you could do more (if the measure is truly our best).

Look. I recognize chasing perfection is exhausting and I truly believe chasing perfection is an endless pursuit. And, frankly, if you try to do this you only put yourself under unbearable pressure aiming to be the perfect version of who you are.

And, inevitably, this quest can only bring disappointment … because not only is being perfect an impossible task but it becomes exponentially more impossible (ok … how can something that is already impossible become exponentially so? … its kind of like getting three death sentences …) if you actually attempt to do “it” all the time.

Someone can waste far too much time and energy trying to be the perfect whatever. Sure. None of us want to be ‘less-than-perfect’ in anything we do but it is a fact of life.

But. Here is some news. Ok. No. Here is the fact.

Doing your best isn’t about perfection … it isn’t always trying to be perfect.

Because doing your best is about … good enough that you can actually do … not perfection.

And realizing that making use of what is not is often doing your best.

“Take advantage of what is there by making use of what is not.” – chapter 11 of Tao te Ching

There is a famous quote that suggests do what you will with you have <usually cited to good ole Teddy Roosevelt>.

I assume Teddy created his quote as sort of the antitheses of the Tao quote above.

This is a great quote.

A greater (deeper) thought).

So often people say “I don’t have what I need” as an excuse for not doing their best.

Stop.

Stop it.

Instead feel good about making use of what is not there.

In doing so it suggests finding an advantage, a freedom in other words, to do something … well … because something isn’t there to impede you. It isn’t a lack of resource but rather a freedom to find that which will make you successful.

You are unencumbered by what may be there and instead free to build upon the little that is there.

In the business word it is “find the empty space.”

In the Bruce world (who doesn’t really buy the fact that there is ever – maybe rarely – really empty space) it is more … in fact it is not actual empty space … it is ‘where do you want to sharpen your elbows and create some elbow room’.

That is all about taking advantage of “what is not.”

I don’t care what is not is made up of … but let me suggest first and foremost … its attitude. Or belief. Or whatever words you want to put to that thought.

Buddhism is infamous for focusing on what is not apparent. Ignoring the obvious and focusing on what is really important (the intangible).

Am I suggesting that Buddhism (or Taoism) should guide your life? Nope.

Am I suggesting their perspective on how to approach things you face in everyday life (or business) may be enlightening? Yup.

It’s quite possible that this is the contrarian in me that makes me believe this way (which I have to assume would send some Tibetan monk through some proverbial roof to hear) but who cares … it’s thoughtful .. its insightful … its stuff that maybe makes you think about things in a different way than maybe other people around you thinks of things … and frankly … in my eyes … that is enlightened thinking.

Ok. In the end.

Don’t think about perfection as ‘your best.” Best is ‘effort + attitude’.

And … just … well … do your best.

Choose the moments and truly do your best <and admit the other times just aren’t your best you are just muddling through>.

Why? Well. I believe every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Therefore if you perform any action the results will come, maybe not today or tomorrow … but at some time.

So if you keep your mind in that place and truly do your best at the right time and mentally unattach yourself from the outcome of the ‘best’ actions <and the concept of perfection> I think more people would be happier … and they may actually do their best more often. And, maybe more importantly, if you do not try and fool yourself into believing you had done “your best” in certain situations you may be able to manage your life expectation-wise a little better.

Regardless.

Doing your best.

“We don’t need to be anything or anyone. We can just be us.”

Be yourself.

Cause I believe we would all like to be the best version of ourselves. Oh. And isn’t that “doing your best”?

unthinking

July 16th, 2012

“Sometimes thinking is a bad idea” – Ian Leslie

Here is the deal.

There is a fragility of mental process when it comes to coming up with ‘the idea.’ Ok. Maybe it’s not a fragility but t is certainly a tenuous mysterious process.

But research has shown <yeah … I found some more research> that it’s not that there is any decline in mental capabilities but rather the mind becomes overwhelmed with self-conscious.

Huh? In other words the mind is thinking when it should be its best by … well … non thinking. Therefore, research suggests, too much thinking can kill inspiration.

How ‘bout that my friends?

Ian Leslie sates “it is a fundamental paradox of human psychology that thinking can be bad for us.”

By following our own thoughts too closely we can lose our bearings as our inner chatter drowns out common sense.

Whew.

When I saw/read this I wish I could have presented I immediately to the leaders in the Fortune 500 companies.

