Enlightened Conflict

morons

March 16th, 2013

 

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

 

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 <I made that up but I tend to believe it>.

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.

morons electronsVery 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.morons disagree

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 quoteMorons 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.

answering the help wanted ads for data decipherer

March 12th, 2013

Help Wanted!- Data, data everywhere—and not enough people to decipher it – WSJ headline 3/11data decipherers

 

51% of surveyed IT professionals currently involved in big-data projects cited ‘lack of expertise to connect the dots’ as a reason projects fail in their organization. No other factor was more commonly cited. – infochimps, inc.

 

Well.

This post is either going to show I am incredibly naïve or incredibly smart or incredibly stupid <and clueless>.

Look.

Everyone in business is drowning in data these days.

But here is a newsflash … we were always drowning in data … albeit different data … but I am willing to bet a shitload of money that anyone with any business experience will agree that we had so much data crossing our desks <in the good ole days> that you could build your own great pyramid of paper if you so desired.

As I scratch my head over the flurry of farcical diatribes around “big data” I can’t help but be reminded of the poem “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”:

 

“water, water everywhere, nary a drop to drink.”

<Bruce translation: despite the depths and vast expanse of the ocean it can’t begin to quench our thirst>

 

We might say the same thing about how technology has enhanced the volume of data these days.

The volume of data is almost unfathomably vast.

And because of that we see thousands of articles on how to sift through the data for business advantages.

Well.

This is crazy talk. Mostly because it seems like everyone is mesmerized by the quantity of data available.

Anyone with any business chops will quickly point out that anyone, throughout the history of business, has always had a quantity of data available.

And we almost always had too much quantity <more than they could ever use>.

The access to quantity has never been an issue.

Now.

data analysis statslogocroppedThey will also point out that part of knowing your business shit is setting up efficient/effective data gathering … so you capture the most important <and not invest gobs of energy on stuff you will never use, cannot use, do not really want to use or is just plain useless> data.

Now.

They will also point that data analysis has three components:

-          Assessing the data available <with gobs available which gobs are most meaningful>

-          Setting up a system to use the useful data <consistently trapping & tracking the useful stuff consistently saves time and effort>

-          Analyzing the data <connecting the dots … instead of just showing numbers>

Now.

They will also point out that the third step in the process is often best done by someone who has no clue how the data is gathered … or even needs to know exactly what data was not gathered <although they may at some point suggest gathering something that someone up the ladder had decided was unimportant> … but they know how to connect dots.

Now.

I will now point out we in business have been doing this for years.

Sure. More and different data may be available today but the schematic looks the same.

 

Business management has always faced an obstacle when it comes to reaping the benefits of big data because they always need someone who can tell them what it all means.

But it seems that because there are so many new ways to gather and track data there is a heightened awareness, and desire, to actually use all this data stuff … with the same good intentions that business had in the past … gain a competitive edge … or at least to keep up with the competition.

Oh.

And here is what any business person with chops will also tell you … relying on data alone isn’t enough. This is a game of both head and gut.data connecting-dots-stevejobs

When you rely too heavily on data, you can become too reactive, too myopic in your thinking and miss out on what the numbers can never tell you … the why’s and the what’s and the <inconceivable to number crunchers> impractical inconsistent sometimes illogical human mind & behavior. Data cannot tell you what to do.

<Big> data can lead to small sharp insights and beget great decisions and action.

But.

Here is a business truth <that most executives do not want to hear these days> … data, of any size <double venti, regular venti, grande, etc.> has no value in and of itself.

The true value of data is found in context.

Look.

You absolutely need a team with technical people to gather & mine the data … but they need to be working together with an experienced analytical person who knows how to ‘connect dots.’ This type of person knows how to observe information, interpret information and place it in context with non-number/data stuff and explain it.

And, no, that person may not be a data gwonk.

They are just good at connecting dots.

And they are good at not being blinded by the newest  & nearest data point.

