Enlightened Conflict

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.

 

bad ideas never seem to die

June 6th, 2017

 

good idea bad idea fight time busines

====

 

“If truth be told, the easy road is nothing more than an armchair in clever disguise. And if you look around, it seems that there are a whole lot of people in the furniture business.”

 

 

Craig D. Lounsbrough

 

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

 

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves …”

 

————–

Berean Study Bible

 

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

 

So.

 

I tend to believe most of us learn, fairly early in our careers, that bad ideas do bad idea light up good path battle businesnot die on their own. In fact … as you gain more experience you actually find that bad ideas can often be incredibly hard to kill –they may actually have more than nine lives.

 

At exactly the same time most of us also learn that good ideas rarely are seen as the greatest thing since sliced bread and embraced as a good idea as soon as they are presented.

 

Think about that for a second.

 

Bad ideas are incredibly hard to kill and good ideas can be incredibly hard to bring to life.

 

Well.

That’s pretty fucked up.

 

And, yet, despite learning this I still believe most of us are surprised when we find a bad idea still breathing and a good idea is breathing its last breath.

 

Shit.

 

Even I forget this lesson despite having seen some of the most bad ideas in the world live despite my best efforts and some of the goodest of ideas die despite my best efforts.

that is a terribe bad idea speak out business ideas

And I seem to keep forgetting it despite the fact the world is filled with some incredibly absurdly bad factually incomprehensible, or defensible, ideas.

 

Forgetting this idea is dangerous.

 

It creates a Life & business world strewn with bad ideas which can quite easily lead to a complacency that bad ideas will exist no matter what we do … or worse … complacency when faced with a bad idea because we believe it is fruitless to fight it.

 

I will not spend a lot of time on complacency but suffice it to say it is a sneaky little bastard especially when it comes to bad ideas.

But the bigger issue is that, for several reasons, we tend to let our guard down when faced with a bad idea.

 

The difference between a really bad idea and a ‘shrug your shoulders a little’ bad idea can often be indiscernible.

 

We have a bad habit of dismissing bad in its initial stages as just “bad.” This lets run or diea hardier & sturdier bad idea off the hook. It is quite possible most of us just hope it smothers itself in its badness and just goes away but more often than not … it does not. And, yet, time and time again we make an initial assessment of “bad, maybe & good” and mostly dismiss ‘bad’ and move on.

 

I could suggest that not all bad ideas are created equal but it is probably better advice to simply treat all bad ideas as equally bad. Don’t waste your time discerning the difference; just assume a bad idea will be a motherfucker to kill.

 

 

Bad ideas have an innate knack to normalize their being.

 

Once you let a bad idea off the hook when it is initially introduced it has a nasty habit of slipping into the general conversation as “possibility.”

In other words … because it didn’t die before it could draw its first breath it somehow becomes normalized as some viable breathing idea.bad idea there is such a thing

 

Yeah. Normalizing is a word that is being tossed round a lot lately.

 

As a corollary that all bad ideas can look quite similar <bad ideas> we have a tendency to simply normalize them <as ideas that may not be as good as some other ideas>. Bad is a fucking big bucket to normalize as simply “another idea to consider.”

 

It gets worse at that point.

 

“Outsider” ideas take on some personality that almost adds viability even though it is still a bad fucking idea.

It’s like all bad ideas wear black and blend into any crowd … and almost become cool by doing so. Yeah. Just ponder that for a second. How many bad ideas get a label of “cool idea” … but it’s actually a bad idea. Once a bad idea falls into the “cool thing to consider” category it becomes an aggravating difficult challenge for the actual good idea.

 

Anyway.

A moment back to complacency.

 

Complacent is a squooshy word and concept.

 

I tried googling complacency with bad ideas and got only 514000 results. Uhm. But looking within the top 8 results … the office, west point, teen life, politics, religion and a general one … there were none with regard to bad ideas.

 

This suggests complacency strikes everyone at different times in our lives.

