Well.

This post is partially silly and partially truth.

And maybe that summarizes all of Murphy’s laws in general. What makes them fun to read is that they almost always seem to contain a <maddening> grain of truth.

I was cleaning out a folder and came across a shortened <there is a website that has almost 100 Murphy’s laws of war> list of Murphy’s Laws of war.

And, no, Murphy is no Sun Tzu <The Art of War>. Oh. But just to say this while it is on my mind … every business person should, at minimum, read The Art of War but it doesn’t hurt to have a copy of the little easy to read pamphlet in your working space. Its good <business> stuff.

Anyway.

Let me share Murphy’s version of war theory before I wax poetically on how relevant they are to business.

Murphy’s Laws of War:

- Professionals are predictable. It is the amateurs that are dangerous.

- Never draw fire … it irritates everyone around you.

- Friendly fire … isn’t.

- Never forget your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.

- The enemy invariably attacks on 2 occasions:

When they are ready
When you are not

- If the enemy is within range … so are you.

- Mines are equal opportunity weapons

- When the pin is pulled Mr. Grenade is not our friend

- When in doubt, empty your magazine.

- Don’t ever be first, don’t ever be last, and don’t ever volunteer.

- If it’s stupid but it works, it isn’t stupid.

Well.

On every single point I was drawing a correlation to business.

Professionals are predictable. Professionals can be bad … good … lazy … but predictable. And consistent. Why? Because they actually do know their shit. They may get lazy, or play politics or even get bullied by someone louder … but they really do know their shit. Amateurs? Well. Simply … they don’t know their shit. Sure. They may get lucky on occasion as well as they may instinctually be okay <on occasion> but they are extremely unpredictable. Even worse? If an amateur has an early success they stretch that to ‘I am now a professional’ and become dangerous. Amateurs are valuable to have around because (a) they can see things differently so you can work the wheat from the chaff and (b) someday they will be professionals. But on their own? They are dangerous.

Never draw fire … because it does irritate people around you. There is an art & a science to actually raising the objection … drawing out a complaint or criticism. It also contains risk. People do not like risk. Especially if they are not controlling it. If you draw the fire … be prepared to take the bullet(s). If you are not ready to do so? You will irritate the people around you even more.

Ah. Friendly fire. Let’s call it constructive criticism or what could be <and is often called> ‘healthy debate.’ Well. It may be healthy but it sure doesn’t feel good or healthy. I guess this also falls under the ‘if it hurts it must be good for you’ philosophy. By the way? That is a stupid philosophy. Work is difficult enough without offering up the supposed friendly fire to your co-workers.

Your weapon is made by the lowest bidder. Oh so true. In today’s business world, despite the fact everyone says ‘quality is number one’ they don’t really mean it. Ok. Maybe they mean it sometimes. And ‘sometimes’ means … well … there will always be an aspect where someone decided to go ‘lowest bidder.’ What do I mean? I have a project with 25 aspects. I decide to go lowest cost on 15 aspects so I can go high quality on the other 10. Murphy’s Law? Somewhere within the 15 going on the cheap will haunt you. I say all that <bringing it back to business> because while you may decide to put your ass on the line because you feel confident ‘we did it the right way’ … just know that somewhere within all that ‘right way’ a component was given to the lowest bidder.

The enemy attacking. I laughed when I read this. Why are people in business always scrambling to address competition? Well. It’s because they are always surprised when it happens. And it’s crazy. More time is wasted (a) preparing yourself for an attack that will never come when you want it to and (b) flailing in response to an attack. The point? You control what you can control. Your own company and business. Ignore an attack if it has acceptable losses and attack when you are ready.

If they are in range … you are in range. To me this is the disillusionment of believing you have an advantage. Advantages are so fleeting if you blink you can miss it <and get your ass blown off>. The moment you have an advantage … trust me … someone is already moving into either (a) the space you just left to get you from the rear or (b) into the same space you are moving into to attack all on their own. Never assume you have an advantage. Never assume if you perceive you have an advantage that it will last. Well. Never assume you are out of range.

Mines are equal opportunity weapons. Pointing out problems doesn’t mean you are absolved from (a) blame, (b) becoming part of the problem or even (c) getting your ass blown up. Notice how people are often hesitant to complain or point out some flaws? It isn’t because they don’t see them or recognize that they shouldn’t be solved … it’s because they also recognize that they could get hurt themselves. Oh. That’s why having a minesweeper employee is priceless. Pay her/him anything they want if they are good at it.

The grenade one. Well. That is a silly one. Kind of. Why kind of? Everyone makes mistakes … in life and in work. Mistakes, like it or not, are like grenades. Once a mistake is made … the pin is pulled. It may be on a 5 second timer, 5 hour timer … even a 5 year timer … but it is a grenade and it is on a timer. Too many times I see people trapped by their own mistakes. And, frankly, they get their ass blown off simply because they held on to the grenade. I know the metaphor is silly … but you get it. In business <for sure> and in Life <most of the time> mistakes have to be shared. By sharing you not only potentially save your own ass … you most likely decrease collateral damage. Simplistically … Mr. Grenade is not your friend.

When in doubt, empty your magazine. Whew. If I had seen this earlier I would have put it up as a sign in my office. Inside an office there is so much discussion on strategy of what to do and what to say and ‘showing all your cards’ and when … and it is such wasted energy. If you have the bullets use them. Trust me. If you use them all and still get killed it’s because you didn’t have enough or you didn’t shoot straight enough … you didn’t get killed because you should have held one or two back. Plus. There is a fairly well-known fact that magazines <business bullets> are manufactured in quantities. You can always grab another magazine if you get the opportunity. Say what? No more magazines or bullets! Oh well. Just means someone was smarter than you and had more bullets. Holding one or two back ain’t gonna help here either. Use it if you got it.

Don’t be first, last or volunteer. This one is tricky. But I will give a personal opinion on this … I prefer, in business, to be a quick follower. I know that may sound strange <because leading implies being first and I like leading> but I have always tended to believe the ‘first’ <in general> were simply the most hasty. The most impatient. The ones most scared to not be first. In their desire to be first they just didn’t have all their proverbial shit together. In fact … my dream business scenario is actually to see 2 hasty ‘firsts’ coming out of the blocks duking it out and bludgeoning each other. Whew. Did I just say I liked being the 3^rd out of the blocks? Well. Yeah. If it could play out that way. Being last? Nope. Too late. But a quick follower? Absolutely.

If it’s stupid and works it isn’t stupid. In the business world … too often when things go right and someone perceives it happened out of sheer luck or ‘stupidity gone right’ … it gets ignored. It gets ignored as (a) non replicable and (b) don’t want to replicate <because it was stupid>. You want to know what’s stupid? Ignoring something that worked. I am certainly not suggesting that the ends always justify the means but I am suggesting that working is working. Somehow, someway … it worked. Therefore somewhere within what happened something was not stupid.

Please note that it is mostly the arrogant know it all senior managers who overlook the ‘stupid but worked.’ They “know better.” They “know the right way to do it.” Aw … baloney. They are being stupid.

Well.

That was fun <for me>.

Oddly <in my pea like brain> I thought of writing this using Murphy when I saw this list in some magazine from the J.Crew CEO on business. Maybe because some of the things he suggests would make great Murphy’s Laws at some point.

In addition? I happen to agree with him on his list. Here are his thoughts … the ones I really liked.

Creativity Tips From J.Crew CEO Mickey Drexler

- “Every business could be creative.”

I talk to so many people about the lack of creativity in companies in America. Part of creativity is contrarianism. Creativity battles common wisdom. Because if there’s common wisdom, there’s an opportunity. In my own experience, whatever was a good idea was a bad idea to most people.

- “Companies are in the Stone Ages organizationally.”

You can tell by the offices. “I’m going to see the king!” The king is on the top floor and there are 17 people in front of the king’s office. There are layers of bureaucracy. It shouldn’t be like that.

- “Most companies should have a rule about how big they get.”

Not necessarily assigning a billion-dollar value or a 10 billion-dollar value, but companies that become too ubiquitous go one way.

- “America’s companies are built to destroy creativity.”

If you become the head of a big company today, you’re not the youngest person in the world. You have a contract. You get a jet. You have a huge overpaid salary. You get bonuses. Do you think that CEO is going to screw around with fast, creative change? No. And the board of directors–the last thing they want is someone who’s going to change things. Steve Jobs–he would bet the company, he wouldn’t care. But there are very few people who run companies that way.

- “You have to keep moving forward.”

Everything has a trend to it; I don’t care if it’s appliances or engines. I always ask: What has a company done in the past five years that somebody’s noticed?

- “You cannot copy high quality.”