 

“Gut feel is great for everyday problems. But, it often leads us astray when we’re presented with complex streams of information. We can be blinded by the newest and nearest data point and miss the big picture.” – Nate Silver statistician & author

 

I don’t agree with Nate … well … he did caveat it with “can” and “often” … so maybe I will give him a break.

Gut feel … intuition … ability to “feel” the numbers in context … is essential in order to use the data.

I do believe in what IBM calls “augmenting intuition.” And that means … well … what it says. Augment … ‘in addition to’ … add in as part of your decision criteria.

No amount of numbers <and data of any kind> can eliminate all decision risk. Nor can any amount of numbers <and data of any kind> insure you make the best decision.

Here is my last “Truth” of this post … data & analytics can make you equally smart & stupid.

People make smart decisions using data all the time.

People make stupid decisions using data all the time.

The only thing consistent is people.

And here is where the article kind of truly went a little nutso.

data connectdotsIncreasing training & skill set on ‘connecting dots’ <I assume this is “analyzing the data” in academia> to increase the amount of decipherers available to businesses.

This is where it all falls apart for me.

Because doing what they suggest basically means that data drives good decisions. Data all by itself. No intuition … no feel … no gut from experience … that maybe data can make a decision for you … and they are wrong.

I become scared because I almost feel like this is a deeper dive into that business hellhole I call “responsibility free decision making” with the intent to do the “safest behavior to increase return <or increase advantage>”.

This is using data to make all the decisions <and they even use it to hire a person which is also kind of nuts>.

This is dancing on the head of a pin business management.

And it doesn’t teach people how to think.

It doesn’t utilize skills of existing people <who aren’t steeped in ‘Big Data” but are also not intimidated nor blinded by the newest & nearest data point> who are very good at connecting dots.

And, worse, it guarantees a next business generation of “big Data decipherers” … or people who use data decision making skills and have honed no intuition skills at all.

Am I suggesting “gut management” alone? Of course not. I never have. I never will.

In the 80’s we scoured computer printouts with ‘crosstabs’ and supermarket SAMI and Nielsen reports which contained reams of data point we had to make sense of.

In the 2000’s we are scouring computer printouts <assuming you print out> which contain reams of data points we have to make sense of. And you did it then, as it should be done now, as part of a team to insure you didn’t get dazzled by some shiny data point.

This stuff drives me a little nuts because we all think the newest and nearest data point <oops … innovation> means that the world has turned on its head.

It hasn’t.

Some skills are just … well … good business skills. Adaptable to pretty much any new widget or innovation that mankind can create.

I know how to connect dots. I have no clue how to build systems to gather these dots. And you know what? I am not sure I have ever known.

And I am not unique. There are hundreds if not thousands of Me’s out there.

The skill?
Making Big Data nice small simple learnings/conclusions. Ok. Making any data available into nice small simple learnings.

2013. 1913. 1813.

The skill has always been relevant … and thinking that ‘data decipherer’ is some new skill is crazy.

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.

<from the author of The Secret>secret good enough

“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

 

<not from the Secret>

“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.

secret happiness chase lifeIt 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 <I assume this is unhappiness as well as happiness> 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.

<insert a sarcastic “yeah … right” here>

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.

secret create happinessThe 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.secret ask believe

 

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!

 the secret big in life-is-that-there-is-no

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.

do your best boy——–

<well written … better than what I could have written … but I agree>

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.

 

rabbits

February 9th, 2013

rabbit hat mean

… not even the best magician in the world can produce a rabbit out of a hat if there is not already a rabbit in the hat.”  - Boris Lermontov

 

Ok.

I admit. I often get a little crazy when I hear “well, you pulled that one out of your ass” <this generation’s version of pulling a rabbit out of a hat>.

Well. I apologize. Only 99%+ of the time I go crazy. I account for the less than 1% of the time to sheer dumb luck.

When someone makes a surprisingly good in the moment decision … or uncovers a relatively surprisingly insightful idea … in most cases the fact they are surprising people does not mean they just made it up out of the ether.