But in no place could I find anyone discussing how complacent in our thinking that everyone can see a bad idea as a bad idea and therefore we can relax <become complacent> because … well … bad ideas just get thrown away because they are bad.

 

Complacency is squooshy.

 

Let’s face it.

 

No one wants to invest energy chasing after some bad idea to be sure it is dead.

Sure. The most experienced of us absolutely circle back after the original bad idea has been killed to make sure it is really dead. But we don’t circle around it and hover over it to see if it is really dead … we just check in on it.

 

Basically … we have better things to do than stick around to smother the sonuvabitch to be sure it is dead. But, in the harsh spotlight of truth, this is plain & simple complacency.

 

I have been burned by bad ideas so many times I have come to sometimes think of bad ideas as tsunamis. They begin as a small shaking of the earth miles down under the surface of the ocean … completely unseen. In this metaphor you may have actually been in the frickin’ meeting where it was declared  bad idea and even been there when it got discarded … but you just were not aware of the work bad idea panda angryearth moving way way down under your feet.

 

From there the bad idea can gain some incredible momentum only to build into some huge wave which can wash over even the strongest criticism at a later date <let alone drown a shitload of good ideas>. Suffice it to say … it can drive you crazy.

 

I think we have all been in this situation at work.

 

Once a bad idea has some momentum they are next to impossible to kill.

 

I sometimes believe this is because <a> some people pretend a second rate idea is first rate and <b> a shitload of people cannot see the difference between a second rate idea and a first rate.

 

==========

“What’s terrible is to pretend that second-rate is first-rate.”

Doris Lessing,

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

 

But I actually believe it is because we give bad ideas a free pass. What I mean by that is we take a good idea and start running the ‘idea to implementation’ gauntlet defending it and selling it and sharing it all with the end goal in mind. All the while, as we focus on the good, we don’t notice <or maybe it is just a nagging aggravation along the way> that the bad idea is also in the ‘idea to implementation’ gauntlet … but getting a free ride because it isn’t really being sold … it just keeps appearing along the way as “the alternative idea to the good one.”

 

While you were focused on good and paying attention to something else the bad idea has gained “a voice” … it can be a person or it can simple be some “myth” associated with it. And when that happens you can find yourself hearing about a bad idea in some hallway from someone who really knows nothing about it … and they speak of its myth in some positive way.

Suffice it to say the moment that happens … you are fucked. The bad idea is not only alive and breathing … it is healthy <in almost mythical proportions>.

 

Ok.

So rather than bitch about bad ideas let me make a suggestion to everyone.

 

Life, and business, is one big mosh pit of shit. The shit is made up of stuff to do, responsibilities, everyday commitments and responsibilities … as well as ideas. This mosh pit is a big dark gloomy cloud of stuff swirling around.

 

Now.

 

The ideas shit is a little different. What I mean by that is 99% of ideas do not just happen <good and bad ones> like most of the other stuff in the mosh pit.

good bad idea battle for path business

 

Ideas need some ‘oomph’ to get thru the mosh pit. They need to navigate a narrow winding path through the big mosh pit of shit from the moment they are introduced to the moment in which it reaches a point where the idea shifts to some action.

As noted earlier … in most cases … the path usually has two ideas jostling each other along this path … a good idea and a bad idea.

 

===========

“Our minds are a battle ground between good and bad ideas; we are whatever side wins the battle”

 

Bangambiki Habyarimana

 

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

 

I imagine my real point is that bad ideas do not die simply because they are bad.

 

You cannot be silent, you cannot ignore them, you cannot be complacent and you cannot simply champion the good idea. You actually have to fight bad ideas.

It may be aggravating to do so.

It may take more energy than you want fight like hell hughto.

It may even get a little absurd in how often you feel like you have put a knife through its heart and you still find it alive and kicking not long after.

 

But if you want good ideas to win you have to accept the burden of the fight. And this fight has a number of rounds and takes place over an extended period of time.

 

Here is what I know about fighting bad ideas. I now assume they never die … they simply end up in second place to a good idea that competed better.