It takes a long time to get a reputation for quality. There are people in our industry, they’re basically copiers. Look at the cars on the streets. They all look alike. But if you put quality into a product, then have it validated, you have huge credibility. It takes time to earn that.

- “Simplicity is very difficult to achieve.”

Try to ask someone to make a really good roast chicken.

—–

Good stuff.

Smart guy this Mickey. Maybe he should meet Murphy and create some laws.

instinct

April 6th, 2013

“Ideas pull the trigger, but instinct loads the gun.” – Don Marquis

This quote is taken from Marquis’ “The Almost Perfect State” which was written in 1927 as a series of sharp criticisms of the Progressive Era.

Ok.

I imagine a lot of people read this quote and wonder if the quote would work better … “ideas load the gun, but instinct pulls the trigger.”

But I believe that misses Don’s point <albeit I have not spoken with him on this topic … he died in 1937>.

The point?

Knowledge and experience can only take you so far.

It is the difference between being solely analytical and incorporating the intangible <the instinctual>.

What he is suggesting is that all the bright big ideas in the world don’t mean shit if they cannot be brought into being without a person who can originate the intellectual movement of action. This person requires a special character.

Ah.

Special character.

Instinct is one of those things people hate.

Because it is not tangible … and it always assumes some level of risk.

It is research of one <which scares the shit out of people these days>.

That means …

Collaboration? Well. Nope.

Consensus? Geez. Nope.

Extrapolation through the hypotenuse of multiple data points discussed ad nausea and plotted on some nifty white board? Sounds like fun … but … nope.

Instinct is gut … albeit typically great instincts have been honed by experience and knowledge.

But in the end … it is not tangible nor proven.

It is … well … just what it is.

Sure.

It can be cultivated.

And it can even be honed.

But I do not believe it can be taught.

Well. Let me take that back and try this.

Good instincts cannot be taught.

Good instinct is first and foremost an internal aptitude. We all have instincts … but some just have gooder instincts. Beyond that natural foundation it is probably a combination of experience and knowledge and ultimately a mindset.

I say a mindset because instinct is a feeling and not anything visible or tangible. You sense what to do and where to go and what to say.

And it often isn’t because your instincts are proven good … but just rather that you know what feels wrong.

“Every time I’ve done something that doesn’t feel right, it’s ended up not being right.” – Mario M. Cuomo

That said.

I know one of the most frustrating things I have heard in business decision meetings is “I am not sure what the right thing to do is … but … what we are discussing doing sounds wrong.”

And while frustrating … it also feels right.

We sometimes get so rushed to make a decision we grab one … anyone will do. And, yet, it feels wrong … okay … maybe not wrong … just not right.

That is instinct.

Not only knowing the path to success … but also recognizing paths to failure & disappointment <before you even take one step on that path>.

It is a true joy to be near someone with good, if not great, instincts.

They seem to be in an effective zone and not in a comfort zone. What I mean is that they have a habit of disregarding distractions … discerning the important from the unimportant … and have a focus. That focus may not be the destination <it can be> but oftentimes their instincts are reflective of the journey to the destination.

They have a humble confidence … and sometimes are even slightly insecure .

“Trust instinct to the end, even though you can give no reason.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson

And they are rarely emotional in decision making.

Now.

Conversely, it is absolutely miserable to be near someone who has crappy instincts <but thinks they have good instincts>.

It is not only miserable because you end up going down lots of fruitless paths and waste a lot of energy but also because instincts are intangible.

There are no numbers or research or facts that can counter instincts and intuition. Therefore someone in a leadership position who has crappy instincts is unmovable. They are literally an elephant in the room.

That is misery.

Regardless.

Instinct is a natural aptitude.

Kind of like a knack.

An innate tendency or response to act in ways that, at its most base description, is essential to development, preservation or survival.

As Hayakawa suggests … instinct implies innate disposition rather than having a talent. It is not a gift, nor a talent or even an aptitude. It is more an inborn intangible. It could be called a ‘Knack’ but that has almost always been associated with social rather than intellectual causes & situations.

It is tough in today’s world for people with good instincts.

While intellectual in its strength it is not proven with any reason.

In an over thinking, over analyzing, over safe world .. ‘without reason’ doesn’t often gain a place at the table.

Instinctual decision making often requires having people follow with some blind faith. And in a world of consensus and collaboration … well … that ain’t happening much these days.

let the clocks stop

April 6th, 2013

April is national poetry month. The concept of a month for poetry seems almost silly to me.

Well. I would imagine it would be silly to Plath, Browning, Longfellow and maybe even Frost.

Poetry is not a month. It is of a moment.

Time is, and always has been, the judge of poetry.

Time will sift the good stuff from the bad. Time will sift so you & I don’t have to.

You have to believe this … because in the here and now?

Writing poetry guarantees a poet one thing in Life … death by neglect.

But I believe poets write to insure feelings do not get neglected. They do one thing in Life … keep feelings alive.

Maybe better said … bring moments in Life alive.

Moments that only exist in the intangible … what you feel.

“The poet begins where the man ends.

The man’s lot is to live his human life,

the poet’s to invent what is nonexistent.” ― José Ortega y Gasset

Wystan Hugh Auden <W.H. Auden> pointed out that poetry is a way of happening.

Poetry brings out the moment within the Life moments.

But it is when I think of Auden I always remember the words … stop all the clocks … <most people will remember it from 4 Weddings & a Funeral>.

Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,
Silence the pianos and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.

Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead
Scribbling on the sky the message He Is Dead,
Put crêpe bows round the white necks of the public
doves,
Let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves.

He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last for ever: I was wrong.

The stars are not wanted now: put out every one;
Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
Pour away the ocean and sweep up the wood.
For nothing now can ever come to any good.

—–

note: Like many of Auden’s works it is most recognized by the first line “Stop All the Clocks”. It is actually called “Funeral Blues” and is the first poem in a duo titled “Two Songs for Hedli Anderson. It was first published in its final, familiar form in 1938, but based on an earlier version published in 1936.

Well.

I imagine writing poetry is not for the faint of heart or the thin of skin.

But I also imagine that a true poet seeks not a month for recognizing poetry but rather seeks to share a moment that makes someone feel something … if but for a moment.

I write <bad amateurish> poetry.

Regardless … I, just as any poet , amateur or published, probably hopes that some words we dare to put on paper stops all the clocks if but for a moment.

morons

March 16th, 2013

“All morons hate it when you call them a moron.” - Holden Caulfield <Catcher in the Rye>

Ok.

Morons is a harsh word and a harsh concept …but let’s face it … most of us have experienced that maddening discussion where we explain that seemingly simple concept … or that seemingly simple common sense point of view to someone … and not only can they not grasp it but may actually argue a completely moronic point of view that flies in the face of <1> facts, <2> truth, or maybe even <3> common sense.

In fact … during the discussion we may even try several different approaches to the idea, using every metaphor <or parable or analogy> within reach to throw into the discussion that we think the person should reasonably be capable of following.

In the end … sometimes we succeed … mostly we fail … and always it is painful <to us> and obviously moronic <to us>.

It is here I will bring up the idea of intelligence <despite the fact it may sound odd in a rant on morons>.

First. Just to set the groundwork … most everyday functions of modern life require an IQ of around 90.

Those functions include driving a car, mailing a letter, paying bills and making a bank deposit.

The more specialized the function, the more intricate, the higher the level of intelligence necessary.

Second. I am not using the term ‘moron’ as a classification of any mental deficiency despite the fact that technically ‘moron’ translates to denoting a mild mental deficiency. I am going to suggest being a moron denotes a certain deficiency … but not a mental one.

Therefore <here is where I link intelligence and the topic of morons> we can dispense with the idea that morons are stupid or have a lack of intelligence.

The deficiency within morons, or being moronic, has nothing to do with intelligence <or at least IQ>. Most have IQs at or above 90 .

Let me take it one step further. You cannot be a moron unless you actually are intelligent.

Because morons are actually people who have intelligence … but they waste it.

Either by using it <their intelligence> poorly or misusing it or not even using it at all.

Wow.

Bet you didn’t think I was going to head down that path, did ya?

Morons are actually intelligent? Yup. Morons are simply purposefully ignorant … but they are smart.

Uh oh.

That means morons are as intelligent as you and I <okay … maybe at least me … you are probably smarter and this is simply my issue>.

All that said … it suggests that the moronic issue resides elsewhere than intelligence.

Robert Heinlein said that stupidity characteristics <or characteristics of morons> are actually tied to ignorance <so I am going to steal that idea because I agree with Bob>.

He suggests that stupidity cannot be cured using money, remedial education or some governmental edict because inevitably it resides within a different reason … a purposeful or intentional ignorance.