What I mean is that pulling a rabbit out of a hat <or out of your ass> implies you created something from nothing.

 

Here is a Life truth … even a business truth … so maybe let’s just call it Truth.

 

You cannot create something from nothing.

Sure.

Sometimes the connections between what was and what ends up being are blurry <if not even visible and sometimes appears to come out of the proverbial ether> but everyone needs to have a solid base of knowledge before making the connections <thinking or tangible things> to create something. That knowledge can be within <your own pea like brain and its experiences and thoughts> … or without <tapping into other people or things>.

Anyway.

Here is the full quote reference.

Livy Montagne: “You’re a magician, Boris. To have produced all this in three weeks, and from nothing.”

 

Lermontov: “… not even the best magician in the world can produce a rabbit out of a hat if there is not already a rabbit in the hat.”

 

Again.

You can’t create something from nothing … you can only create something from something else <or something elses>.

Another Truth?

Wrap your head around this.

Ideas exist … and don’t exist <simultaneously>.

Yup. Physicists have found something <particles and things that move around that we cannot see> can simultaneously exist and not exist.

In other words, some things are capable of existing in several different states.

Any physicist can correct me but I believe it is the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics which suggests particles are allowed to travel along all paths and exist in all possible states simultaneously.

What changes uncertainty? The simple act of measurement. Measurement, or the simple recognition of what actually is, instantly forces it into just one path or state and it is no longer uncertain.

I believe it is called something like ”collapse of the wave function’” in physics.

Yeah.

It is the same in thinking, doing or whatever.

world controlled by a rabbitRandom knowledge collapses upon itself until it creates something. The ‘nothing’ is just a bunch of somethings yet to be consolidated.

 

I have been to far too many ‘brainstorming’ or ‘creative thinking’ or even ‘the power of visualization’ workshops … so many that my brain cannot storm and I cannot think straight let alone creatively and I cannot visualize shit. Every time I walk out I grab my copy of James Webb Young’s “Technique for Producing Ideas” <published in 1937 and still relevant today> and flip thru the pages to remind myself that ideation is all about cramming bits & pieces of ideas & information & thoughts into your head until you can either assimilate it into a ‘rabbit’ or you interact with someone else and inspire them to create a ‘rabbit.’

So. With that. Two thoughts.

Accumulate knowledge: the more you learn the more you can pull out of your ass <consistently>.

Practice: the more you use what you have learned the easier it is to pull something out of you ass.

 

Sorry. There is no such thing as divine inspiration.

There is no such thing as pulling rabbits out of hats <unless there is already a rabbit there>.

 

We all have a gazillion thoughts, observations, and information <parts, pieces or whole> bouncing around in our heads … either in our subconscious or conscious mind. There are a myriad of possibilities existing with regard to possible outcomes.

The nothing is all these pieces and parts not assembled.

The something is when assembly is achieved.

Now.

Not everyone is good at “assembling” or even implementing from the nothings floating around in their heads but that is a different post for a different day.

If you feed your mind you will end up with a boatload of rabbits in your hat.

But, please, something from nothing?

Not even a magician can do that.

being open minded

October 26th, 2012

“By all means let’s be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.” – Richard Dawkins, in “Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder”

Richard Dawkins may be the most articulate nutjob of our generation <by the way … simply being a nutjob doesn’t mean you cannot be brilliantly smart>.

Anyway.

This is an awesome thoughtful non-nutjob quote.

I believe the entire discussion of close minded versus open minded is a great one.

Look.

I believe we all know that being close minded is not a good thing but the whole idea of being open minded as being a bad thing is a really enlightening thought.

Open or closed … once again, as with most things in life, it is about balance. To me it is about leaving enough open in your mind to absorb additional information and leaving enough opening to let out <throw out the useless garbage> the ‘unnecessary’ or maybe better said ‘the information that has now become obsolete’ as you gain new knowledge.

All at the same time keeping your mind closed enough that all that knowledge <your brains as Richard so aptly calls it> don’t fall out.