 

That last sentence may be one of the best pieces of advice I have ever given to the business world.

 

 

 

little but big & 100

December 21st, 2016

 little things big things

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

 

“You’re little but you’re  big.”

 

—–

Pretty Little Liars

 

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

 

“The human tendency to regard little things as important has produced very many great things.”

 

—-

Georg C. Lichtenberg

 

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

 

Ok.

 

Today is December 21st … the littlest day of the year – the winter solstice. The winter solstice marks the shortest day of the year in terms of hours of daylight one tree christmas winter<solstice basically means “sun stands still”>.

 

On the winter solstice, everywhere south of the equator have day lengths greater than 12 hours. Meanwhile, everywhere north of the equator have day lengths less than 12 hours.

 

The good news?

Daylight gets bigger from here. From here on out the days gradually get longer and the nights shorter.

 

Anyway.

 

On the littlest day it seemed like a good time to talk about big things … and their relationship to little things.

 

Couple of quick thoughts.

 

Time. We bitch & moan about not having enough time to do everything we want to do. I could argue that most people actually get more real practical pragmatic shit done on the shortest daylight day of the year then the longest daylight day of the year.

More focus. Less distractions. More shit done. less daylight hours. Littler day. Bigger productivity.

 

Time is time … neither little nor big.no-time-to-be-looking-at-the-bright-side-silver-lining

 

If you ever need an example of how littler can translate to bigger … well … the shortest day of the year is adman good place to start.

 

Little, or few, is more often than not a harbinger, forerunner or precursor to big.

 

From few, many. From one, multitudes.

 

This leads me to the heinous concept called ‘the big idea.’

 

I admit.

 

I get tired of hearing about ‘big ideas.’

 

In fact … in my cynical mind … whenever I hear big idea I hear hyperbole, fantastical thinking & likelihood of big failure.

 

I perk up when I hear someone say … “you know … I have a little idea that I think can make a big impact.” That I can get onboard with.

 

Let me make my point by showing how few, let’s say 100, can be the beginning of something big.

 

100 monkeys.

 

cancelled ThinkingMonkeyYeah.

100 monkeys.

 

=====

100 Monkey Theory

In 1952, on the Japanese island of Koshima, a monkey named Imo washed a sweet potato before she ate it.  She and her fellow, Macaca Fuscata monkeys were given sweet potatoes by the scientists who studied them.  The monkeys like the taste of the potatoes, yet did not like the dirt.  Imo taught her mother and the other monkeys she came into contact with and over time more and more monkeys were washing their potatoes.

 

Imo’s practice catches on.

 

Well, the interesting observation is that after a significant minority (let’s say 100 monkeys to use a number) of the monkeys were washing their potatoes, the scientists observed that very quickly after this, all the monkeys were washing their potatoes.  Like a critical mass had been reached and now all the monkeys were able to access this knowledge somehow even if they did not come into contact with Imo and her friends.  More interesting is that scientists observed that at the same time, on other islands monkeys were also washing their potatoes.

 

It appears that when 99 monkeys were washing potatoes and one more joined, a critical mass was achieved and this awareness was now available to everyone (please don’t get hung up on the exact 99 or 100 numbers).

 

This is known as the 100 Monkey Theory.

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

 

So.

 

The foundation of the theory is when a certain critical number achieves an awareness of “something” <an attitude or behavior)> and that ‘something’ becomes accepted … it shifts into a norm, i.e., from the few, many.

 

I believe the truly stunning aspect of this theory is the ‘island to island’ aspect.

 

Oh.

 

And these monkeys didn’t have internet.

Nor a classroom.

Nor any physical contact.

 

This theory suggests that, although the exact number may vary, when only a limited number of people know a new behavior it may subconsciously reside as the conscious property of the collective people. I am NOT suggesting some telepathic mumbo jumbo … but … I am suggesting that accepting new behavior <and attitudes I imagine> has a tipping point.1 2 3 gif score rate life people

 

In addition … I do believe the ‘100th’ is reflective of my overall belief that great minds puzzling over similar situations are quite likely to have the same idea & thought <and inevitably the same innovation> wherever they may be and never having crossed paths with someone who is having the same idea at the same time>.