Purposeful. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … This means that morons actually know something to be wrong with themselves <it may be subconscious but they somewhere within they understand> … they are intelligent enough to understand … and, yet, rather than correct themselves and abandon that ‘something’ … they practice intentional ignorance clinging to that ‘thing’ and inevitably insist that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

And this is where morons are dangerous.

Very very dangerous.

“Because, fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and drums beating, we’ll be marching backward, backward, to those glorious ages of the 16th century, when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind.” – Clarence Darrow <Inherit the wind>

Morons march backwards. Busily marching themselves and trying to herd the rest of us backwards to some glorious age.

It is a Life truth that fanaticism & ignorance is forever busy <and a busybody>.

I fully understand that this fanaticism and ignorance is impossible to extinguish. But that doesn’t mean it should be tolerated. Particularly if it is actually harmful.

Regardless. Tolerance is an acceptance of the morons.

And with this acceptance, albeit grudging acceptance, the morons simply see it as permission to be moronic and they gladly step up <in their forever busy way of theirs> and do harm.

Harm in the form of stopping <or even reversal> of progress … harm in marching us backwards.

Or they teach and promote falsehoods to others <others including children which is disturbing> with the hope that this younger generation will grow up and can possibly march us backwards.

All this translates into a lot of time and effort and energy lost as ignorance and its byproducts step up and suck time & energy from progress.

Ok. A Bruce thought.

I believe we can no longer afford the luxury of moronic ignorance or tolerate the presence of morons. Tolerating them leads to the creation of a sense that this moronic ignorance actually equals some sort of knowledge <which then makes them some sort of “knowledgeable person” and you know where that leads … ‘trouble in River City’ to quote The Music Man>.

“<there is a> … false notion that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov

Morons are wily. They have the notion that their smarts, combined with their purposeful ignorance, is just as good as real unfiltered knowledge.

This is tiring to deal with.

In fact … if you find yourself surrounded by morons, rather than just shake your head, you have to purposefully accept the challenge to deal with their moronic thinking with the knowledge that they actually have the intelligence to be non-moronic <but actually choose to be moronic>. Wow. Just typing that made my head hurt.

It would take a monumental effort to create the unlikely evolutionary change where morons become extinct <that may be an unattainable objective but it is certainly an admirable objective>.

And it will take your best monumental effort to deal with a moron because there are instances where the lines are blurred and where argument and debate and discussion regarding two sides of an issue are actually warranted.

But.

You should seek solace in that there are also issues where right is right … and wrong is wrong … and anyone who argues it looks like the guy who believes Yoda exists somewhere and The Force can be attained with focus & practice.

Oh.

And here is where morons really thrive.

Numbers & science & studies & statistics <oh my>.

Science is smart and science is stupid.

Both are true and there could be studies done to prove it.

One of the smart/stupid things about science is something called the ubiquitous study. They are excellent scientific research formats but while all studies <and most research in general> are interesting … they do not reveal eternal, all-encompassing truths.

They simply provide a glimpse into one small, carefully cordoned off area of interest. Extrapolations from the data are based on statistics and therefore do not necessarily apply to everyone and everything.

I say that because it seems like we find comfort worshiping at the altar of the ‘numbers’.

All of us seem to be considering study results and numbers to be the indisputable truth.

What a fantasy.

But it is often a fantasy land morons live, eat & drink in <and thrive in like a bacteria in a petri dish>>. Numbers are their friends and constant companions.

Morons thrive on the isolated statistic. A random factoid or piece of information that has no context nor admits it has Truth only within a limited set of circumstances. And they win a shitload of debates using this technique. How does all this happen?

Well. It sounds simplistic … but I believe we allow it to happen for a couple of reasons … first is a well intentioned but subverted belief in freedom of speech. Subverted because inevitably it is often simply ‘freedom of opinion’ these days. Secondly … ‘opinion’ forces us all to seek something tangible in which to reach some conclusion … therefore we seek statistics or numbers to identify truth <and isolate something we can all agree on>.

And numbers do not necessarily translate into Truth. Especially isolated non-contextual numbers.

In the end we seem to be damned by a society that has ingrained in us this strange belief that because we encourage freedom of speech and freedom of thought … that all ideas deserve respect and consideration that no one individual <or idea> is “better” or more “worthy” of consideration than any other.

What a bunch of bullhockey.

This has created an environment in which any moronic idea can hover around like an aggravating gnat as legitimate idea.

It is crazy.

A moron is a moron.

A moronic idea is a moronic idea.

It is time that we learned to have the balls <or spine if you are a woman> to call out the morons.

Morons don’t like to be called morons.

Why?

Because they are frickin’ intelligent enough to know better than skate by on shallow feelings and beliefs.

And all the while you must swim in the shallow end of the intellectual debate to debate with them … you must be careful of your own ignorance more than theirs … because purposeful ignorance does have a sneaky way of creeping up on you. What I mean is that it is easier to be a moron than to not be a moron. It takes less work, intellectually and curiosity, to maintain an ignorant point of view than it takes to not only grow personally but to actually help a moron grow <which is a quite taxing job>. Frankly it is just easier to quit debating than to take on a moron. I imagine it becomes a test of character.

Regardless. I imagine in the end that is my point <the test morons give us day in and day out>.

Morons are morons because they are smart enough to engage in purposeful ignorance.

To be ignorant on purpose?

Yikes.

You would have to be a moron.

But. In the end … morons hate to be called morons simply because they are smart enough to know they could do, and be, better. Even morons know somewhere under their purposeful ignorance they should be better than what they are. I imagine the only way to beat morons is to actually get them to face that fact.

Wow. There is a tough job. But. We cannot let the morons win. Purposeful ignorance is a disease. A disease that can affect entire civilizations & cultures. That thought makes it scary to even think about tolerating the moron.

the ‘Secret’ ain’t really a secret

March 9th, 2013

Forewarning. If you like The Secret … and live by The Secret … it will be no secret at the end of this rant that I do not believe the secret is a secret at all. So read on at your own peril.

“To create the life of your dreams, the time has come for you to love You. Focus on Your joy. Do all the things that make You feel good. Love You, inside and out. Everything will change in your life, when you change the inside of you. Allow the Universe to give you every good thing you deserve, by being a magnet to them all. To be a magnet for every single thing you deserve, you must be a magnet of love.” ― Rhonda Byrne

“Success or failure depends more upon attitude than upon capacity successful men act as though they have accomplished or are enjoying something. Soon it becomes a reality. Act, look, feel successful, conduct yourself accordingly, and you will be amazed at the positive results.” – William James

Oh boy.

I am going to discuss <rant about> The Secret by Rhonda Byrne.

It really isn’t anything more than a reformulation of William James or even Norman Vincent Peale’s ‘The Power of Positive Thinking.’

Bottom line. The book to me? Tripe. Useless drivel.

Look.

If you want to do something good … well … go ahead and do it.

If you need a self-motivation “I am happy and love life” speech to yourself in the morning … then do it.

But.

Suggesting simply choosing happiness leads to success, well, that is flawed logic. And the whole “magnet for good”? … oh my. We could only all wish it were so easy.

Now.

While I can’t buy this tripe I do love the idea.

But.

C’mon. If it was really this easy wouldn’t we all have everything we truly wanted? <because that’s all we would think about … and I actually guess all of us have actually wanted to do only the things we want to do … and the things that would make us happy>.

Anyway.

The challenge with challenging a book like this is that it actually leverages from a simple Life premise … … that our thoughts <and ultimately – actions> are usually a reflection of our beliefs and attitudes. And if we want to change our reality then we have to change these beliefs and attitudes that shape our thoughts.

But it becomes easier to challenge when it actually suggests that there is a scientific premise <which is actually a made up premise> … that the ‘Universal Law of Attraction’ is a Law in which if you focus on something enough it is not only drawn to you but actually expands.

This made up law says ‘The Law of Attraction states that you will attract to yourself those experiences that match your beliefs: These beliefs then create your EXPERIENCE of reality. So focus on what you DO want, rather than on what you don’t want.’

Therefore <scientifically> you will not only get what you want … but you also get to live a Life only doing what makes you happy.

First. There is no Law of Attraction. Not even a postulate or a theorem. Just a made up law <maybe that is it’s secret?>.

Second. You do not always get what you want. Anything. Experiences included. But I can reverse the logic and guarantee all the things you actually do, and like to do, you actually wanted to do. Reality looked at backwards will always appear closer in the “I wanted to do” mirror. And as for ‘attraction’? What a bunch of bullhockey.

The Secret is a power of intention/power of positive thinking a get what you want formula <also like Tony Robbin>.