In other words … don’t lose your perspective just because you received some new, hopefully good, information and knowledge.

This whole topic brought to mind another relevant quote:

“We are not retreating – we are advancing in another Direction.” - General Douglas MacArthur

We all gather information.

Okay. Only <regretfully> some people do.

And we also tend to redirect, or advance in another direction, given what we have learned. Or maybe you don’t even have to redirect because you can stay on the same path but maybe slow down a little or speed up a little.

But not everyone does, or can, do this.

I tend to believe no one actually wants to be close minded … they possibly just find it more comfortable. I also tend to believe not everyone knows HOW to be open minded.

Well. Maybe not effectively open minded.

You can try and listen. And try and be open minded. But it all really comes down to WHAT you do with having been open minded.

I say that because maybe, me being an asshole <on occasion>, tend to want to say “so frickin’ what?” when someone says “I will be open minded.”

Who cares? Because people who actually have to say those words tend to be the least open minded people. Sorry folks … while that is a generalization I will take that bet every time <and become a rich man>.  Yup. Trust me on this … the kiss of death in a business discussion is .. “okay, I will be open minded.” <translation: ‘you talk, I will pretend to listen, nod on occasion, and then we will do what I said we would do.”>

What really matters is the eventual action not the self proclamation.

In other words … what do you actually DO with the information you gained by being ‘open minded.’

-          Did your brains spill out and you vapidly followed the new information ? <which shows a lack of fortitude with regard to the initial preferred point of view/opinion/direction>

-          Did you simply nod and move on as if you didn’t hear a frickin’ think? <which shows  lack of integrity/sincerity by claiming to be open minded and yet you didn’t>

Being open minded is a skill. A skill to absorb … and the skill to not always open so far your brains spill out.

shopper behavior farmers markets

July 6th, 2012

Well. I have a farmers market near me. But I don’t go often. Yet, whenever I do go, I immediately think “I should come here more often.”

I love shopping at a Framers Market.

I must be in a minority (oh … but in the majority at the same time).

These are US numbers so it may be different elsewhere.

Only about 2% of people say they use a Farmers Market as their primary shop location.

And about 37% say it is a secondary shop location.

Oh. And about 61% of people visit a Farmers Market at least once annually.

Ok.

What that means is … well … 2 things …

  1. (this is a guess) the majority of the shoppers are thinking “this is awesome . I should shop here more often”, and
  2. (this is factual) that as you wander into a framers market (at least in the USA) about 2/3rds of the people you see wandering around in front of you are not regular shoppers.

I struggle to think of such an odd contradiction elsewhere between attitude <extremely positive> and behavior <lack of active action despite such a huge positive attitude>.

Anyway. What it really means is that about 2/3rds of the shoppers are driven by impulse shopping.

And let me tell ya right here and now … if you doubt that the senses drive shopping behavior than you have not been to a farmer’s market lately <and you should go>.

Spices, seafood, cheeses, fresh vegetables, flowers … the smells are almost overwhelming … in a good way. And it all affects what you thought you would buy versus what you actually will buy. You may plan on buying some core items, or possibly have some items on your ‘I want to find’ list but your basket at checkout has significantly more items and a significant portion of unplanned <impulse> items.

Research shows the number one reason why people go to a Farmers Market is food quality (safety from food borne illness a relatively close second … which I have no clue what that means).

The least important factors were availability of pesticide-free and hormone-free food products and ability to do one stop shopping <the first two kind of surprised me a little and the last didn’t … although given real shopping behavior – the fact most people shop several places – I am not sure the last really matters>.

Interestingly, at least to me, in research the typical shopper seems to skew older (mean age about 46 years old). Maybe I should have known that but my perception was it would be a little lower.

Regardless. I did find some of this really interesting.

Among shoppers surveyed:

• 75% came to market to do more than shop. <so … it is an experience>

• 55% felt the market increased their connection to the community.

• 99% believed the market improves the health of the community <people feel good having one around>.

• 53% believed the market improves perceptions of the neighborhood.