 

If you agree with that, then the 100 monkey theory is not as wacky or cerebral as it may seem at first blush.

 

Look.

 

You may not buy it.

 

You may not think people are related to monkeys.

You may think 100 isn’t enough.

But you should think about it.

 

You should think about how from little … something bigger arises.

 

And while I really do not want to get hung up on the actual numbers it is fascinating to think that there is a point at which if only one more person absorbs the new attitude and changes its behavior that somehow this awareness is picked up by almost everyone.

 

A book has been written on this theory, “The Hundredth Monkey,” by Ken Keyes Jr., I don’t suggest reading it because, well, the concept is pretty simple and you don’t need a book to explain it nor do I believe a lot of pages with graphs and explanations will convince you.

 

But.

Here is my point on the littlest day of the year.

 

It can take a littler amount than you may think to create the change and behavior you desire. Add to that thought the importance of 1 – as in 99 to 100.

 

Whenever you doubt that 1 can make a difference just think about the 100 Monkey Theory.

 

I believe any one even remotely interested in creating cultural change should invest some time thinking about this theory. Instead of needing dollars to create change or wacky ideas to affect attitudes or investing energy trying to create “a wave of change” someone should focus on “the 100” or ‘the few.’

 

Think about creating change by offering relevant useful behavior information and focusing on the few.

 

Gosh.

 

Sure would make life a little simpler huh?

 

<note: some people, like me for an example, call this creating an influencer base to influence mass behavior>

 

Lastly.

 

If you focus on the littler stuff, the fewer, well … this means you can have a planned what happenedlittler plan than normal.

 

I can hear the screams of disagreement from big idea people … “big ideas need to be nurtured and protected by big well thought out plans.”

 

Well.

 

The main issue with big plans and big planning is the fact that little things are always changing.

Even worse, these changing little things are oblivious to the neat orderly plan you had in place.

 

And even with all this change I imagine you have a choice … plow through the little changes swirling around with an unchanging plan … or watch the little changes <kind of like watching a double dutch jump rope> … and let your neat plan take on some less neat fluidity.

 

Little things can make big differences.

 

Little things can make big plans & ideas die.

 

And not everyone can see little shit when there is a big shiny looking shit dazzling you as if it were a star you shouldn’t take your eye off.

 

I would suggest that you know you are a big planner <as in one effective at creating Big plans> if all the little things that go wrong do not make your big plan go awry.

 

Little things can make big plans go awry.

 

Shit.

Little things can make anything go awry.

 

On the other hand.

 

Little things can make big impacts.

 

Little things can become big things.

 

So.hard to plan success_and_happiness

 

On this littlest day of the year think a little littler.

 

Think small.

 

Take a little time and focus on little things which, if nurtured, can become big things.

 

And maybe think a little about the fact that there is not too little time but rather maybe we should seek to do bigger things in the little time we have.

 

Oh.

 

And always remember … big shit is always a composite of a shitload of little things.

 

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

 

“That is the problem, we give larger space to small things. We give them power to break us in the tiniest form.”

Kajapajo

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

cannot resist the invasion of ideas

December 16th, 2016

 strategy think anger angry business ideas filter

===========

 

“One can resist the invasion of an army but one cannot resist the invasion of ideas.”

 

 

Victor Hugo

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

 

“Our ideas, like orange-plants, spread out in proportion to the size of the box which imprisons the roots.”

 

Edward Bulwer Lytton

 

==========

 

 

Well.

 

Whether we like it or not … whether we admit it or not … we are all ignorant. It ignorant people understandingis impossible for s to know everything therefore we have ignorance boxes <different topics> in our heads just sitting around collecting dust waiting to be pulled off the shelf.

 

Now.

 

Those ignorance boxes are interesting boxes.