Here is the deal.

It will “work” for some based on mathematical probability alone <if enough people think “hard” enough to ‘attract’ whatever they are seeking to attract … a few will>.

And, of course, these few are the ones quoted in the book.

I wish it was actually that simple.

The Secret neglects to inform you, but suffice it to say, it is not “attraction” but rather this is more about discipline and focus and effort.

But.

If the happiness ‘secret’ keeps your eye on your own proverbial ball … then do it.

But to suggest it is a science let alone a law with proof <because you can de-isolate specific incidents and make the argument that they are exceptions to the rule> really does make the Secret untenable if not simply a criticism of our intelligence.

It is certainly sneaky. It uses smart quotes <albeit out of context> and the book takes advantage of the fact we all ask ourselves these questions <all of us do, or have done, at some point>. Things like:

Do you ever wonder how other people do it?

How do some people find the courage to follow their dreams?

What makes happy successful people different <or what is their commonality>?

Well. Sorry. The truth is there is nothing special about the majority of them.

The difference between a person who has an idea and a person who acts on that idea is one step … albeit a big step.

That step often comes down to knowing you are not alone and finding the courage within yourself. Dreaming big certainly encourages you to take that first step.

And to succeed, or find happiness, you do have to be willing to take at least some step. After that? Well. You gotta work hard. I <or anyone> can envision anything … but it ain’t just gonna be given to me.

Whenever I see a quote like “Every day when I wake up I realize I have a choice. I can be happy or unhappy. So what do I do? I’m not dumb. I choose to be happy” I kind of want to puke. Having a positive attitude, or making the best of the situation, is always good … but Life is meant to be a roller coaster ride <even if you hate roller coasters> and there will be highs & lows. You slug it out with the lows and enjoy the highs. No secret.

Now. I certainly do believe in committing to ‘show up’ in Life every day … but this quote? What a bunch of crap <or tripe>.

So.

I had drafted a brilliant <in my eyes> diatribe on how books like The Secret are worse for humanity than even the most misguided government but I found someone who did it for me <and even more smartly than I was going to do it>.

I apologize that I cannot provide the author because when I cut & pasted I neglected to capture that information but suffice it to say I need to credit someone other than me for these well crafted words:

I think a book like this, which makes some really big claims, should, roughly, do the following:

1) Present it’s premise clearly

2) Since it’s a self-help book explain clearly what you need to do

3) Provide compelling evidence that it’s ideas work

4) Be credible.

The book does a decent job of explaining its premise, which is that everything in your life is the result of the law of attraction.

I quote, “the law of attraction says like attracts like, so when you think a thought, you are also attracting like thoughts to you.” In other words, think good thoughts and good things will come to you and if you think bad thoughts then bad things come to you.

I’ve simplified this a bit but not a whole lot as the concept isn’t rocket science.

Now, does this book explain clearly what you need to do? Actually, for a self-help book it does a very poor job of this. How do you control your thoughts? What kinds of practices and thinking produce the best results? The author and contributors basically tell you a bunch of stories about how “so and so did something and you can too by changing your thinking”.

And that’s it for the “how to” part of the book. There isn’t any.

Now, if I wanted to prove something worked from a scientific perspective it would seem to be easy to test this stuff out. You take two groups of people, teach one the secret, let the other go on with their lives and see what happens. In theory those that know the Secret would be happier and more successful than the control group. It might not be perfect but it’d be a whole lot better than what we get in this book. But, of course, you’d have to have an actual methodology to test.

Instead the authors cite numerous anecdotes of how the Secret worked. One person’s cancer went away. Another individual walks after a brutal accident. Still another finds romance. That’s all fine and perhaps it’s evidence but it’s not proof. How many people who were injured like the “Miracle Man” never walked again despite the best attitude and trying the approach perfectly?

The problem with anecdotes is that it’s easy to start with a result, work backward and assume the conclusion.

It’s also very easy with anecdotes to only present the ones that make your case and ignore those that don’t (when someone dies of cancer while practicing the secret for instance). It’s just not good enough to use anecdotes for large claims like those made in this book.

The following quote struck a nerve.

“People hold that for awhile, and they’re really a champion at it. They say, `I’m fired up, I saw this program and I’m going to change my life.’ And yet the results aren’t showing. Beneath the surface it’s just about ready to break through but the person will look just at the surface results and say, `This stuff doesn’t work.’ And you know what? The universe says, “your wish is my command.”

I thought it was interesting that the universe instantly manifest failure but isn’t quite so fast with success. In fact, a cynical individual might conclude that what they are really saying is, “when this program works it’s because the secret always works, but, on the off chance it doesn’t work, well, that’s your fault.” An even more cynical person might think, “gosh, I wonder what would help a person who failed? Maybe, a seminar with Bob Proctor would be just the thing to get them over the top?”

Lastly, is the Secret credible? On the one hand, I think a lot can be said for the idea that if you change your thinking you’d change your life.

In many ways that seems obvious to me.

On the other hand, if the secret actually was true, especially at the scope claimed by the book it would mean that everything that’s happened is the result of your thinking. So, when a child dies of pneumonia, well, it’s because they brought pneumonia into their lives. Michael J. Fox, not only did you bring Parkinson’s into your life but change your thinking and it will go away. Obviously these things aren’t true and they obliterate, in my opinion, any credibility in the book.

Not only does the book go too far but most (I’d argue nearly all) of the contributors aren’t credible. On a topic of this scope: the ability to 100% change your life and the world in an incredible fashion, does anyone really think you couldn’t find psychologists, top flight scientists, therapists and thousands of mainstream individuals to support it, if it worked? Wouldn’t there be tons of research instead of anecdotes? Instead we get a Feng Shui Master, a chiropractor, motivational speakers (err trainers), a metaphysicist, etc. combined with a half dozen anecdotal stories. So the most powerful like changing idea ever and you get it from the crew in this book presented in this fashion? I don’t think so!

If this idea really worked, at anything other than giving material to self-help speakers and generating repeat students, it just wouldn’t be found here. The book wouldn’t even have to be written because we’d all already know it and be practicing it. Remember, this is not a new idea, it’s been around for a very long time, and it’s been the topic of literally thousands of seminars and hundreds of books.

Catchy review title? Thought so. Robert Cialdini, renowned psychology researcher and author of Influence: The Power of Persuasion (perhaps the best book ever written on the subject) identifies six basic rules employed by politicians, advertisers and scam artists alike to persuade others. Each of them are employed quite adeptly by Rhonda Byrne in this book.

Cialdini’s first principle is SCARCITY; people want what’s expensive, exclusive, or otherwise attainable. Byrne’s mastery of this principle is clearly shown by the very name of the book: The Secret. We all learned this the first week of kindergarten as we felt the jealousy of watching two classmates, hands cupped over ears, sharing a secret out of earshot.

This message is reinforced throughout the book and its advertising campaign which pitches “The Secret” (whatever it actually is) as jealousy-guarded information hoarded by the happy, wealthy and successful. Whenever someone tries convincing you of something, whether it’s a way to make enormous sums of money, to lose weight, etc – be wary of when it’s pitched as “the knowledge THEY don’t want you to have.” Think about it – everything from the “secrets that Wall Street doesn’t want you to know” to “uncovered – celebrities’ secrets to staying young” are phrased not simply to pique your interest but to make you jealous. Appeals to our emotion are far more powerful than appeals to reason, and Byrne demonstrates mastery of this principle throughout “The Secret.”

Cialdini’s second principle is LIKING. We like those who like us, and in turn, we do business with them. Positive thinking and emotional intelligence has been linked to strong interpersonal relationships, academic and professional success, and good health, but there is a fine line when positive thinking crosses over to unjustified exuberance. Instead of simply noting the substantial benefits of positive thinking (a well-accepted principle which wouldn’t sell books), Byrne crosses the line so blatantly that anyone with a modicum of modesty would find it blasphemous.

AUTHORITY is another Cialdini principle, also in play in “The Secret” in quite subtle ways. Another technique which differentiates this book from just another book of positive thinking is the heavy use of quasiscientific language, which gives the impression that the “law of attraction” is (or will become) an accepted scientific principle, just like the law of gravity or the law of attraction of oppositely-charged particles in chemistry. Many people are both intimidated and confused by the authority of science, a fact exploited by manipulators ranging from Byrne to peddlers of magic weight-loss pills.

Since no respected physicist would ever publish a paper on the universality of the “law of attraction,” Byrne indirectly seeks experts in other ways. She attributes the success of people ranging from Einstein to Beethoven to adherence of “The Secret,” thereby manufacturing experts. After all, if Einstein and Shakespeare mastered “The Secret,” who are YOU to question it?