Reasons shoppers came to the market other than to shop include, not surprisingly, “to eat,” “the market atmosphere,” convenience, the desire to support local growers, the appeal of low-cost organic produce, and as a social place to meet and be with others.

Shoppers made comments such as:

• “I wouldn’t come to the area without it.”

• “I feel more comfortable, less intimidated at the market.”

• “I see people I didn’t know existed.”

• “My blood pressure went from 220 to 140!”

Among the findings, there are several worth noting:

• 74% of adults were introduced to new foods at the market <Farmers Markets improve consumers’ food knowledge>.

• 34% of adults described how they shop less often at grocery stores since becoming farmers market shoppers. These responses seem to suggest that the market triggers behavioral change in consumers <the research company theorizes that market shoppers evolve. Over time, they grow more confident in their food choices; ask more questions from other shoppers, chefs, and farmers; and begin to reorient their consumption habits around the seasonality of local foods>.

All the research aside … the social aspect of Farmers Markets is powerful. It is relaxing and social. When is the last time you have ever heard that about grocery shopping being “relaxing, lowering blood pressure or social”?

Oh. And, oddly, it may also be the strongest factor more people do NOT use Farmer’s Markets more often. Huh? Most people like to be social sometimes <on their own terms>… and more importantly they don’t want to ‘think’ grocery shopping is going to take long before going (but are more than willing to make it longer once there). All that means is that people love Farmers Markets. They associate ‘more time’ before they even go and that creates a barrier … even though if we actually decide to suck it up and go … we actually like the time spent.

Oh. We wacky people. I wonder if we ever stop thinking long enough to actually enjoy the things we want to enjoy. Well. If we ever do? Farmers Markets will be bulging with people.

Me? I am going to think less and go more.

but how about?

June 11th, 2012

Ok.

This post is a cross between an observation and a rant.

The observation: How often businesses get trapped in the “but how about?” type discussions. Note. “But how about this?” is just another version of “why shouldn’t we build/service/do this?”

The rant: It is amazing how often the question is generated by one of two things:

1. A new trend or fad or publicized widget need that someone in a flash of brilliance says “hey we can do that!”

… or

2. It is available as an opportunity with the appearance of possible sales (possible profits but that is another discussion that still amazes me).

Well. Point 1 is particularly dangerous because chasing trends/fads is like chasing the Roadrunner <and you are Wile Coyote>. You won’t catch it. oh. And if you do, your plan won’t most likely work anyway.

Point 2 is particularly complex because product extensions, innovations and a whole mess of internal twister-like maneuvers shouldn’t <in general> be dictated by external stimulus.

Regardless. Constantly bringing up the question is wasted energy <the majority of the time>.

Here is the core issue at hand.

Too often businesses struggle to find their sense of self. And it’s kind of nuts because, with regard to this discussion, business is actually pretty easy.

Decide who you are and what you are good at.

Oh. And that doesn’t mean saying “we are a nice company with values and we are good at everything.”

My main issue with this topic is that if I can set up guardrails, or, at minimum, recognize that direction guardrails are important, why can’t businesses?  Its nuts.

Look. I am going to use myself as an example because, as noted above, I don’t easily deal with guardrails … I often find them constricting.

Yet. I get paid more often than not for simply saying “no” to “how about?” Yeah. I get paid to stay within guardrails <go figure>. And I am not smarter than the average bear (yogi bear reference).

Look.

My strength is identifying and creating creative solutions to challenges-problems. I can do it in my sleep. Any time. Any business. Any where.

What that means is my weakness is staying the course – staying on mission-vision-whatever you want to call it. (Note: sorry folks. No one is strong at everything. If you have a strength identify it and you can always identify the related weakness. Don’t worry. You can always compensate for it. ). I envision, using hindsight, that because that was my strength when I was younger I probably went out of my way to create challenges/problems to solve (which most likely drove some of my groups nuts). This didn’t mean I created work … but rather sifted through a lot to uncover a ‘situation/problem’ to solve. Probably out of dumb luck I created some viable issues to pursue and inevitably my groups were known for proactive innovative thinking (hey…I found the silver lining).