They come in different sizes and shapes and depths.

 

In addition.

 

Ideas are an interesting plant to … well … plant in the ignorance box.

 

Why?

 

The roots of ideas will inevitably end up in conflict with the box they have been planted in.

 

That is the inevitability of the invasion of ideas … conflict.

 

That is the inevitability of the invasion of curiosity … conflict.

 

One territory … let’s call it ‘the country of what you do not know’ is always being invaded by an army of ideas and thoughts <some true and some untrue>.

 

Yeah.

 

There are winners and losers in this whole knowledge, curiosity & ideas battle … of which you, yourself, can be victor or vanquished. The only thing you can be sure of is you will always be in conflict and always be at war.

 

That is one of Life’s biggest truths.

 

Curiosity comes with a price … and a reward.

 

I wrote once … ‘far too often we place curiosity in some unequivocal good or bad space … “curiosity is the wick in the candle of learning” or “curiosity killed the cat” … but, truthfully, curiosity embodies both good and bad. And I say that as one who is unequivocally in the camp of “knowing more of anything is good.’

 

The constant invasion of ideas seems to revolve around two things near and dear to my heart:

 

  • Positive friction.

 

 

  • Enlightened conflict.

truth and conflict

 

The first is based on curiosity plus friction equals better ideas and thinking … therefore … the friction has a net positive effect. I could even argue that even bad thoughts that are well thought out and well articulated is positive friction. I imagine  could argue any thinking is better than no thinking.

 

Anyway.

 

The second is that … well … any conflict of thought & ideas will enlighten in some form or fashion. I tend to believe the arc of conflict leads to true knowledge. But “arc” is the key word. I think we get a little hasty with regard to people and thinking and this constant war. We forget it is a battle by battle thing and not a ‘battle which embodies the outcome of the war.’ We look at someone who we deem as ‘ignorant’ rather than viewing them in the midst of battle and somewhere on the arc of true knowledge.

I can honestly say there are few people I will not debate with, discuss with or have a discourse with. I will discuss anything with anyone and listen and respond … “go to war” in other words.

 

Yeah.

 

Other than purposeful ignorance I tend to view ignorance as simply the opening gambit in the battle of the day.

 

Regardless.

 

i will talk about anythingI am definitely a curiosity guy.

 

And, well, I guess I am definitely a conflict guy <when it comes to ides and thoughts and issues>.

 

And I love the thought that I am not actually seeking ideas or ‘working hard to learn’ but rather ideas and thoughts are constantly seeking to make battle with us … constantly invading our space, our ignorance, and … well … we go to war because it is a war worth fighting.

 

It is a fight for knowledge.

 

Look.

 

I have heard many people say “I want to know everything there is to know on this topic.”

I often wonder if they are up for the battle that will need to take place to make that happen.

 

I know someone can know a lot.

 

I absolutely know that you can know enough to be dangerous.

 

But I am 100% unequivocally clear that knowledge is a never ending battle.

Even on one topic you probably don’t have enough hours in a lifetime to know everything there is. I guess that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try … but suggesting you know everything is … well … not only silly but may actually be a reflection you do not understand the extent of the conflict at hand.

 

My site is called Enlightened Conflict.

 

My motto is ‘seek truth.’seek_truth

 

And I do feel as if I am constantly fighting a war … and fighting on the side of Truth.

Do I believe I know truth or at all truth? … absolutely not.

 

As any warrior would tell you … I get closer to be the best I can be as a warrior every time I fight. It is the conflict which fights ignorance and seeks to enlighten in victory … or maybe just survival of the battle of the day.

 

Maybe that is why the two quotes I opened with interested me.

 

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.

Oh.

And once ideas bloom enlightenment occurs.

 

 

==========

 

“Enlighten the people, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.”

Thomas Jefferson

 

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

canvas of our lives

May 29th, 2013

“The thoughts we choose to think are the tools we use to paint the thinking ideascanvas of our lives.” – Louise Hay

So.

This is about thinking.