The last two Cialdini principles are CONSISTENCY and SOCIAL PROOF. The success of this book should leave little doubt it will be followed by more (and more expensive) forms of media peddling “The Secret.” The audio recordings, weekend seminars, advertising tie-ins, and other follow-up products certain to follow will exploit these two principles. Once people commit themselves to believing happiness will come from “The Secret,” they will attribute future successes, whether a promotion or a great new relationship, to adherence to it. Conversely, setbacks will be even more powerfully in committing people to “The Secret,” as people will attribute their failures to not living up to “The Secret” (and buying more of Byrne’s books). Consistency dictates it will be less painful to buy more books and immerse one’s self further into “The Secret” than to accept the whole premise is a quite ridiculous; while not as pernicious as a domineering cult, “The Secret” promises to charge you handsomely for a positive outlook on life.

Byrne’s book is problematic on many levels.

On its face, it’s a manipulative marketing tool meant to flatter, confuse and deceive. It’s also pseudoscience at its best, the last thing we need to encourage in an increasingly technological world which requires healthy skepticism and critical thought. Most damaging, though, is how the book perverts reality by encouraging people to equate a positive outlook on life with a childish, idiotic narcissism. Ayn Rand must be rolling in her grave hearing about the modern manifestation of her objectivist movement reduced to the intellectual equivalent of canned pork.

In conclusion, I’m not opposed to the idea on a small scale but this book just goes way too far and I’m left with the feeling that all that’s really going on is a bunch of people trying to get their name out and get you to pay for their seminars.

——–

So.

All that said.

Here is my point.

Do what you need to do to keep moving forward in life.

Have dreams.

Seek to be happy.

Seek success.

However you may define all the things I just listed.

They are all good aspects of “Life survival.” And are all good objectives.

And if this book helps you to focus on these things, well, then use it.

But.

The book is not a formula nor is it the bible/Koran guide to Life success or Life happiness.

It is simply a useful tool for some people.

Nor does simply envisioning success, or happiness, guarantee success or happiness. Someone in discussing this book suggested I was debating chicken or egg first. Nope. I break the egg by noting everyone who gains happiness <or 99.9%> will absolutely say they envisioned the happiness … but I can almost guarantee everyone who has not achieved happiness <or 99.9% of them> will absolutely say they have envisioned happiness. Someone doesn’t envision any better than someone else. Sometimes you may have more drive or you may work harder or you may even simply have more talent … or maybe the happiness is tied to something to unrealistic. I do not care which you choose. This logic kills the chicken and the egg.

Books like this drive me a little crazy in that they suggest they are ‘the key’ … because if Life were that simple well … Life would be simple.

I have a secret for you.

Life ain’t that simple.

Anyway. Because the book uses a lot of quotes I will end on a quote of my own from Arthur Rubenstein:

” Most people , in my opinion, have an unrealistic approach toward happiness because they invariably use the fatal conjunction “if” as a condition. You hear them say: ‘I would be happy if I were rich’, or … ‘if this girl loved me’ … or ‘if I had talent’ … or their most popular … ‘if I had good health.’ They often attain their goal, but they discover new ‘ifs.’As for myself, I love Life for better or for worse, unconditionally.”

Good pianist.

Smart man.

Great advice <no secret>.

Love Life unconditionally … and you will be happy.

impatience and choices

March 5th, 2013

“Impatience kills quickly.” – Katerina Stoykova Klemer

“Mental clarity ain’t for the faint of heart.”- Katerina Stoykova Klemer

Well.

I believe we could all become more adept at making choices. Because, if anything, we seem to have become worse at making thoughtful choices. Heck. Maybe even ANY choices.

Now.

I am all for, and a huge proponent of not dicking around <the technical term for ‘wasting time overthinking’> when a choice needs to be made.

But there is a difference between making speedy decisions and making a decision because speed is the main criteria.

Of course … this is festina lente.

Make haste slowly.

And it is becoming more important to think this way because the fear of choices … leading to making the most obvious or most popular or the most expedient <speediest> … is plaguing not only our personal lives but more importantly the business world.

Fortunately there are scientists at work trying to figure out why.

In the meantime Psychologist Barry Schwartz has put forward an interesting (and slightly disturbing) theory about choices and happiness.

“The more options there are, the easier it is to regret anything at all that is disappointing about the option that you chose.” – Barry Schwartz

Mr. Schwartz calls it the paradox of choice.

It seems the more choices we have, the less likely we are to make a decision, which ultimately makes us unhappy. Schwartz suggests that choice has made us not freer but more paralyzed and, ultimately, not happier but more dissatisfied.

Barry Schwartz studies the link between economics and psychology.

I found it interesting because he actually suggests <kind of> that having more options doesn’t increase our overall satisfaction <benefit + happiness>.

Here is his talk on Ted:

http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html

Making choices … having the mental clarity to do so in a typically impatient world is made more difficult by the fact many of us begin by thinking of regret. Yup. The fear of choosing one thing before you even choose the other. All of this being tempered by the “now factor” .

I call this the internalization of opportunities/costs/loss. Or maybe it is simply dwelling on the benefits of the next best options that have been forgone by a choice <losing something, albeit even speculatively, that you never had>.

Every choice has opportunity costs.

And since we live in a world of infinite possibilities, it’s so hard to figure out what to do, when, and where.

If you start thinking this way … well … you begin living in a world strewn with hypotheticals.

If I do A, then this will happen.

But what if I do B?

Will I be happier? Will I get back more? Will everyone around me be more satisfied?

Or what about C? That looks good.

But someone suggested D.

You get it. There are 26 letters in the alphabet and while most of us stop way before Z … even getting to D can be maddening.

It seems like the world is your oyster … everything is possible … but you don’t take advantage of any opportunities because you’re not sure of what’s best.

To make matters worse, more choices tend to raise our expectations: we think more choice = better quality.

Anyway.

I use scientific advice to suggest that there are some happy few people who look at each choice discreetly. More choices do not equal better quality to them. They do not need the ‘more’ they simply need the context. These people drive us crazy because they do not typically offer us choices <we may like ‘more’ but they offer ‘less’> but rather they offer us ‘the’ choice.

And it is often a good choice.

The best? Shit. Is there really a best? There are most often better choices than others … and they identify the better of the better.

This is typically where we end up screwing up the value of these people. Because we want ‘more choice’ and they want ‘right choice’ <and move along>.

We are impatient humans … yet we always want more … and we seem to always want it all in less time.

It is an ongoing daily struggle.

Let’s get personal first. Daily Life.

This is about how most of us are not good at assessing ROC <return on choice> the return on whatever we have invested in making the choice as well as once the choice is made.

We suck at this.

There is the investment in developing the choices <and however many we need to feel like we have enough to assess … assuming that is a finite number>.

There is the investment in actually assessing the choices <better, betterest & best … assuming a best can be actually identified>.

There is the investment in the actual choice.

Oh.

And there is investment post-choice. Yup. Even if we choose the rightest choice we either have angst over whether it was the best or we have angst hangover from the choice process.

Ok.

Let’s go business next.

I call this the paradox of organizational choice.

The end result is the same as Schwartz’s <too many choices creates diminished value>. But the path to the result is different <if not just as paradoxical>.

Here is that paradoxical business organization logic path.

Faster good choices are better.

Few good “choicers” <people who can do the first thought> available.

Many within organization believes they are good ‘choicers’ <and permitting them to make choices has a paradox effect of building their personal self-esteem as ‘good choicers’ while actually implementing less than optimal choices thereby encouraging poor choice making>.

Organizations, to be more efficient & effective, should drive choices <all> to the select few good ‘choicers’

Unselected majority ultimately grumpy <but organization actually benefits>.

Wow.

That is not only a paradox but a Gordian knot <or in layman’s terms … ‘playing Twister with your organization’>.

Look.

All I am suggesting is that some people are really good at making ‘impatient choices.’ They have that mental clarity that actually improves in impatient moments … and the maturity to slow down the moment and say ‘let’s not be so quick to make haste’ <and actually be right about it>.

But not everyone is like this.

And, in fact, they are a minority.

I imagine the optimal world would be to funnel all choices through this minority.

Imagine being the key word … because that is an imaginary world. We couldn’t do it.

If your life, or your business, has one or two … use them, preserve them, foster them … and trust them <you will go farther than you ever imagined>.

If you do not have the luxury of having one of them around <which by the way … is an entire article on how most of us suck at accepting someone is better at this than we are> you have to learn to manage impatience. Yeah. Easier said than done.

I imagine the point here is by acknowledging and accepting the issue gives you the opportunity to actually deal with the issue.