Anyway.  In recognizing my weakness I compensate by having a strong process for identifying the core positioning-mission-core competency. By doing that I can leave my strength – solving this issue – unfettered. It revolves around the process but the solution is not driven by the process. Now. My process may allow a little more latitude than some others (think of it as designing a five lane autobahn versus a one lane drag race track) but it sets up guardrails.

And that is what is frustrating.

Because, once again, I can set up guardrails, or, at minimum, recognize that direction guardrails are important, why can’t businesses?  <fill in your own answer here because I don’t have one>.

And then because businesses cannot figure out this sense of self then some brand-voodoo-magicians <i.e., consultants> come along and use sleight of hand bullshit that only confuses businesses.

Thought for everyone. Don’t be confused. It is simple.

A company owns its character, core competency and crap they sell. Consumer owns the brand. Therefore as a business you focus on what you can control. It’s the guardrail thing I mentioned. I promise companies if they stay within their guardrails that buyers will inevitably forge a brand that is within the guardrails. And dealing with “how abouts?” becomes incredibly easy because while some bonehead is presenting a whizbang prezi presentation (with augmented reality to really wow you) outlining all the sales reasons a company should do something it comes down to the guardrails. Because (and I have told dozens of companies this – albeit some listen and some don’t) if the dollars and cents reside outside the guardrails it becomes a gamble. It becomes the Kentucky derby of business decisions.  Which sucks because most companies don’t breed racing horses.

Anyway. Having been around the block a couple of times here is why I believe a sense of self keeps getting missed:

1. Lazy thinking. “We are good with retail business” is a prime example. Lazy, lazy, lazy thinking. Because not all retail is the same. A franchise retail is different than a corporate retail. A grocer retail is very different from a cellular retail. A one location retail is different from a 1500 location retail.  The list goes on. Anyone can select a big bucket to sit your ass in … and it is a waste of time in terms of actually being meaningful in terms of truly understanding your ‘self.’

2. Everything to everyone. Well. Ok. Not trying to be everything, but rather in self reflection believing you are capable of everything. This is the infamous “We can figure it out when it happens. We always have.” Yeah. Well. Maybe. But probably not. The truth is if you really really think about it the business is actually good at something. There is something within the shit you pulled off (sometimes by the hair on your chinny chin chin) that provides a commonality that you should invest the time in figuring out.

Yup. It will actually help you do better in the future. And will help you hire better people (ok … it just may make you better at hiring the right people).

3. “I am going to miss something” (or the “moving sense of self” syndrome). Uh oh. As soon as you put a stake in the ground … it means someone will not want to plant themselves next to you on that ground. Why? They may not realize it immediately but the more they review the landscape they realize that they don’t want to plant their butts there. <Hint: that is okay.>

Next. A fact: it bugs the shit out of the ‘stake placer’ to be spurned (even if it is a bad match). As soon as spurning happens this company wants to pull up its stake and run around looking for a place to put the stake that would be appealing to the ‘spurner’ (i.e., for that one business opportunity).

The conclusion: Just put the stake thru your heart (or thru whomever cannot stay with the original good thought).

Ok. And beyond  the silly business misdirection I imagine it, at its worst, could come down to 2 things (primarily):

- not defining the guardrails in the first place

- not believing in the guardrails that were established.

Both are quite solvable but that’s not what this post is about. It’s about the fact that the majority of businesses fall into 1 or 2 and invest a shitload of energy in “how about?”

So … how about this?

That’s stupid.

In the end.

Beyond the stupidity comment … I could start a ‘who’s who’ list of companies who seemingly get seduced into discussing dreams or what ifs with regard to who they are <as a company> rather than insuring they know what they do and who they currently are. It is not only wasted energy but, even more importantly, potentially disastrous.

Oh. And please do not confuse this questioning with “whats next?’ because that question is usually a reflection of someone who is standing on some solid “this is who I am and what I do well” discussing what they want to do next.