“Thinking drown out common sense.”

Ok. Some proof <for the doubters among you>.

A study of shopping behavior states that the less information people were given about a brand the better choice they made.

Specifically <and this will matter to those marketers who like to give gobs of minutiae to people believing it will help them make a better choice> … when offered full ingredient details the consumer got confused by their options <unable to discern differences and importance> and actually ended up choosing a product they did not like <i.e., people were forcing themselves to select on a criteria that was not really ‘heart preference’ but rather “head <logical> preference.” And they were not happy in the end when they used.

All that said it simply suggests that we can be too clever for our own good trying to figure out patterns and what we are ‘supposed’ to do … rather than what maybe our common sense suggests we should do.

The research also shows that by leaning on our instinct we seem to be able to tap into some kind of compressed wisdom.

A psychologist, Gerd Gigerenzer, argues that much of our behavior is based on some internal sophisticated rule-of-thumb compass (“heuristics”).

He also says “to make good decisions in a complex world you have to be skilled at ignoring information.” Awesome.

Imagine sitting around with a group of management and suggest we teach our people to ignore information <the correlation being just as bad … “maybe we should invest less time creating irrelevant information that will need to be ignored anyway and use the time to make the best decision”>.

Wow.

Either one is likely to get you fired.

Ok.

I am sure in my generalization I have ignored that there is a balance. And people need to not only be skilled at ignoring information but also assessing what information to gather versus gathering unneeded information.

Anyway.

Leslie also found in his research that a portfolio of stocks picked by people in the street did better than those chosen by experts. People on the street selected by ‘recognition’ <companies they had heard of> which actually turned out to be a better criteria than experts analyzing price-earnings ratios.

Anyway. Here is the tricky part.

Study after study states that “those who trust their feelings and make better selections” only did so when they had some prior knowledge. This is the balance thing I mentioned.

Ian Leslie states “unthinking is not the same as ignorance.”

In other words. You cannot unthink if you have not already thought <or learned>.

As he states … the unconscious minds of the most knowledgeable are like “dense rainforests sending up spores of inspiration.”

Ok. Next.

The higher the stakes the more overthinking is a problem.

Suffice it to say we live in an era of overthinking. We are encouraged by an unrelenting issuing of self-help books telling us to self-reflect, we analyze every aspect of our work and life and think about every action we take … or even think about taking.

We comment on every aspect of our lives online and constantly read article after article about what makes us happy … and unhappy.

The truth? The culmination of life may actually be found in the “careless joy.” Yup. All that thinking and planning and listing just may not lead you to happiness. And just may lead you to more … well … thinking.

In other words … in trying to solve problems we may have actually created problems. We overthought where maybe instincts would have been better for us. Interestingly that is not a new thought:

Instincts are a powerful thing.

There is a new book called Imagine: How Creativity Works <by Jonah Lehrer> who asks where good ideas come from.

Many of us think all credit for mysterious creativity went to faith, fortune and some fortunate few.

John Lehrer argues that to assume creativity is some lofty trait enjoyed by the few is both foolish and unproductive.

Drawing from a wide array of scientific and sociological research—and everything from the poetry of W.H. Auden to the films of Pixar—he makes a convincing case that innovation cannot only be studied and measured, but also nurtured and encouraged.

Me? I buy it. Creativity is often found in some fairly random nooks and crannies of different people. Oh. And it may not be ongoing … some people are good for one creative idea in their lifetime … and that is it. And others are just, well, damn good at it.

Now. My caveat thought is that some people are better at it than others. Some people are better at supporting <putting someone in position> the creation of creativity and some people are better at actually generating the creativity.

Regardless. It can be nurtured. We certainly understand that when workers are actually pushed to take regular breaks, i.e., time away from a problem, it can help spark a moment of insight. Research has proven this. Why? This is because interrupting work with a relaxing activity seems to permit the mind to turn inward into the subconscious or maybe better said … places within the mind where information is stored that when thinking, or consciously ‘noodling’, the information is not obviously relevant. And in that down time the brain can subconsciously puzzle over subtle meanings and connections <the brain is incredibly busy unthinking>.

“That’s why so many insights happen when taking showers,” says Joydeep Bhattacharya, a psychologist at University of London.