And in the end … organizational impatience leads to the permitting of poor choices <and a quicker death of a thousand cuts>.

Personal impatience in choice making probably just leads to general unhappiness <kind of a different thousand little cuts>.

Dealing with impatience … and balancing impatience & patience ? … well … it ain’t for the faint of heart.

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.

valentines day 2013

February 14th, 2013

“Life and love are life and love, a bunch of violets is a bunch of violets, and to drag in the idea of a point is to ruin everything. Live and let live, love and let love, flower and fade, and follow the natural curve, which flows on, pointless.” – d. h. Lawrence

So.

First. Happy Valentine ’s Day.

Second. Thank you D.H.

Valentine’s Day should never have a point. It is simply a moment in a natural curve which flows on … pointless. It seems we put so much meaning into everything these days … I kind of think of all the days in the year VDay should simply ‘live and let live’ and ‘love and let love.’

Third. That said. I will make a point on valentine’s day … in fact … a bunch of points <you certainly didn’t think I wouldn’t, did you?>.

I am not sure I will ever best my first valentine’s day post where I applied business acumen to the male thought process on valentine’s day < http://brucemctague.com/a-strategic-look-at-valentines-day > or last year’s thoughtful thought on togetherness < http://brucemctague.com/life-love-alone-and-togetherness … or even my favorite love songs post http://brucemctague.com/6-love-songs-for-valentines-day >but I am gonna try.

This thought for valentines day is not actually mine. Well. Most of it is not mine <because I will add in some of my own point of view>. I was cleaning out a box and I found a column from a late 1980’s Dallas Morning News that for some reason I had stashed in a folder – 10 Romance Myths.

Parts are funny.

Parts are absurd.

But all parts got published in a credible newspaper so I have to think there is some merit <original column in italics … my thoughts are not>.

Here you go.

Myth 1: when its love, you know it.

Not true. One partner may know it; the other may be out to lunch. That’s what happened when one of our correspondents, Didi, met Brad. She knew it was love … not right away. It took her about an hour … but Brad was marching to the beat of a different drummer. One that was banging verrrrrrrrry slowly.

After their first date Brad said, “I’ll call you soon.” And then he fell off the face of the earth for 5 weeks. It took a note under his windshield to get him to pick up the phone.

Well.

I agree with the ‘not true.’ Falling in love, oddly enough, has an individual drummer. And just like snowflakes … each drummer is different. I say oddly because unless you are a narcissist it takes two to fall in love. Yet … you don’t know it until you know it <no matter how fast one wants the other to know something>.

Myth 2: when it’s right, it’s easy.

Well. Sometimes it’s so hard it makes ditch digging seem like fun. For two years Jill said, “I love you” and Randy, her boyfriend, said “thank you.” It took the threat of another man to choke out those three little words. It took her threat to move out of town to get him to propose. But that was 14 years ago and now Jill swears Randy says “I love you” every single day.

Well.

I absolutely agree with the ‘so hard it can make ditch digging seem fun.’ I just hate the example the author made. Threats do not typically make a great basis for a long term relationship. I agree that sometimes a crossroads moment clarifies feelings … but threats are bad when it comes to love.

Myth 3: dating is fun.

If you are 16 and a Brad Pitt look-a-like takes you to the prom, it’s fun. But somewhere into the second or third decade of dating it can get old. The feeling is best summed up by the woman who told us, “I have spent so many Saturday nights sitting in some restaurant looking across the table thinking ‘I wish I were at home watching Love Boat’.”

Well.

Dating sucks. So did Love Boat. There is a happy medium. Good dates are great. Bad dates are whatever the opposite of great is. But you know what? You gotta find the fun in it because you gotta do the dating to actually get to the next phase .

Myth 4: stick to your own kind

There’s nothing cupid loves more than a good laugh. That’s why he introduced Alex and Sue. She is a big city girl; he’s a small town boy. She reads romance novels and he reads computer magazines. They don’t even sleep the same way. She likes to burrow in and he likes the sheets loose.

How does their marriage work? Great.

Well.

I agree. For every ‘two peas in a pod’ great love example I can find a ‘live on different planets’ great love example. I imagine the real point here is that despite what Cosmopolitan may advise … there is no formula.

Myth 5: don’t play games; they don’t work

Oops. Apparently some do. A correspondent named Victoria explained why: “some people need drama in romance and drama is built on conflict. If you’re nice all the time, you’re predictable and that’s boring. It’s okay to do something nasty once in a while. In fact it’s necessary.”

That’s her advice, mind you, not mine. Just sharing advice not giving it.

Well.

This may be the crappiest romance advice I have ever seen. Drama? Ok. Some conflict? Sure. Be nice all the time? No human actually can be. Predictable? Maybe the most overlooked great quality in a relationship. It is not boring … it provides some steady to what can be an emotional earthquake of worry if it isn’t there. Doing something nasty every once in awhile? Oh my. Now that is some good input <not>.

Myth 6: if there’s no chemistry, forget it.

Some relationships actually do start with a sizzle. Mallory and Ted blossomed over a checkbook.

They were friends. Neither of them expected to fall in love. Both got tired of paying rent and realized neither could afford a house on their own. They decided to move in together … split a mortgage … oh, and while they were at it, get married.

Year one was fine. They had a house and a dual income. But something funny happened in the second or third year of marriage. They fell in love.

Well.

Chemistry is a funny thing <with feelings not in the classroom>. There are so many frickin’ ingredients to mix up that I think part of chemistry is simply discerning which ingredients belong in the relationship test tube to make it work. If you put the wrong ingredients in <the ones that are inconsequential but steal the necessary molecules from the consequential ingredients> the test tube breaks or simply doesn’t create the desired formula. Ok. Now that I have flogged that metaphor to death … the only thing I would really change is “at first” … if there is no chemistry at first, don’t panic … sometimes chemistry takes a whole semester to solve.

Myth 7: guys have got it made.

You’ve seen the statistics. You’re tired of statistics. Were smack in the middle of the Great American Male Shortage. Which means that any man who is presentable and self-supporting has it made. Oops. But somehow it just doesn’t work that way.

Take William. He’s young, single and has a good job. You’d think the only thing on his mind would be whether to get racing stripes on his new car. But You would be wrong. From the minute the date starts he worries about how it is going to end. Should he kiss her? Should he say he’ll call if he knows he won’t?

And if a woman asks him in should he sit on the couch? On the chair? How long should he stay?

All the statistics in the world do not make it easier … on anyone <male or female>.

Well.

I am a guy. And I imagine I am a statistic. And I can clearly say I do not have it made. I don’t worry like the bonehead outlined in the example <he is a frickin’ freak who SHOULD remain single for the rest of his life> but dating and relationships and all that stuff is not simple … for women or men. No one has it made <or easy>. Well. That is until you actually latch on to ‘the one’ … then you fall into the ‘have it made’ category.

Myth 8: “all I want is a nice guy.”

This may be the biggest myth of all. Every woman says she wants a nice guy. No one really does. Over and over again the nice guys tell us “I got dumped for a jerk.”

Kevin is a nice guy. “a handsome, loving and sensitive person with a bright future.” Three times he has been in love … and three times he has been dumped. Once he was dumped for a tattoo artist. Once he was dumped for a drug addict. Most recently he was dumped for a young unemployed guy. He wonders if all women are crazy or just the ones he runs into.

Well.

First. I would suggest to Kevin that he may be a nice guy but he is crappy at selecting women to date.

Second. All women want a nice guy <at his core>. That doesn’t mean they want a spineless jelly fish who does everything he is told to do <even clean the toilets> but they wish for some balance. A manly man with some intelligence and niceness and respect and some individuality <even if it has some not so nice characteristics>. Basically? Women want it all. Oh. A funny thing? So do men.

Myth 9: there is no such thing as a good blind date.

Well. Sometimes they work like magic. There was Eloise. She opened her door to a man dressed in a blue stocking cap, black slacks, white shirt, brown sweater and red polyester jacket. He was short and substantially overweight. Not a great start. Yet … as the evening wore on Eloise found him to be honest, fun, smart, warm and easy to be with. In a word … wonderful. She said yes to a second date and, when he asked her to marry him … she said yes <again>.

Well.

Having been on numerous blind dates and even had a couple friend set up a blind date program for me to set me up over a 13 week period I can safely say that there is such a thing as a good blind date. As with anything you do blindly … there is good and bad. The bad may seem badder because being blind means you aren’t prepared … but the good is gooder because you are surprised. I wouldn’t suggest the 13 week program but I do believe blind dates can be a fun supplement to your everyday life.

Myth 10: when you’re ready, it’ll happen.