Louise Hay is a motivational author who writes a lot of bullhockey about How to Love Yourself in self-help books … but this is an outstanding quote and thought.

 

We paint the canvas of our lives with thoughts.

 

So.

This is about thinking … and happiness … and how all the researchers & self help analysis and rules to follow truly impinge upon our overall happiness.

Bottom line?

Those sonofabitches are facilitating our grumpiness … not happiness <aside to myself: ‘bastards’>.

 

“The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.”  – A. A. Milne

 

If I could have sat down with A.A. when he said this I would have suggested that he add “the 4th rate mind is only happy when its over-thinking thinking.”

 

Academics and researchers tear apart thinking to an absurd extreme.

Rational versus irrational.

Logical versus intuitive.

This versus that.

think think thinkSum it all up and you get a confusing picture of a human mind that is alternatively strong & weak, pliable and inflexible, constantly overwhelmed yet inevitably insatiable and … well … always contradictory.

After all this research inevitably they all shake their heads and say ‘how we think is often irrational.’

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm …

Labeling thinking as ‘irrational’ is … well … irrational.

And silly.

Not because we make irrational decisions when we think <because sometimes we actually do … but I would also suggest that irrational is in the eyes of the beholder> but rather that we invest so much energy trying to analyze thinking.

In all of this analysis we obscure the true beauty and joy of thinking.

Thinking is expansive not constrictive.

Heck.

It often shouldn’t even be constructed.

And there certainly is no “how to” guide for everyone to follow <oops … a bunch of self-help authors are gonna send me some nasty emails now>.

The guard rails … or the steps are pretty basic.

We hunt <for information>.

We gather <the information>.

We consider options <information>.

We cook up an idea or a thought <typically as informed information>.

<note: this can happen in 5 seconds, 5 minutes, 5 hours, 5 days … but the process remains the same>

 

Some people call this ‘stimulus – response.’

Some people call it common sense.

 

Beyond that?

It’s maddening if you try and analyze how people think.

Is there an art and a science to taking time to gathering more input versus making a decision?

Or how to sift through all the information you have?

Or how to make big decisions versus small decisions?

Or, shit, how to even identify a small versus a big decision <and how often do we get that wrong looking in hindsight>?

Beyond that … it seems kind of maddening to try and unravel all of that.

Why?

Its mental masturbation.

You really cannot do anything with the information you gain from all the research and analysis <there will be no “how to think” pamphlet to hand out to everyone when they are born>.

 

Look.

The best thinkers tend to need both logical and analogical thinking. They use subconscious and intuition combined with logical analysis. Sometimes even using what you don’t even know that you know as you utilize linear thinking and pattern recognition.

And the best of the best recognize some level above the logical. They somehow recognize an elusive “why” that will drive the idea.

Sound maddeningly unteachable?

It should,

Because it is not teachable.

 

In the end?think

It is really the subconscious that makes all the breakthrough thinking.

Heck.

It is really the subconscious that makes all the thinking good.

Now.

Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do the thinking hard lifting or the analysis or the background work necessary … because that stuff is the nutrition for healthy thinking. But.  Recognize that the maddening part in really good thinking resides somewhere in the unplanned … in the subconscious.

By the way … that’s the stuff that really cannot be taught or analyzed or researched or shared in some business book.

 

In a world where we put such a high value on completion and destination and results … thinking’s value is most likely found in the journey … the ‘looking.’

 

“Thinking is more interesting than knowing, but less interesting than looking.” – Goethe

 

We seem to try and teach thinking, and analyze thinking, with the intent of improving results.

This ultimately suggests you should be unhappy with your thinking if you do not generate results.

Nuts.

We should encourage more looking … more thinking.

Thinking makes us happy.

If we listen to all the self-help pundits we begin thinking that thinking is an unhappy experience without results.

think you knowNuts <again>.

Our thoughts, and thinking, create the canvas of our lives … not results.

 

Anyway.

Here is the only thing I truly know <without gobs of research>.

Thinking is good.

Enlightened Conflict