By the way … advertising agencies are the absolute worst offenders of this issue … but … I am amazed on how many of all businesses fall into this discussion category.

Oh. The profit thing. I usually cut to the chase pretty fast on this one. Yes. Someone certainly knows how to make money on ‘x’ because they are doing it (and it appears they are making money). No. That does not mean we know how to do it and make money. There are a lot of business people who just say “we will figure it out if we actually get the opportunity.”. Well it doesn’t work that way. Or. Maybe better said it is more difficult than that simplistic point of view. Some things can be figured out (some not). Some things can be figured out but take time to do so (and what do you do in the interim?).  But. A company needs to figure it out. A wise man once said this:

“Most agencies are in the same boat — from big ones to two man shops. They’re in it for the money and they’re scared. Scared the client’s going to walk. And because they are afraid they compromise their principles. They are so scared of losing the business they give the customer what they think they want rather than what they know he needs. And sometimes it works — for a while. But in the end it always backfires. You lose the business anyway and you wake up one day to find you’re a prostitute. So, in the end, stick to your principles. ‘to thine ownself be true.’ 0ver 200 years old but still good advice.” – Stephen Hawley Martin (founder of The Martin Agency)

Ok.

Just to be sure my rant wasn’t too far off base I did find a study from Prophet <who I sometimes respect>.

New Prophet Study: Execs Understand That Customer Engagement Is Pressuring Brands To Perform Better — But Many Don’t Think Their Marketers Can Handle the Challenge

“The majority (55 percent) of participating senior executives in general management and marketing said that supporting business growth through a well-differentiated and relevant brand positioning was their most pressing concern,” said Mike Leiser, Prophet senior partner.

  • Targeting customers in this environment is problematic; three-fourths of respondents said they’re not doing it effectively. Over 90 percent are targeting more than one segment, and over half of these do so with multiple positionings of a single brand. Importantly, however, those multiple positionings are similar – what’s different among most in this group are the tactics used in bring them to life.

“Adjusting to this changing landscape will be a process,” Leiser said. “Our findings show that marketers must adapt a more visionary orientation to more effectively guide their organizations through it.”

So.

Gosh. Maybe I am not as dumb as I look.

that I have not been

April 25th, 2012

“’pray for nothing, say every night in bed, I have been a king, I have been a slave, nor is there anything, fool, rascal, knave, that I have not been, yet upon my breast a myriad of hearts have lain.” Mohini Chatterjee by Yeats

If I had not known that Yeats was enamored with mysticism and reincarnation I … well … would have ended up writing what I am going to write.

My first thought?

It has to do with living life however the cards are dealt … and regardless of whether you are a fool or an intellect … you will find someone ‘upon your breast will lay’ <that means you will have love & loves>.

I like that.

Doesn’t matter who you are and what you do … there will always be someone for you.

Oh.

And beyond having someone love you <assuming you allow it and you stop worrying about whether you are good enough> … there is a really big thought in there that there are lives within lives … and I imagine another way of saying that is … you can live several lives within one lifetime.

That’s what I think when I read this.

That’s a lot but I think it is a lot of good stuff.

Yeats wrote a lot about his belief that the soul of man is eternal. And that existence is cycles within cycles. I may not buy that whole “eternal” thing but I do believe that Life is cycles within cycles. It really only has one true beginning and end … but multiple starts and stops … and detours and exits … and … well … you get it. Cycles within cycles.

With that in mind I wanted to end this post with the conclusion of the poem used in the beginning … “men dance on deathless feet.”

Birth-hour and death-hour meet,

Or, as great sages say,

Men dance on deathless feet.

Now that is awesome.

You are either living or dying.

But your footsteps on Life will never die.

Oh.

One last thought <regarding this quote>.

If you truly believe that you live many lives within one life … well … then isn’t it worth setting aside desire and ambition as secondary to whatever type of life you want to lead?

Let me leave you with that thought.

Enlightened Conflict