Unfortunately, no. There are thousands of ready men and women out there. In fact … men and women who have been ready for a while … if not years. But there is an upside to the myth as well. It may not happen when you are ready, but it will happen. It will take its own sweet time but it will happen.

Well.

They are correct … no. In fact … I would be tempted to suggest that it is a rarity in Life, in general, on anything … that when you are ready it will happen … given that thought … why would anyone think love would be any different? But. I do agree. If it is what you want … even though Life is relatively indifferent to the fate of your love life … and cupid has a warped sense of humor … if you care it will happen.

Enjoy the day.

pressure doesn’t gain time

February 13th, 2013

Ok.

I almost called this “our obsession with time.”

And because of this obsession … procrastinators, who have always been crucified, are being verbally harpooned day in and day out in books, businesses and everyday life as “time wasters” <which is metaphorically making those people as bad as smokers, litterers and communists or, in general, inferior flawed people>.

Yup.

In my eyes procrastinators have a tough life these days.

Employers are getting better at squeezing any ‘time wasting.’

And peer pressure makes any time wasting become the equivalent of having a post-it note super glued to your forehead with lazy/inefficient/nonproductive/etc. <choose one or all> on it <or just a poor employee>.

Even compensation is becoming more short term.

Almost 60% of Americans are paid hourly.

And even if management isn’t tracking hours, paying people by the hour, demanding meeting effectiveness by the minute or utilizing time efficiency models to squeeze every productive minute out of you … you are putting pressure on yourself with to-do lists, calendar updates, scheduled sex events with your partner and “family time” <limited to maximize 15 minute increments to insure you get everything done you need to get done>.

We are so obsessed with time and maximizing it … all of it … each and every minute … and we are being pressured <by others or by ourselves> to do so all the with the intent to ‘gain time.’

Anyway.

We are constantly seeking to maximize moments under the guise of ‘not procrastinating’ or in harsher words … not wasting … our time.

Maslow suggested we should seek, and encounter, “peak moments of clarity.”

Some bonehead called Eckhart Tolle <who is considered a very smart bonehead in some circles> wrote an entire book expounding on living a life in the ‘now’ (Power of Now) which was slightly absurd.

A company I worked at, JWT, even wrote a trend white paper called “Time is the new Currency” <in the early 2000’s I believe>.

This is crazy.

First of all obsessing over anything, let alone time, is not and never will be … healthy.

And secondly it will never increase efficiency, nor effectiveness, when all time is said and done.

Thirdly, pressure, especially on an ongoing basis, is never a good ingredient in the formula for happiness.

All that said.

I would like to reference an obscure article which can be found in the Academy of Management Journal <Brian Gunia & 3 co-authors of Johns Hopkins> and a book “Wait: the art and science of delay” <Frank Partnoy>.

Let me begin with one of my favorite topics – doing the right thing <ethically>.

I found it really interesting that in a series of experiments slowing down actually makes us more ethical . When confronted with a clear choice between right and wrong, people are 5 times more likely to do the right thing if they have time to think about it rather than if they are forced to make a snap decision. In addition they studied businesses and suggest organizations with a ‘fast pulse’ <like banks> are more likely to suffer from ethical problems than those who move more slowly.

Say what?

Yup.

Time pressure enhances the odds someone will make a less ethical, less right, decision.

Beyond that … the books and research suggest that delaying decisions <not yielding to time pressure> actually enhances the quality of the decision.

Sure. There is a ROI on time and delay and decision making … I imagine if I were smart enough I could draw out a decision utility graph with time and quality of decisions but I am not only not smart enough but I cannot draw.

Suffice it to say these relatively smart guys say that in their published papers.

Look.

Maybe because of the business I am in I get asked a lot about family time (or diminishing of family time) and not having enough time to <fill in the blank> or managing time.

Beyond the fact I have either seen or have done so much research on how people actually USE their time … I have found that we invest so much time trying to manage time … or worry about how to alleviate the pressure time seems to put on us … we actually waste a shitload of time <which actually creates a doom loop of pressure to use and maximize time>.

There is so much discussion and pressure on what to do with time I see diminishing results.

The pressure to maximize time is actually leading to minimizing time (go figure)

So.

I remind people that we all have the same amount of time … which usually draws some evil looks … but its true … it’s what you elect to do with it and, maybe more importantly, your approach toward time.

I tend to believe we forget, or undervalue, the fact that it is less important to do things first then to do things right.

And I have someone on my side … Warren Buffett … who has said … “lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style.”

Me?

I worry that our obsession with time <speed> has a negative effect in business and at home <basically … in our lives>.

The secret to an effective brain is a combination of fast and slow <and there is research to support this>.

Procrastinators get a bad rap … yet this is exactly what they do.

A fact.

If you leave something to the last minute you only have a minute to do it.

Sounds obvious but it is a truth.

Procrastinators are actually the ultimate non procrastinators.

They utilize their time the most effectively.

The research shows that procrastinators actually use the time while putting things on hold thinking and evaluating and assessing different shit. Some relevant shit and some non relevant shit … but it all goes into our mental gourds … rattles around … and when the time comes when the decision/action trigger needs to get pulled … the majority of the time the action is a well rounded ‘right’ decision.

And if that just isn’t you?

Think about this … I found this thought from a mother … or maybe call her a ‘home manager’ instead.

“When you don’t know what to do next, just do the thing in front of you.”

Ok.

If you can live with that kind of thinking I actually believe that not only alleviates pressure <because you just say ‘screw it … I am just doing something’> and you are actually ‘doing’ inseatd of planning or thinking or worrying.

Ok <part 2>.

But I admit it certainly helps if you have more of an idea of what’s the most important thing to do next.

Because these days it seems like too many of us respond to the tyranny of the urgent.

One of the characteristics of an adult who has their shit together is the ability to recognize the difference between the important and the urgent. And, ultimately, refuse to be tyrannized by the urgent … refuse to manage by crisis … refuse to waste time under the pressure to not use time wisely.

Sure. Easier said than done.

Who hasn’t struggled to start something ‘important’ but can’t seem to find the time because of an exploding diaper, an urgent business email, the ringing telephone, or whatever the crisis du jour may be in your own little world?

But as time managers we must recognize the difference … and disregard not only the pressure of others … but the pressure of the moment.

We cannot operate solely in response to the pressure of urgency for long … or we will go nuts.

Well.

Time is not about pressure … it is simply about choices <which I fully recognize creates a different type of pressure>.

And choosing what is most important.

When we’ve made deliberate decisions about what’s important certain choices become a no-brainer.

You’re at peace with the choices you make, because they align with your priorities, and they just make sense.

Regardless.

If time is about choices … and under pressure we tend to make poorer choices … it kind of seems like that equals something to the effect that pressure loses time.

Go figure.

But I was never good at math.

young unemployed and with skills

February 7th, 2013

“The world is full of people whose notion of a satisfactory future is, in fact, a return to the idealized past.”- Robertson Davies

Ok.

This is a follow up to my youth unemployment post. Why did I feel compelled to do a part 2?

I received a question from my friend Jen:

- <comment> Would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the educational system and STEM roots of this problem. I’ve been reading a lot lately on the problem of too many graduates not trained for the jobs that are out there. Also in some cultures (like China), there seems to be a cultural bias against vocational-type work vs. white collar. Wonder if everyone’s expectations are a little skewed these days?

Then.

Someone also sent me a McKinsey study suggesting that employers <businesses> believe young people are less qualified <less skilled> than they have been in the past … and therefore less effective … leading to an increased hesitancy to hire <and find a qualified candidate>.

Here is the research summary:

There is a profound disconnect between the perceptions variously held by employers, education-providers and the young themselves.

In the Mckinsey survey, nearly 70% of employers blamed inadequate training for the shortfall in skilled workers, yet 70% of education providers believe they suitably prepare graduates for the jobs market. Similarly, employers complain that less than half of the young whom they hire have adequate problem-solving skills, yet nearly two-thirds of the young believe that they do have such skills. The situation is such that nearly 60% of young people around the world say they would pay more for an education that would improve the likelihood of securing an attractive job; and 70% of employers say they would pay more for the right talent, if only they could find it.

And then Wall Street Journal had an article on “higher learning, meet lower job prospects” in which the author suggests we evaluate education because “the majority shares a point of view that education is not preparing young for the actual <available> work world.”

First. This “talent gap” <or skills gap> idea.

“The skills gap must be bridged if the world is to avoid dire consequences.” – Dominic Barton, managing director of McKinsey & Company

Let me be clear on this topic to Mr. Barton, McKinsey and every old person bitching about this.

I call bullshit.

On the research and on businesses.

There is no talent gap.

Let me explain.