The reason why this approach works—and why it has been imitated by other companies such as Google—is because many breakthroughs come when people venture beyond their area of expertise. Often it takes an outsider to ask the kind of dumb questions that may yield an unconventional solution.

Note: that is a different version of unthinking.

Oh.

And this is why young people tend to be the most innovative thinkers in nearly any field. It can be technology, engineering, architecture, physics or music. The ignorance of youth creates some real creative advantages.

Note: that is a different version of unthinking.

Ok.

So. I believe we all know imagination, or creativity, is not a totally conscious process. We know this despite the fact there are entire libraries of books written on how to maximize the creative process and ‘build imaginative thinking.’

As an expert suggested: New knowledge may incubate subconsciously when a person has surplus attention to focus on recombining memory and external stimuli into new meanings. Most people tend to spend a great deal of time while they are awake “daydreaming”. This may be enough to activate our default network, a web of autobiographical mental imagery, which may provide new connections and perspectives about a problem we have been concerned with.

Unguided imagination through dreaming and “daydreaming” enables the gathering of information from different parts of our memory, which may not be easy to access consciously. This information may come from a within a narrow domain or a much wider field. The more imagination takes account of the wider field, experience, and prior knowledge, the more likely these ideas created through imagination will have some originality – through complex knowledge restructuring. Creative insight occurs mostly as the result of triggers and slow incubation periods that lead to a revelation.

Ultimately this means a revelation occurs through different forms of unthinking (or a different raveling, rather than unraveling, of the facts). I sometimes call this “the ability to align disparate pieces of information.” Unthinking means just that. The mind stops unraveling all the <what is supposed to be> relevant information and instead ‘re-ravels’ a new string of information.

For example:

- Einstein developed his insight for the theory of relativity through imagining what would happen if he traveled at the speed of light.

- Faraday claimed to have visualized force lines from electric and magnetic fields from a wood fire giving insight into the theory of electromagnetic fields.

- Kekulé reported that he gained insight into the shape of the benzene molecule after he imagined a snake coiled up in a circle.

Regardless. The bottom line.

Sometimes thinking is overrated <who would have ever thunk I would ever write that>.

Some truths:

To think sometimes you have to unthink.

To think sometimes you need less information than more.

And, in the end, I think the people who do not really understand how to think do not understand how to unthink.

And maybe that is the point of this post.

desire for distinction

July 15th, 2012

“There lurks, perhaps, in every human heart a desire of distinction, which inclines every man first to hope, and then to believe, that Nature has given him something peculiar to himself.” – Samuel Johnson

Business and life parallel themselves in different ways.

And they often have similar repercussions.

Desire for distinction is one of those things.

I believe the majority of people have a desire for some type of distinction.

As do businesses.

Ah. But the difference.

100% of businesses have a desire for distinction <rather than most of the people>.

Ok. Not just businesses but anything associated with making money. And it isn’t just a desire but rather it is a focus … and a blinding relentless pursuit of distinction which sometimes reaches absurd levels.

Think about this:

Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it. - C. S. Lewis

I love the combination of these thoughts.

We desire to be distinct.
If we do not try to be distinct we may become so without even noticing it.

Distinction is one of those fabulous things that the more you try to be distinct the less likely you will actually be so <at least in a meaningful way>.

And if I could convince more companies to think about this with clear heads I am not sure i would make any more money but I am sure they would.

I know, I know … easy for me to say <not the money thing but rather the ‘they should do’ thing>.

But the pursuit of the elusive distinction can sometimes drive businesses to some fairly irrelevant, if not absurd, and absolutely meaningless places. I know it sounds crazy but if they ignored the whole distinction goal I bet it would happen. Well. It would happen if they were smart about focusing on themselves … who they were and who they wanted to be.

So let’s call it a crazy smart idea.

But tough to do <as most crazy smart ideas are>. Tough because it doesn’t exactly match up with the standard “this is how you are supposed to do it” management guides.

Anyway.

Maybe that is the most important point.

There are a lot, a shitload, of crazy smart business people out there.

But there are not a lot of crazy smart business people willing to do something crazy like ignore the business books “plan to success” blueprints.

Here is where I put my money.

The few. Those crazy enough to not plan for distinction but rather let distinction and originality simply evolve from who they are, what they think and their vision of what they think they should be.

Crazy?

Probably.

But in a world where the majority of businesses, and new ideas, fail … maybe this isn’t a crazy a thought as it sounds.