Young people <new hires> have always been useless <to old employees>. In older people’s eyes education has never trained them properly and the young are always overconfident and overestimate their abilities.

And the young hires?

Old employees are always out of touch, stuck in the old ways and slow things down.

This is consistent.

Here is a truth.

We sucked when we were young & first hired.

Ok. Not completely. If we got hired for the right job <we didn’t lie too badly and hirer actually had their hiring shit together> we didn’t totally suck. But we most certainly were overwhelmed and simply trying to get our feet under us in week one.

Education, unless it is a professional training school, will never prepare us completely for the working world. Not only is it not its role but it is next to impossible to replicate what you are faced with in your first job.

You don’t know what you don’t know.

And you know what? While we older folk may bitch & moan … we don’t really want someone completely prepared and molded for that job. We would have to “unlearn them” <at its worst … ‘break them’> so we could learn ‘em in our way of doing things.

So.

What does this mean?

In the end I think this is old people being old people and young people being young people.

Young people are no worse at thinking or doing the job they are hired to do now than they were years ago … and old people are maybe a little bit better at holding on to the past <because technology has thrown a new variable into the skills equation>.

Young people entering the workforce are skilled. Just not as skilled on the things that an old person is comfortable with. And, in fact, they have more skills than old people in some things that the older people are uncomfortable with.

As consistent with business history … experienced managers are always uncomfortable with the new.

A new employee.

A new idea.

A new technology.

There is no talent gap.

<note: and this is where I make a note about how misusing research to make a point is aggravating … the McKinsey people know better … they used a ‘one point in time’ piece of information with no context from how the information may or may not have changed over time … shame on them>

Second.

As Jen pointed out … “an expectation gap.”

Well.

Yes. I believe that expectation gap has always existed … however, for several reasons; this expectation gap is wider than in years prior.

We would have to go way back in time to find as wide an expectation gap … probably the industrial revolution when the young left agriculture homes <and their parents> or maybe when automobiles became pervasive.

Regardless. The current expectation gap.

There are some things happening which drive older people crazy … which also make younger people think they know more than they actually do … and is all manageable if you accept the new work truth.

Let me break it down for the older folk into 2 thoughts.

Information Acceleration:

It used to be management shared information <suggesting older management had control>.

Uh oh.

The acceleration of the communication is dramatically increased with new technology. The dynamics and complexity is expressed thru Twitter or Facebook or even simple texting … and encompass the entire office <and business world> and informs others of happenings before some supposed ‘information controller’ does.

This demonstrates the enormous power of digitalization. Networking is a communication catalyst which not only accelerates time it takes control from the older experienced people.

Impetus to Work:

Whew.

If there has ever been a more important and intangible business issue I am not sure I could find it.

Important young employees ask themselves: “Why am I doing this?” … and even “do I want to do this?” all under the overarching stance of “I do not live to work, but rather, I work to live.”

The funny thing?

Even unimportant young people ask themselves all this crap.

This is so foreign to most older folk, this type of thinking in one so young <it is okay behavior of you have attained success already in their minds … and only then> that two things happen:

They misdiagnose attitude. Old people hear “I am lazy” when young people say “I do not live to work.” Bad bad bad. Read my lips <and read their lips>. When they say “I work to live” they mean it … and just that. This is a massive part of the expectation gap.
They mismanage by trying to create desired behavior/attitude. What I mean is that when the gap is perceived to be so huge old people do not even try <or they go thru the motions to try and ‘connect’>. They will offer some platitudes … they will have a Facebook page … and then will manage as if the young people are ‘living to work.’ Uh oh. What happens? They get frustrated because youngsters do not react <and easy place to stand back and go ‘geez, they were not schooled properly’> and youngsters get even more frustrated because old people are even more out of touch than they ever imagined.

All these thoughts really narrow into one very fine sharp point which constantly gouges into the youth … lack of respect. The gap will never close without respect.

Now.

Let me break it down into one thought for young people.

Entitlement:

We <when we are young> always feel like we are entitled to some things when entering work because we feel like we have studied, gone to school, done some extracurricular jobs to prepare … and in general expect old people to know we know our shit.

But.

Young people are confusing entitlement versus respect. All young people want when getting hired is respect. And I believe in today’s business world, and today’s economy, older people in management are begrudging <even more so than in the past> of giving respect mostly because more young people are entering into businesses with not only a different attitude but a different knowledge set.

The young need to knock the entitlement chip off their shoulders and focus on earning respect.

In addition.

As Jen noted <as well as a variety of other sources> capitalism & the overall increase in individual wealth has also created a different, odd, sense of entitlement <or expectations> tied to self esteem <and how we perceive others view us>.

White collar versus blue collar. “thinking” jobs versus “doing” jobs. Making money <producing & making stuff> versus making money from money.

Heck.

It was my generation that developed wacky titles so that people felt better about what they did in their jobs. We even have had ‘Chief Karma Officers.’

In my eyes … this is a societal issue … not a youth issue. And, frankly, it is my generation that created this expectation mess.

While what I am going to say is simplistic I fully understand that this issue is complex.

I truly believe if you read on to where I state ‘managing the knowledge gap’ that if we do so there will be an organizational societal respect ingrained in organizations. Therefore as an outcome expectations will be less relevant because employees, young & old, will feel respected by their peers and achieve satisfaction in other ways.

But. That is just crazy me talking.

All that said.

Today’s business world with regard to the young unemployed being hired and the older existing management <who is hiring> isn’t about a talent gap, or even an expectation gap … it is a knowledge gap.

And I believe it is a different knowledge gap than what we have faced in the past.

Here is the gap.

Competition for knowledge.

Knowledge is the most important asset in order to remain competitive in the business world. Knowledge referring to that which ‘dwells in people’ … and not in books or libraries or the classroom.

And in today’s business world we will actually be hiring new first time employees who have knowledge the older folk do not have. So, yes, the current young unemployed … despite being unemployed … have knowledge that does not currently reside within the existing organizations.

Now. They don’t know everything they need to know … they just happen to own some knowledge that the older folk don’t have.

What does this translate to?

Competition for knowledge … and recognize it goes both up and down an organization.

These knowledge people, who are highly relevant for the company, must be identified and tied into the organizational global mind.

Creating a society of knowledge alters the organization. And certainly doing so alters the ecological framework of the organization <hierarchy and attitudes>.

Look.

I purposefully called it ‘competition’ mostly to make an organizational behavior point.

The newly hired young are competitive just because that is what young people are when hired. And it used to be that in this competition the young could only get knowledge by either experiencing it or sucking it out of an older experienced person. Well. Technology has changed that dynamic. Knowledge will come whenever a young person wants it at his or her fingertips. Now. It may not be the best, or right, knowledge but it is knowledge and it is in the moment.

And.

Older experienced people do not want to compete with young newly hired. They believe they are not only above doing so but also believe they deserve respect. Well. that only really matters if you are not ‘working to live.’ The young are playing by different rules.

I told Jen a variety of things:

you know I am an education guy and i do believe there are some things that need to be fixed as well as I believe too many kids are going to college and getting degrees just because that is what they are supposed to do … but … youth unemployment is not an education issue . They are just as qualified as you and i were coming out of school … they just aren’t being given a chance to work. And when they do they have been unemployed for a while. The core issues remain the poor global economy overall and businesses. i cannot fix the global economy but business organizations are at the true core. as slaves to the financial statement and the financial community businesses have become leaner & leaner and less forgiving of mistakes and lack of maximized productivity. That is why middle & some senior management have been squeezed over the past decade or so as they are consistently being asked to ‘play down’ in an organization to ‘flatten’ the organization. so young people are getting screwed on the employment front in several ways by businesses. attitudinally and financially. It is cheaper for an organization to slam an overqualified higher paid older person in a lower slot because they justify it under the ‘less risk/less mistake/less supervision time’ theory. I also believe technology has thrown upper/older management a curveball. every new generation has a gap between them and the older generation but new constantly evolving technology has increased the gap significantly and increased pressure on the younger generation to ‘explain their expertise’ and if you can remember to when you were a young whippersnapper and you are honest with yourself … we, when young, our strength is never clarity of justification/rationale. Therefore you have a very qualified knowledgeable group of young people who not only struggle to explain what comes naturally to them but there is an older management group who just wants it to be the way it was. That last thought combined with an economy which makes businesses hesitant to hire anyway is killing the young qualified out there.

In the end I believe there is not a talent gap.

And there will always be an expectation gap. The expectation gap is almost unsolvable but can be worked through if you seek to manage the knowledge gap.

Enlightened Conflict

Tag Archives: hope

murphy’s laws of war (& business)

morons

impatience and choices

Enlightened Conflict